CONTENTS
Wednesday, September 18, 1996
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4336
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4338
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4338
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4339
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4339
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4340
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4340
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4340
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4344
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4344
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4344
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4346
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4346
Bill C-324. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 4347
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4348
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 4351
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4356
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4358
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 4392
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 4397
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4399
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 4401
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4403
Motion No. 1 agreed to on division: Yeas, 141;Nays, 86 4407
Motion No. 2 agreed to on division: Yeas, 141;Nays, 86 4408
Motion No. 3 agreed to on division: Yeas, 141;Nays, 86 4408
Motion No. 4 agreed to on division: Yeas, 141;Nays, 86 4408
Motion No. 5 agreed to on division: Yeas, 141;Nays, 86 4409
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 141; Nays, 86 4409
Bill C-56. Motion for first reading deemed adopted 4409
Bill C-56. Motion for second reading 4409
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the Housewent into committee thereon, Mr.
Kilgour in the chair.) 4409
(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.) 4409
(Clause 6 agreed to.) 4409
(Schedule agreed to.) 4409
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 4409
(Preamble agreed to.) 4409
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 141; Nays, 86 4410
Bill C-56. Motion for third reading 4410
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 141; Nays, 86 4410
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of report stage 4410
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 49;Nays, 175 4410
Motion No. 2 negatived on division: Yeas, 53;Nays, 172 4411
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 138; Nays, 87 4412
4335
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, September 18, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the House has resumed sitting but there is one person missing from
our Brome-Missisquoi team.
One month ago, my assistant Stéphan Brodeur died of cardiac
arrest. He was 32 years old. He was working in my riding but was
supposed to move to our Ottawa office in September. A tireless
worker, party man and team player who was always cheerful,
Stéphan left us much too soon.
I join with the whole Brome-Missisquoi team, his family and
friends and Benoît Corbeil in paying him the posthumous tribute he
deserves.
On behalf of all members of this House and of all Canadians you
served so well, I wish to pay homage to you, Stéphan.
* * *
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois wishes to congratulate the winners of this year's
Governor General's Performing Arts Awards.
Among those honoured for their contribution to Canadian and
Quebec culture were songwriter Luc Plamondon, folk singer and
songwriter Joni Mitchell, film director Michel Brault, costume
designer and teacher François Barbeau, actor-director Martha
Henry, and choreographer Grant Strate.
The remarkable career of each of these winners shows not only
their huge talent but also the extraordinary creativity that drives our
performers.
The Bloc Quebecois commends in particular Mr. Plamondon's
decision to donate his prize money to a bursary for young artists
who want to write musical comedies or improve their skills in this
area.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, winning a world championship is an amazing feat.
Winning two in a row is unprecedented, but that is what Burnaby's
Simon Fraser University Pipe Band did recently at the elite world
competition in Glasgow, Scotland.
I ask that all members of this House join with me in
congratulating each of the band members for their outstanding
achievement and first class representation of Canada, with special
mention to 13-year old Arran Campbell, the youngest musician
ever to compete at the world's.
Pipers: pipe major Terry Lee, pipe sergeant Jack Lee, manager
Rob MacNeil, Alan Bevan, Dani Brin, Allan Campbell, Colin
Clansey, Darran Forrest, Dave Hicks, David Hilder, Shaunna
Hilder, Anthony Kerr, James MacHattie, Robert MacLeod, Bruce
McIntosh, Bonnie McKain, Derrek Milloy, Pat Napper, and Adam
Quinn.
Drummers: lead drummer Reid Maxwell, Brent Anderson, Blair
Brown, Arran Campbell, Callum Hannah, Samantha Hanna, Scott
MacNeil, Kathy MacPherson, Andre Tessier, John Nichol, Colin
Nicol, and Christine Rickson.
Canada is proud of these world champions.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government has disappointed the international community
again by deciding not to send any ministerial representation to the
4336
UN's review of the new agenda for Africa, a UN program that past
Canadian governments played an instrumental role in establishing.
At the same time that they are distancing themselves from the
UN action, the Liberals have decided to take a leading role instead
in the Global Coalition for Africa, a private, undemocratic,
unaccountable, American dominated organization linked to the
World Bank's structural adjustment program and the global
corporate agenda, both of which are at the root of so many of
Africa's problems.
So much for the Liberal rhetoric on the UN. They love to parade
the UN when it declares Canada to have the highest standard of
living in the world, but sit on their hands when the UN tries to do
something for those in sub-saharan Africa who have the lowest
standard of living in world.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay
tribute to one of my predecessors, Dr. Samuel Victor Railton,
Liberal member of Parliament for the riding of Welland who
passed away this summer on July 23 in his 91st year. I was
privileged to know Vic and his first wife Ruth and their family.
During his seven years as a parliamentarian, Dr. Railton was
deputy whip, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans
Affairs and chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs,
serving with distinction in every capacity.
Vic Railton was a member of Parliament who regularly brought
the concerns and achievements of his Welland constituency to this
House. His Hansard record shows numerous excellent
interventions on the issues of energy policy, veterans affairs,
industry policy, health, welfare, social security and the very
important St. Lawrence Seaway.
(1405)
Doctor Railton's maiden address to the House of Commons was
made during that great emotional debate on the abolition of capital
punishment and illustrates a man with great personal convictions
and principles. He said: ``I do not think members of Parliament
should vote in any way except for that in which they believe-we
must stand up for our personal principles, no matter how they may
be received''.
Vic Railton served his country in peace and in war as a kind
family physician, a talented surgeon and finally, as a dedicated
parliamentarian. Canada has benefited from this hard working
conscientious servant to the public. All of us-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Timiskaming-French
River.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Timiskaming mourns today the death of one of its most
distinguished citizens, Mr. Arnold Peters, who devoted over 20
years of his life to public service as MP for Timiskaming. Not only
did Arnold Peters serve the riding of Timiskaming in the House of
Commons from 1957 to 1980, but he was first and foremost a
grassroots politician and a people's person.
As the present MP for Timiskaming-French River, I wish to
express my personal appreciation for the valuable service and
selfless dedication he provided to the citizens of Timiskaming. He
will be sadly missed. On behalf of all the constituents of
Timiskaming-French River and all my colleagues in the House of
Commons, I wish to extend our deepest sympathy to his family and
friends.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
proud to tell this House that the Service d'entraide Basse-Ville is
celebrating 25 years of community work in my riding.
The record of this not for profit organization is simply
remarkable. In 25 years, volunteers have distributed approximately
three million pieces of clothing, cooked hundreds of thousands of
meals, and repaired, remodelled and patched all sorts of things.
Hundreds of organizations like this one can be found in my
riding. This level of involvement reflects how generous the
community is, of course, but also, and more importantly, how
extensive the needs are.
The government absolutely must reconsider the restrictions
recently imposed by Human Resources Canada on socioeconomic
organizations. Hiring personnel to support the work of volunteers
will be extremely difficult in the future, as these organizations will
be denied access to HRC programs because of the new criteria.
This is yet another sign of this government's insensitivity.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my good friend and colleague the fisheries minister has
announced in St. John's a limited food fishery for Newfoundland
and Labrador and for the lower north shore of Quebec.
4337
I welcome that announcement. A food fishery has long been an
integral part of the Newfoundland way of life and a staple of our
diet, which explains why we are so much smarter than you mere
mortals.
At the same time I applaud the minister's caution. He says it is
going to be a limited fishery, closely monitored and that abuses will
not be tolerated, which is exactly as it should be.
We cannot lose sight of the overall objective here, which is the
reopening of a commercial fishery, the economic mainstay of the
people of coastal communities.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow the Fraser Institute will be releasing a study calculating
the cost of regulation on businesses and families in this country.
Although we will have to wait until tomorrow for the exact
figures, allow me to whet members' appetites. If the Liberals were
to eliminate government red tape, every Canadian family would
have thousands of dollars more to spend on the things they need.
More often than not, government red tape is nothing more than a
hidden tax.
The choice is clear. The Liberal government will continue to
burden us with its big government vision of the country and its tax
and regulate policies. The Reform Party is committed to giving
Canadians a smaller, more efficient government and to slashing
job-killing red tape.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to draw the attention of the House to the fact that last week
Dr. Maxwell Yalden, Canada's chief human rights commissioner,
was elected to the UN human rights committee.
This UN committee is a select body of independent experts that
monitors implementation of the international convention on civil
and political rights, one of the central pillars of the international
human rights system.
Dr. Yalden's election in the face of strong competition reflects
both his strong personal credentials as a candidate and international
respect for Canada's leadership on human rights issues.
(1410 )
Dr. Yalden has extensive experience in the field of human rights
both in Canada and abroad. I believe he will make an outstanding
contribution to the work of the UN human rights committee. The
presence of a Canadian expert in this important body represents
another contribution by Canada to the promotion of international
human rights, an issue which is at the heart of Canada's foreign
policy agenda.
I hope that you will join me in offering Dr. Yalden
congratulations.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this summer I spent a lot of time talking and working with
many of the companies and businesses in my riding of
Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Their message was clear: Our local
economy has shown encouraging signs of sustainable recovery and
economic growth and we must continue to work together.
By providing programs designed to improve infrastructure,
support youth initiatives and enhance access to information and
high technology, this government is assisting key sectors of the
economy to create a climate that encourages job creation.
My constituents are taking advantage of expanding Canadian
exports, better training for youth, the greater emphasis being
placed on our innovative technological expertise. These
partnerships will not only create more jobs for the people of
Etobicoke-Lakeshore, but will contribute to the strong economic
growth taking place in Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in this House to offer my sincere congratulations on behalf of all
my colleagues to Mr. Luc Plamondon, one of three Quebec
recipients of the 1996 Governor General's Performing Arts Award.
[Translation]
At the press conference where the Governor General's
Performing Arts Awards were announced, Luc Plamondon
commented that he looked on this award he was about to receive as
an attempt to bring Canada's two solitudes closer together.
Like him, we feel that bringing the French Canadian and English
Canadian communities of this country closer together will,
needless to say, promote the preservation and development of our
cultural identity as Canadians.
We share this vision of cultural development in Canada and are
striving to promote the talents of all Canadian artists who are a
credit to this country.
* * *
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
annual report of the International Centre for Human Rights and
Democratic Development will be tabled in this House today. This
4338
public body, set up in 1988, truly reflects the traditional values that
make Quebecers and Canadians proud.
However, since March 1996, when it was announced that Mr.
Broadbent, the president of the Centre, would leave at the end of
his term, on September 1, 1996, the government has not found the
time to appoint a full time successor, preferring to give to the new
chairperson of the board, Maureen O'Neil, the additional
responsibility of serving as acting president for a period of three
months. Moreover, five of the thirteen positions on the board are
vacant, pending a government decision.
This obvious laxness truly shows how little this government
cares about the protection of human rights and democracy. What is
the government waiting for to fill these positions?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the one-year anniversary of the Supreme
Court decision that shot down the ban on tobacco advertising.
Tragically it also marks the one-hundred thousandth death from
smoking related illnesses since the 1993 election.
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in Canada and
kills over 42,000 people per year. This government has lowered
cigarette taxes, allowed tobacco companies to advertise and has
produced a 29 per cent increase in smoking rates among our youth.
There are over 6.5 million smokers in this country. The
government's legacy to Canadians is inaction on legislation which
has committed thousands of children to a lifetime of addiction and
illness.
Taxpayers, health care workers, parents and teachers demand
that this government institute effective measures to decrease
tobacco consumption in Canada.
The cost of inaction is the pain, suffering and premature death of
children in this country.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today over 100 Canadians from all regions and backgrounds will
arrive in Ottawa to take part in the National Conference for Youth
hosted by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The conference, entitled ``Taking Responsibility in the New
Economy: Challenges and Choices'', is about challenging
employers, labour, educators, governments, youth serving
organizations and youth themselves to define their roles in the new
economy. It is also about identifying the choices these
stakeholders can make to improve our prospects for the future.
(1415)
To achieve this, we have invited young people from as far away
as Vancouver and St. John's, from Yellowknife to Ste. Julie. We
have invited representatives from the high tech sector, agriculture,
mining, the learning community, labour, youth service
organizations, all working together to devise a plan of action that
will allow all Canadians to participate fully in the new economy. It
will allow Canada to lead the way into the 21st century.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in reaction to the ADQ proposal to impose a 10-year
moratorium on sovereignty, Bernard Landry said yesterday that a
moratorium could not be imposed on the destiny of a people.
Earlier this week, Quebec's three central labour bodies got
together to state their position regarding the socio-economic
summit that will take place this fall. The theme of their campaign is
that jobs are the priority.
It is clear that no one in Quebec, except the nostalgic and the
power mongers of the PQ, wants to hear about these issues. The
destiny of a people, Mr. Landry, is to be able to live, to develop and
to prosper as a community, in the dignity that employment
provides.
Your sovereignty project is outdated, Mr. Landry. Concentrate
on employment; after all, this is the reason why Quebecers are
paying your salary.
_____________________________________________
4338
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister had some rather harsh and
somewhat critical comments to make on the Somalia inquiry. He
accused it of ``grilling public servants as if they were almost
criminals''. Those are the exact words of the Prime Minister. He
also complained of the slowness of the process, and its cost.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Can he explain why he
has criticized the inquiry so harshly, considering that all it is doing
is seeking to cast some light on the behaviour of the Armed Forces
in Somalia and the role of General Boyle in the cover up?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we want to find out the truth, and that is precisely the
reason we set up such an inquiry. We want the results as soon as
possible.
4339
Why? Because the Armed Forces and the Department of
Defence are somewhat on hold, as long as the inquiry is still going
on. We would like to have the inquiry's conclusions as promptly
as possible, so we may take the appropriate remedial action.
This commission was set up in order to determine what
happened during the former government's involvement in the
Somalia operation. We are most anxious to find out whether
changes need to be made in the command process in order to avoid
a repetition of such incidents.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is particularly surprising to hear from the Prime
Minister's lips that the army is on hold until the results of the
inquiry come out. There was one way to solve that: change the
chief of defence staff, and that is what he was asked to do.
Instead of attacking the commission, could the Prime Minister
admit that, if its work is taking too long and is costing too much, is
precisely the fault of the Armed Forces and their commander,
whose exact role in the cover up is not yet clear?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are going to wait for the Commission report. Let us
allow it to finish its work. The sooner we get the report, the better it
will be for everyone, for we will then be able to react accordingly.
That is what I want, that is what this House wants, and I am sure it
is also what the Armed Forces and the Canadian public want as
well.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, is the Prime Minister not trying to discredit the
commission with what he had to say about it yesterday?
(1420)
Is he not trying to discredit the commission in order to justify
keeping the general and the minister in their positions? Is he not
indeed trying to discredit the commission in order to serve his own
ends?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has been in his portfolio for three years.
Yesterday I indicated that I had decided very early on in this
administration to have a minister of defence who would remain in
his position for a long time, in order for there to be an authority in
place capable of making decisions.
I must apologize for saying in the House that there had been six
ministers in nine years under the Conservatives. I was wrong, there
were 17. Under the circumstances, I feel that the minister's job is a
very difficult one.
He is working under even more difficult circumstances than his
predecessors, because we are obliged, in the interests of good
administration and deficit reduction, to reduce defence spending, to
reduce staff and to reduce the number of bases.
The minister has accomplished all of those difficult tasks, and
now he, like all the rest of us, is awaiting the commission's report,
which we hope to see as soon as possible in order to take the
required action.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. On a number of occasions in
recent months, the official opposition has called for the Somalia
commission, whose work will continue for a long while yet, to
table an interim report after it has finished looking into the
allegations of cover-up by top army brass.
If the Prime Minister finds that it is taking too long, as he said
yesterday, why does he not ask the commissioners to quickly
produce and make public an interim report on the cover-up
operations so that everyone, himself included, can draw the
appropriate conclusions?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the terms of
reference for this inquiry are well known. They are well
established. The commission is to issue a report when it concludes
its deliberations.
Those are the terms of reference given to the commission and
those are the terms of reference with which the commission is
comfortable. I ask the hon. members to await the conclusions of the
commissioners.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is the
Prime Minister who thinks that it is taking too long, it is the
government who decides on the mandate. If he wants to have
results and be able clean things up quickly and restore the
credibility of the armed forces, why does he not ask for an interim
report on the cover-up operation? Why does he not act quickly?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again
members of the opposition are prejudging testimony and coming to
conclusions about the evidence that has been presented to the
inquiry. That is not the way the inquiry process works and that is
not the way Canadian justice works.
I hope the hon. member will do everyone a favour and wait for
the report to be issued by the commissioners so that everyone's
testimony and all the facts can be judged in a clear cool light.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is amazing what can come out through the old process
of word association.
Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister about cover up at the
Somalia inquiry and for some reason he started talking
immediately about the Watergate affair in the United States, a
Freudian slip.
4340
You may wish to check whether the tapes of yesterday's question
period were erased. Surely the Prime Minister did not mean that the
tampering and political interference at the Somalia inquiry had
reached Watergate proportions.
What precisely was the Prime Minister trying to say when he
drew some parallel between his handling of the Somalia inquiry
and the Watergate affair?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I guess the leader of the third party needs a new speech
writer.
I said earlier in French that we instituted the commission
because we wanted to get to the bottom of the Somalia affair and
receive recommendations so that we can change what has to be
changed. When we were in opposition we did ask for a commission
like that. We established that commission and we would like to
have the report as quickly as possible.
(1425 )
The leader of the third party yesterday asked if we wanted to
have the report before the election. I would be delighted to have the
report tomorrow so we could act. We are not trying to cover up
anything. We instituted the inquiry and we want the result in the
shortest term possible so that we can have a report.
To please the party of the Leader of the Opposition, who wanted
to have it before the election, I do not know when I will have an
election. If I were him I would not hope for a quick election.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's comments on the Somalia inquiry
have been contradictory and confusing and they are again today.
Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House he did not meet
General Boyle until he appointed him chief of the defence staff. Yet
his communications director told the Globe and Mail that the
Prime Minister actually conducted the job interview.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, Monday the Prime Minister said the
Somalia inquiry would be allowed to do its work without political
interference. Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister took a shot at
the inquiry by saying it was too slow, too expensive and too hard on
witnesses.
Will the Prime Minister explain these contradictions? Did the
Prime Minister not know who General Boyle was until he was
appointed or did he conduct the job interview? Is the inquiry
independent or is the government telling it through the Prime
Minister that it is too slow, too expensive and too hard on
witnesses?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course I knew of Mr. Boyle because I had studied the
files of many candidates and I had some recommendations. But I
did not know him personally.
When he came I interviewed him, but I knew a lot about him and
it was rather good. But I had not met him. Sometimes we know a
lot about candidates in many fields without meeting them. I do that
regularly in appointments. Because we receive recommendations
and we name somebody, that does not mean that we had a beer with
the guy the day before. That means that we looked at his cv, the
recommendation, the abilities and we made a decision.
After I met General Boyle-he was on a short list-and I knew
at that moment that he could fill the bill. Let him do his job. When
the inquiry is done we will have the results. The sooner the better
because yesterday the leader of the third party was afraid that the
report would come after the election, so he should ask them to do it
as fast as possible to have it before the election.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's handling of the Somalia inquiry and
Somalia affair is symptomatic of the government's management of
a lot of other things.
National defence is a $10 billion department. Its work is vital to
the national interest. Its international peacekeeping is a source of
pride for all Canadians, yet for three years under this government
its affairs have been mismanaged and its reputation has been
allowed to deteriorate with no end in sight.
Do not the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and
the Canadian public deserve something better?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they really deserve the support of the third party for the
very good job they are doing today in the former Yugoslavia, the
job they are doing today in Haiti and in other places in the world.
They are doing a good job.
It is because I have a lot of respect for them that I decided it was
not to be a revolving door for the political leadership of that
department. I gave them an experienced politician and a good
administrator to do the job, to stay there and do what is needed to
have the most modern armed force available that is possible at this
moment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Youth unemployment has reached disastrous proportions. If we
consider both those who are unemployed and those who left the
4341
labour market, many because they were discouraged, today at least
479,000 young people in Canada between the ages of 15 and 24 are
unemployed.
(1430)
How can the Prime Minister say he is satisfied with his
performance on creating jobs when he knows perfectly well only
one out of two young people has a job?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no one will ever be satisfied
with the situation of the unemployed in this country, whether we
are talking about the young or not so young, as long as anyone
remains unemployed.
The hon. member surely recognizes the efforts deployed, not
only by the Government of Canada but by other levels of
government and the private sector. This summer, for instance,
about 60,000 young people across the country were hired thanks to
the efforts of the Government of Canada. Furthermore, and I think
this is worthy of mention, when we consider the efforts deployed
by the private sector in partnership with governments and youth
organizations, I think we will realize that although this is a major
challenge, some progress has already been made, and even young
people have admitted as much.
Of course, much remains to be done, but we are not the only
country where youth unemployment is a major problem.
In fact, the hon. member is probably aware that this week here in
Ottawa, we organized a conference on all aspects of the problems
facing young people in Canada.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
there are 25,000 fewer young people employed than when this
government came to power, and meanwhile the number of young
people has increased.
What kind of hope can the Prime Minister give hundreds of
thousands of unemployed young Canadians and Quebecers, when it
is a fact that he himself excluded funds targeted to young people
from negotiations on manpower policy transfers to the provincial
governments which, as he himself has admitted, work more
efficiently, preferring to spread funding around his government's
employment programs for purely political purposes?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we seriously want to help
young Quebecers and young Canadians across the country to find
jobs, we must create a climate of stability within our economy.
If anyone is aware of the problems facing young people in the
Montreal region, for instance, where we know the unemployment
rate is very high, it is certainly the hon. member opposite. But we
must all be aware of our responsibilities. If we want the private
sector to play its role, which should always be to create jobs, we
should provide the right kind of economic climate, and we should
listen to young people like Mario Dumont, who know what has to
be done in this country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence talked
about fairness. Let us explore that today.
Colonel Haswell has been charged. Corporal Purnelle has been
charged. However, General Boyle receives preferential treatment
after admitting that he lied to military police and that he broke the
spirit of the Access to Information Act. Canadians are saying quite
clearly that he should be fired.
General Boyle has admitted responsibility. Why will the
minister not hold him accountable?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only has the
hon. member and his colleagues shown contempt for the inquiry by
continually reflecting on evidence at the commission, but today he
goes further. He is reflecting on the military justice system. He is
bringing forward the names of individuals who are now subject to
certain processes within the department and within the armed
forces. He is using their names and bringing them to the floor of the
House of Commons.
This is something that must not be done. I am surprised at that.
The hon. member, as a former employee of the armed forces,
should know better than to do that in a public way. It shows
contempt of the entire judicial process.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the only contempt is shown by the hon. Minister of
National Defence.
It is interesting to note that the minister uses the shield of the
Somalia inquiry when it is convenient to the minister. In other
words, to protect his own sorry butt.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Hart: Our armed forces personnel-
(1435 )
The Speaker: I am sure the House is used to colloquial
statements, however, I wish we could stay away from the human
anatomy in question period.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I would like to continue.
Our armed forces personnel know what it means to accept
responsibility. It means that you are held accountable. Yesterday
4342
the Prime Minister referred to the Watergate incident. In Watergate
people were fired, people were charged and people resigned.
When will the Prime Minister fire the Minister of National
Defence?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member must get his jokes from the same barber his leader uses.
We have here a group of people in opposition who congratulated
the government when it established the inquiry. They do not want
to do the decent thing and wait for the inquiry to do its work, to
report and then make judgments.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. On Monday, the Prime Minister
used the government's practice of tendering contracts to justify the
fact that Quebec was not getting its fair share of federal spending
on goods and services. I will remind him that a $2 billion contract
for the manufacture of armoured vehicles was awarded in Ontario
without any call for tenders.
In light of what he said on Monday, how can the Prime Minister
justify his defence minister's decision not to require GM, of
London, Ontario, to call for tenders from subcontractors, knowing
that Oerlikon, of Saint-Jean, Quebec, could then have put in a bid?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members
know, about a year ago we announced one of the purchases which
was outlined in the white paper for armoured personnel carriers.
This was a solely directed contract to General Motors Diesel
Division in London, Ontario. Negotiations are taking place right
now between the government and General Motors under the
auspices of my colleague the minister for government services.
There has been some concern about the nature of the work and
how much of it will be done in Canada. A question has arisen with
respect to the capability of a company in Quebec. Because of the
concerns that the government and General Motors had, those
matters were referred to an independent third party who has made a
report.
The negotiations are between General Motors and the
government. This is a commercial, contractual relationship which I
am sure will stand great scrutiny.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister tells us that an independent consulting firm was indeed
hired to provide an independent opinion. The firm he is referring to
is KPMG. The minister is not even through reviewing KPMG's
report but he is already announcing that GM will be the sole
contractor. It is clear that the report was only commissioned to buy
some time.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by stubbornly refusing to
let the construction of the turrets be put to tender, he is actually
depriving Quebec of another contract, worth more than $600
million, resulting in approximately 145 quality jobs being lost to
Delco, in California.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I did
not quite catch the name of the company to which the member is
referring. Is he still referring to the armoured personnel contract or
is he referring to the search and rescue helicopter contract?
One thing the hon. member and his colleagues in opposition
conveniently forget is that much of the industry of Canada's
military infrastructure is located in Quebec. The proportion of
work that goes to the industries in Quebec is actually higher than
the percentage of population of Quebec versus the nation as a
whole.
(1440)
While it may be true that in certain contracts work is not of a
proportion that is acceptable to the hon. member, when we look at
all of it, at the work that goes to Bombardier, to Marconi, to
Oerlikon, Quebec does very well.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
spent more than 36 years in the Royal Canadian Air Force and the
Canadian Armed Forces. I worked for many commanders and I
commanded a flight, a squadron, a school, and a base, so I know
something of leadership.
In fact, I commanded the Canadian Forces Officers Candidate
School whose duty it was to determine the potential leadership
capabilities of the candidates who went through.
My gut feel and a massive amount of input from service friends
tell me that the present senior leadership in the armed forces is
doing tremendous damage to that force.
4343
Why can the Prime Minister not see this, recognize it and take
action by removing the Minister of National Defence and the chief
of the defence staff?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have great
respect for the hon. member. He had a distinguished career in the
armed forces. However, even he has to acknowledge-he has been
a member of the defence committee, he participated in the
deliberations that led up to the white paper, he knows despite what
he said today-that we have revitalized the leadership of the
forces; that we have re-engineered the department, that we are
saving money; that we are bringing business methods into play to
save the taxpayers' money.
The leadership we are bringing forward now is a new generation
that reflects the norms and values of Canadian society today. I am
sorry the hon. member is uncomfortable with that.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister said that if generals in the service did not
like what was going on, they were free to leave.
It appears that those who espouse the values of truth, duty and
valour are to get out, while those who say ``mea culpa but I'm not
responsible'' are not only retained but protected.
Why does the Prime Minister not take action to put the
leadership that is required back in the Canadian Armed Forces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is
leadership to deal with a department that over the years of the cold
war unfortunately had developed administrative practices that
needed to be streamlined, that had an officer corps that became too
large for its needs.
We all agree on these things. I have heard the hon. member say
them at committee.
We have shown leadership in setting up the inquiry to deal with
the very unfortunate events that happened in Somalia. We will
continue to show leadership. In fact the chief of the defence staff
today outlined his vision of leadership for the 21st century for the
forces.
I have met with many of the senior leaders of the forces in the
last number of weeks. Despite the problems that are really
wrenching at the very heart of the armed forces, they see light at the
end of the tunnel. They see that improvements have been made so
that they can meet the challenges of the years ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, at a press conference yesterday, the Minister of Justice
announced his intention to amend the Criminal Code to keep
dangerous offenders in prison longer and keep a closer eye on them
after their release. This is quite normal for those who have already
been found guilty of a crime.
However, and this is my question to the minister: Does the
minister confirm that, under his proposal, an individual who has
been acquitted of or has never even been tried for a crime could
still be ordered by the court to submit to supervision by police or
correctional authorities and even to wear an electronic monitoring
device?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, punishment in the criminal law and
certainly in the Criminal Code is reserved for those who have been
convicted of crime, and that has remained the same both before and
after the bill I tabled yesterday.
The hon. member will see in the bill that we have added a section
which builds on the jurisdiction already in the code in section
810.1. That provides the court with jurisdiction on the application
of a provincial attorney general to order that anyone, where there is
a reasonable basis to fear that he or she may commit a very serious
indictable offence, may be restrained by court order in a manner
consistent with public safety.
(1445 )
Just that sort of jurisdiction was confirmed as constitutional and
valid in a judgment of the Ontario courts last year. We are building
on that to make the streets safer and above all to fulfil our red book
commitment from 1993 to bring in solid and meaningful legislation
to deal with high risk offenders.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. But, since he is
talking about this provision, can he assure the House that this
provision does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, since at first sight it seems to fly in the face of one of
our basic legal principles, namely the presumption of innocence?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's
commitment to the charter of rights and to individual freedoms.
4344
I urge him to look carefully at the provisions of the legislation
we tabled yesterday. I have every confidence that every part of
that bill is completely consistent with the charter. In fact, I so
certified it before I tabled the legislation.
The measures to deal with high risk offenders invest the
sentencing judge with authority to impose conditions as part of the
sentence which is a regular orthodox exercise of the criminal law
power. The other provisions have to do with preventing crime. That
is at the heart of this legislation. We are taking steps to prevent
crime before it happens by identifying those who are at the highest
risk of reoffending and giving the courts and the system power to
intervene, to impose conditions and supervision to keep our
families, our children and our communities safe. That is what this
legislation is about.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
Mr. Speaker, in August the minister announced that this fall
Canada was to launch a much awaited new initiative, the Arctic
Council, which comprises eight circumpolar countries.
Given the leadership role of Canada in this important initiative
for Canada's northern population and for all of Canada, can the
minister inform this House when he will act to establish this very
important vehicle for co-operation on the environment, economic
and other critical issues facing the circumpolar north?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to confirm that tomorrow Canada will play
host to the inaugural meeting of the Arctic Council. In so doing, I
want to pay tribute to the work of the hon. member and the
Secretary of State for Youth and Training, Ambassador Simon and
many other Canadians, particularly northern Canadians and the
representatives, both government and non-government, of the other
countries who have worked together over the past two years to
bring together a brand new international organization to deal with
the issues of the people of the north.
In particular, I would like to point out that perhaps for the first
time in the history of international organizations, leaders of the
governments, ministers of the respective governments, will be
sitting down in full partnership with the indigenous people of the
north so that they can work together to solve the problems of
environment, trade and industry. It is an example we hope will
provide an important lesson for the development of international
organizations in the years ahead.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after 13
years of Liberal-Tory rule, we find that federal taxes in Canada
have gone up $4,000 per taxpayer.
Despite the fact that the Liberal government promised twice in
the last few years that it would get rid of the GST on books in this
country, we find that the finance minister now says that he cannot
afford to do it. Frankly, Canadians cannot afford this finance
minister.
Can the finance minister tell Canadians why he has $159 million
to fund flags, propaganda and movies through the Department of
Canadian Heritage while he reneges on yet another promise and
doubles the GST on reading in Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our position on the tax on books today is exactly what I expressed
yesterday. The member is one day behind the NDP, maybe 20 years
behind the NDP.
The fact is that the removal of the tax on books would cost $140
million. The decision that has to be taken is, is that the best use of
$140 million or in fact are there other uses to which that money
should be put. At the same time, given that those who wish to
remove the tax on books are people who basically want to promote
literacy, a view that all of us in this House share, then the debate we
have to have is whether that in fact is the best way to promote
literacy. Under those circumstances we are certainly open to
examining the possibilities.
(1450)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
question is: What is the Prime Minister's word worth? He promised
in writing to the Don't Tax Reading Coalition that he would remove
the GST on books.
When the Prime Minister appears before his bank machine, how
does he rationalize this latest Liberal cop out?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps I should tell you what the real issue is. The real issue is
whether the government's revenues are going to increase. Because
of increased economic activity they are in fact doing so.
The issue is what did the new government do after it took over
from a previous government that increased taxes 39 times? I will
tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we did not in our first, second or third
budget, not once did we increase personal income taxes. That is our
view.
Why is it that the Reform Party, which has so much difficulty
talking about increases in government revenues, in its first budget
suggestion talks about increasing government revenues by over
$26 billion?
4345
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of International Trade.
Today we learned, once again through the media, that
negotiations on free trade between Canada and Chile have reached
an impasse, after nine months of talks.
Can the minister tell us if the cancellation of the visit that the
Chilean president, Mr. Frei, was scheduled to make in early
October is somehow related to the deadlock in the negotiations on a
free trade agreement between Canada and Chile?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be pleased to know that
the negotiations with Chile have not reached an impasse. The eight
series of negotiations were completed last weekend and the parties
have gone off for further consultations.
I am hopeful that we can bring the negotiations to a very quick
conclusion and bring about this agreement in the near future. In
fact, they have been going at a very strong pace. In the case of
Mexico it took us some 16 months and in the case of Israel almost
two years to get to the point of signing an agreement. Yet in nine
short months we have come a long way and there are but very few
issues for us to resolve.
When that is done I would expect that the postponed visit of
President Frei will be put on again. I know that President Frei is
looking forward to coming to Canada and looking forward to a free
trade agreement that will help give Canadian companies access to
the market in Chile.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister refers to previous agreements. Canada recently signed a
free trade agreement with Israel. This agreement was signed in
secret. The same thing is happening again with Chile.
Could the minister at least pledge greater transparency before
signing a free trade agreement with Chile or with any other
country?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the agreement with Israel will be brought
before this House and there will be every opportunity to consider
every aspect of it in a very short period of time, as there will in the
case of the agreement with Chile. Both of those agreements will
help to increase our exports and our opportunity for market access.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when you are flying in a plane at 30,000 feet and the
engine fails, passengers on board a Canadian airline will find little
comfort in the fact that the minister's department examined the
paperwork, not the actual aircraft, when issuing a certificate of air
worthiness.
How can the Minister of Transport guarantee the safety of the
Canadian public when his department inspects paperwork instead
of inspecting aeroplanes?
(1455 )
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the safety audit that identified the
two deficiencies is part of established procedures that are going on
and are well understood within the entire airline industry.
We expect that all airlines will meet the highest safety standards
and it is our job to ensure that they do. Until such time as that
happens and the concerns of the minister are met, the minister is
not prepared to risk the safety of the travelling public.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the parliamentary secretary offers words of reassurance
but those words do not square with the facts. The facts are that
when any airline's planes take off in Canada for the first time, they
have not been inspected by Transport Canada. It only inspects the
airline's paperwork.
I again ask the parliamentary secretary: How can he guarantee
the safety of the Canadian public when his department only
inspects the paperwork, not the plane?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refuses to accept
the fact that there are procedures in place where the paperwork
entails that the maintenance individuals in charge of that aircraft
are the ones responsible to ensure the safety of that aircraft.
In the case of WestJet of which he is speaking, it is a responsible
airline. WestJet is working diligently to meet all of the
requirements that are being put down by the Minister of Transport.
Unfortunately yes, the travelling public were a bit inconvenienced
in their flight plans, but the majority of WestJet passengers I am
sure would agree that it is better to deal with any deficiencies in the
aircraft on the ground and not at 40,000 feet.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
4346
The United States is currently taxing Canadian seniors on social
security benefits. Many of these seniors are trying to survive on
less than subsistence income and would not be taxed if this income
was earned in Canada.
Can the minister tell the House and seniors what steps he is
taking to alleviate this hardship?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has shown a great deal of concern for the plight of
a considerable number of low income Canadians who have been
affected by this move taken by the United States.
Indeed members within our own party and members on both
sides of the House have expressed the same concern. The member
is absolutely right. There are a considerable number of low income
Canadians who have suddenly found themselves without any
possibility of adjustment, without any possibility of appeal and are
in a very serious financial condition as a result of this action taken
by the U.S. administration.
I have raised this matter with the secretary of the treasury and
our officials have worked on it throughout the summer. I will be
seeing the secretary of the treasury in the not too distance future
and I intend to raise this issue.
I am delighted by the support from the House on this particular
issue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Over the last two weeks,
Chaleur Bay Micmacs have been fishing lobster without Fisheries
and Oceans permits, more than two months after the end of the
regular fishing season.
Given that the minister has a mandate to conserve and manage
the resource, what does he intend to do to fulfil his obligations in
the contentious area of Chaleur Bay so that the lobster are
protected?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is now making every effort to get the aboriginals and the
commercial fishermen together, so that they can sit down, talk and
reach an agreement in order to resolve this dispute, which leaves
the commercial fishermen feeling targeted because the aboriginals
are fishing, while the aboriginals are exercising what they claim is
their right to fish for subsistence and ceremonial purposes.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before the last election the agriculture minister promised
to hold a plebiscite on grain marketing and the Canadian Wheat
Board. That is now a broken promise. He is still doing behind the
scenes surveys. The Angus Reid group tells us they conducted a
survey on behalf of his department, but the minister's office refuses
to give us the results of the survey.
(1500)
When will the minister uncover the results of this survey? More
important, when will he hold a true and open plebiscite? His lack of
action is hurting the prairie economy and is still a broken promise.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see little point in formally
releasing a partial and preliminary document which the opposition
and the media already have. That strikes me as a bit redundant.
The hon. gentleman and people in the Reform Party keep
pressing us to move ahead with the automatic implementation of
the report of the western grain marketing panel. On Monday of this
week the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia on
CBC radio said this: ``There are certain things in the panel's
recommendations that I think are terrible''. The member from
Moose Jaw on the same program said: ``I would say from the
numbers that we've got generally there have been more who
support the wheat board as a single desk seller for wheat and
barley''. The member from Moose Jaw-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. It concerns the continuing cuts to the CBC.
Despite promises made in the Liberal red book during the last
election, the government is proceeding with a further cut of some
$190 million to the CBC budget. This will result in a 35 to 40 per
cent reduction in both TV and radio services and a loss of some
2,500 jobs.
How can the minister possibly expect the CBC to fulfil its
parliamentary mandate as a public broadcaster with these massive
cuts to its budget?
4347
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the cuts that were
announced in last February's budget were $123 million, not the
figure quoted by the member.
Unfortunately those cuts were announced on top of the previous
cuts which total a very difficult circumstance for the CBC. The
total package of cuts will result in reductions of about 23 per cent.
Over the last three years one of the things we have had to do as a
government is to cut very significantly. We have had to let 40,000
people go across the public service. We have had to cut in
ministries and we have had to cut across departments.
The CBC management and board have been working very hard
to ensure that in the face of very difficult circumstances they can
continue to occupy a very unique niche in the marketplace.
Unlike certain members of the opposition who are calling for the
privatization of the CBC, I believe that the CBC has a very
important public role to play. We are still investing almost a billion
dollars of taxpayers' money in the CBC.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Since the Helms-Burton bill in the United States is very
prominent in the news these days and its adverse effect on
Canadian business, and as Canada opposes the Helms-Burton bill,
does this mean that we are soft on Cuba? Does it mean that we
endorse the Castro administration?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that is an important question.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I have said on numerous
occasions, for a great number of years we have been exercising
efforts to bring about a more open and democratic system in Cuba,
to bring about economic reforms and respect for human rights.
Unlike the United States, we have preferred a policy of
engagement, as opposed to isolation, which quite frankly has not
worked in the 30 years it has been in place.
The purpose of our opposition to Helms-Burton is simply to
protect the right to have a Canadian trade policy and to have
Canadian companies able to rely on that when they are doing
business with Cuba.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the presence
in the gallery of a delegation of senators from Belgium's Socialist
Party.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
4347
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to eight
petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour and the
pleasure to table, in both official languages, the first report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
This is the report by the official delegation that represented
Canada at the third annual meeting of the North Atlantic
Assembly's Political Committee, held in Moscow from April 9 to
12.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the second report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary
Association which represented Canada at the 1996 spring session
of the North Atlantic Assembly (NATO Parliamentarians) held in
Athens, Greece, May 16 to 20, 1996.
* * *
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-324, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act (entertainment expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill I am introducing today is aimed
toward lowering our national deficit to some degree by amending
the Income Tax Act. It will do so by eliminating the part of the act
which includes entertainment as a tax deductible expense.
4348
Tax loopholes cost the public treasury an estimated $36 billion a
year. As it stands, the Income Tax Act includes provisions that
allow business people to write off meals or corporate boxes in sport
stadiums as entertainment expenses.
When the Liberal government lowered meal and entertainment
expenses to 50 per cent from 80 per cent deductible there were cries
from the restaurant industry that business would drop drastically,
affecting its many employees. There is hardly a mark on that sector.
I believe that this bill will have a similar outcome on stadium
owners.
The net result, however, will be considerable revenue, a positive
outcome for the government and a feeling of equity for the vast
majority of Canadians who are not able to take advantage of these
corporate perks and should not have to foot the bill for them.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have 15 petitions from over 1,000 Canadians in B.C.,
Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New
Brunswick and Newfoundland which say that abolishing the
opportunity for prisoners serving life sentences of 15 years or more
to apply for a judicial review of their parole eligibility will only
serve to increase both human and economic costs of the criminal
justice system and increase fear and misconceptions about crime
among the Canadian public.
(1510 )
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to oppose the repeal
of section 745 of the Criminal Code or the restriction of prisoners
access to just and fair procedures as well as to launch a concerted
public education campaign to promote the need for more
responsible and humane criminal justice approaches to enhance the
safety of all Canadians.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition to present from Nepean and area communities which bears
some 70 signatures.
The petitioners bring to our attention that Canadian law does not
prohibit convicted criminals from profiting financially from
writing books and setting up 1-900 numbers, producing videos, et
cetera.
The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to enact Bill C-205,
introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the
earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no
criminal profits from committing a crime.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present a petition signed by 600 individuals.
The petitioners call on Parliament to look at the fact that the
CITT concluded that the dumping and subsidizing of Italian pasta
did not cause material injury to Canadian pasta manufacturers and
duties are no longer being collected.
They request that the Special Import Measures Act examine the
CITT criteria for determining material injury and consider the U.S.
model. They petition Parliament to ensure that the Canadian pasta
manufacturers have a level playing field for fair market
competition in our own country.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to present
two petitions to the House which have been duly certified by the
clerk of petitions.
The first one is on behalf of 25 Canadians residing in beautiful
British Columbia. The petitioners humbly pray and call on
Parliament to honour and recognize their Canadian peacekeepers in
the form of a Canadian peacekeeping medal.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is on behalf of 44 constituents of
Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding areas.
The petitioners pray that Parliament enact Bill C-205, introduced
by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the earliest
opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal
profits from committing a crime.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
table a petition calling for the adoption of my bill C-277,
renumbered C-235, on female genital mutilation. Fifty-seven
persons from British Columbia have taken the initiative of
circulating and signing a petition in support of a measure to protect
women and young girls.
Let us hope that all of the members of this House will bow to
their wishes and vote in favour of making genital mutilation a
criminal act. I hope that certain amendments will be made to the
bill on genital mutilation the government is preparing to pass.
4349
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
before me two petitions, one signed by 26 people from my riding
and the other one signed by 27 people, calling on Parliament to
enact Bill C-205.
Currently Canadian law does not stop convicted criminals from
profiting financially from their crimes. Presently a convicted
criminal can make money by writing a book and these petitioners
ask that this be stopped.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have petitions with over 250 signatures from Manitobans who
support the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to
prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
These signatures include people from all age groups who firmly
believe that discrimination on any basis should not and cannot be
tolerated.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a number of petitions containing over 5,000 signatures from
people from across Canada who point out, as others have today,
that Canadian law does not prohibit convicted criminals from
profiting financially by selling their stories, videos or copyrighting
videos or in other ways profiting from the crimes they have
committed.
The petitioners call on Parliament to enact Bill C-205, which I
introduced, at the earliest opportunity. The third hour of debate will
be next Tuesday whereupon there will be a vote on the principle
next Tuesday evening, I hope.
The petitioners ask that this bill be enacted as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to the House
two petitions signed by residents of York North.
The first petition is about the Helms-Burton law. The petitioners
draw to the attention of the House that the Cuban liberty and
democratic solidarity act attempts to impose American domestic
policy on other sovereign countries and, therefore, violates
international law.
(1515 )
The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that
Canadians' interests, rights and businesses must be defended with
strength and vigour.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to pursue all
avenues available to ensure the rights of Canadians are protected.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition draws to the attention of the House the important
role small businesses play in our economy. The petitioners call
upon Parliament to continue to create a healthy environment for
small businesses to ensure they have access to the financing they
need and to help them explore and capitalize on new opportunities.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition signed by many Manitobans.
They are concerned that the Liberal government is on the verge of
drastically reducing coast guard services on the major lakes in
Manitoba, with Lake Winnipeg being the 10th largest lake in the
world. They are concerned this reduction plan includes
decommissioning the
Namao and
Avocet, the only two coast guard
ships on the lake.
They call on Parliament to direct the Government of Canada,
especially the Ministers of Transport and Fisheries and Oceans, to
reaffirm the preservation and maintenance of coast guard services
on the lakes in the province of Manitoba so as to ensure that public
safety and protection will remain a top priority.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to rise today to draw the
attention of the House on behalf of many of the constituents in my
own riding and around the lower mainland to the following: That,
Canadian law does not prohibit convicted criminals from profiting
financially by writing books, setting up 1-900 lines, producing
videos.
The petitioners pray that Parliament enact Bill C-205, introduced
by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the earliest
opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal
profits from committing a crime.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition on the Young Offenders Act that is signed by 440
constituents in my area.
This is based on an incident where two young alleged thieves
were caught breaking into cars in a parking lot. They tried to run
down a witness. They did not conceal their names from the police.
They were quite free to give them because they knew they could
not be prosecuted because of their ages. Because of this, the
petitioners request that the Young Offenders Act either be
abolished or revised so that the rights of ordinary citizens come
ahead of the rights of young offenders of this sort.
4350
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to
present a petition from 60 citizens in my riding, mainly from the
villages of O'Leary, Bloomfield, Ellerslie and Alberton.
These 60 petitioners are very concerned with the inadequacies of
the sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of
impaired driving charges. They are also concerned that Canada
must embrace a philosophy of zero tolerance toward individuals
who drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs.
These petitioners would like that very serious consideration be
given to the bill that is coming up shortly for a vote.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition from my constituents which draws
the attention of the House to the following: That there are profound
inadequacies in the sentencing practices concerning individuals
convicted of impaired driving charges; and that Canada must
embrace a philosophy of zero tolerance toward individuals who
drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs.
Therefore, the petitioners pray and request that Parliament
proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that
will ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving
while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired does
reflect both the severity of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada
toward this crime.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have two different petitions to present
today, the first one dealing with criminals benefiting from criminal
activity.
The petitioners are petitioning that Parliament enact Bill C-205,
introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the
earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no
criminal profits from committing a crime.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition has to do with drunk drivers. The petitioners pray
and request that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments
to the Criminal Code that would ensure the sentence given to
anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or
death while impaired does reflect both the severity of the crime and
zero tolerance by Canada toward this crime.
(1520 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I too would like to table a petition
with several hundred names on it, most of them from the
constituency of Beaver River but some from Edmonton and
perhaps Edmonton Southeast and other cities.
Resulting from a murder this spring in the town of Bonnyville,
these people are very concerned that there be stricter penalties for
young offenders who commit crimes causing bodily harm or death.
These individuals should be held in custody pending their court
hearing. Young offenders 16 years and older who take the law into
their own hands and cause death should be charged and treated as
adults and tried in adult court without the consent of judges.
Therefore these petitioners pray and request that Parliament
please make amendments and stiffer penalties to the Young
Offenders Act.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present three petitions to
the House today, two on behalf of the esteemed member for
Edmonton Southeast.
The first petition is signed by 33 petitioners who pray and
request that Parliament oppose any amendments to the Canadian
Human Rights Act or any other federal legislation that will provide
for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition signed by 47 petitioners asks and prays
that we conduct a full public inquiry into the relationship between
lending institutions and the judiciary and to enact legislation
restricting the appointment of judges with ties to credit granting
institutions. The idea is that there is some sort of collusion between
the judiciary and credit granting institutions which has resulted in
the fact that credit granting institutions are never ever taken to task.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition is signed by 80 petitioners mostly from
Edmonton Southwest, many of whom are associated with CARP,
the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. The petitioners bring
to the attention of this House and request that Parliament take the
necessary measures to ensure that Canadian citizens who are
recipients of American pensions are not penalized. This flows from
the change in legislation in the United States whereby recipients of
U.S. pensions in Canada have 25 per cent of the money that is due
to them held back.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
first petition comes from Nepean, Ontario.
4351
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
chronically ill, the disabled, or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Simcoe, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and specifically, that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and
others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure under Standing Order 36 to table a petition on behalf
of my constituents of Bruce-Grey.
This summer I received several thousand signatures with regard
to gas pricing. The petitioners feel that gas pricing practices by
petroleum companies rob communities of economic activity and
tourism.
The operative clause in this petition states: ``Be it resolved that
we request the federal government to require the fuel industry to
become accountable for the prices charged for their products and if
price gouging or policies against the public interest are discovered,
that the companies be required to roll back prices to a justifiable
level''.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a
petition from my constituents of London-Middlesex.
Relative to the possible taxation of dental benefits, these
petitioners note that this has been a topic of discussion for the past
two or three years. They are pleased that the government has seen
fit not to tax such dental benefits. They call on Parliament and this
government to forgo such consideration on a permanent basis and
that we do not tax dental benefits.
(1525 )
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today. The first is from constituents
who draw to the attention of Parliament that there is currently no
legislation prohibiting a convicted criminal from profiting from his
crime through the publication of books, articles, videos or the
establishment of a 1-900 number. They call upon Parliament to
approve Bill C-205 now before the House which would enact such
legislation.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, draws to the attention of Parliament that
industrial quality hemp is not a psychoactive product and therefore
should be transferred from the jurisdiction of the health minister to
the minister of agriculture.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions here today. One of them is a sanctity of human
life petition. The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to ensure
that assisted suicide or euthanasia is not allowed in our country and
should not be allowed in the future.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the merchant marine. The
petitioners call upon Parliament to consider the advisability of
extending benefits or compensation to veterans of the wartime
merchant navy equal to those enjoyed by veterans of Canada's
World War II armed services. I am sure many of us have had to deal
with those veterans in our offices.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is another sanctity of life petition. It says that whereas
human life at the preborn stage is not protected in Canadian
society, the petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code. Mr. Speaker, there have been many cases in the news that
have highlighted that issue over the summer.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today on a very important matter to ask the
government House leader when I can expect an answer to my
question on the order paper No. Q-4.
A little bit of history is in order here. The question was first
placed on notice on February 27, 1996 and I requested an answer
4352
from the government within 45 days. As of today, 204 days have
passed. This same question was on the order paper for 71 days
before the government prorogued the House in the last session.
This has become a very serious matter. It is a total of 275 days that
the government has had to prepare a response.
The answer to this question is a matter of public safety,
specifically regarding the unsafe storage and theft of firearms from
police and military armouries.
On May 29, 1996 the parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader responded to my previous point of order saying we
could expect him to provide us with the information very soon. Mr.
Speaker, 104 days have passed since the parliamentary secretary
promised the information very soon. This is now bordering on the
absurd. My question is: How long do my constituents and I still
have to wait?
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
hon. friend is right. There has not been an answer yet to his
question.
I think he would recognize that the question which was asked
was one that required some detailed information from a wide
variety of sources. I am sorry to say that we do not have the
question available. We will have it as soon as it is available. I am
sure he would realize that the very scarce resources available in the
departments for these kinds of matters involving very specific
questions, which is what in fact has been raised by my colleague,
just do not make it possible to make the information as
forthcoming as he would like it to be. In order to make it accurate,
we are doing the very best we can.
I know that does not satisfy him in terms of an answer but that is
the best answer I can offer my colleague.
The Deputy Speaker: Would the parliamentary secretary please
indicate what he is going to do with the other questions on the order
paper.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1530 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Papers
No. 5 in the name of the hon. member from Nanaimo.
That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he cause to
be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings,
reports, documents and other communications between Canada and the United
States as they relate to the 1995 changes of the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested are protected
from disclosure under paragraphs 13(1)(a) and 15(1)(g) of the
Access to Information Act. Therefore I ask the hon. member to
withdraw his motion.
I also ask that the other notices of motions for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan is not in the Chamber. Does the
parliamentary secretary wish, in the absence of the member, to
have it transferred for debate or should we put it off to a time when
he is here?
Mr. Zed: Transferred for debate.
(Transferred for debate.)
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining notices of motions
for the production of papers be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4352
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to consideration of the motions concerning
adoption of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March
31, 1997.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed as usual to
the consideration of the motion to concur in the main estimates for
1996-97 and the appropriation bill in relation thereto. In the light of
recent practices, do the hon. members agree that this bill should
now be distributed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[
English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $40,713,000 under Parliament-Senate-Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 (less
the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day. Today this
House will consider the motion to concur in the main estimates for
the current fiscal year.
Under the Constitution, as members know, Parliament must
approve all spending from the government's consolidated revenue
fund. Today, we, as members of the House of Commons of Canada,
are continuing this honourable tradition as we debate the main
estimates for 1996-97.
4353
We also have before us at least two motions to oppose specific
items contained within these estimates. Consequently, the
government has on the table a similar number of motions to
reinstate opposed items.
Since the main estimates were presented on March 8, 1996,
members have had opportunities to present their views and
concerns to the standing committees of the House. Today all parties
have an opportunity to participate in the final review of these
estimates.
Some members will recall the frustration that all parties
expressed in the House when the full supply debate took place last
year. This frustration resulted in all-party support for the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake a
comprehensive review of the business of supply.
In support of the work of committee members, I have made
improved reporting to Parliament a priority for the Treasury Board
Secretariat. We have initiated the improved reporting to Parliament
project, or IRPP, so that we can work more closely with the
committee and other parliamentarians.
We are proposing changes to split the information now provided
in part III of the estimates into two distinct documents: a
departmental expenditure plan which will deal with the proposed
expenditures for the next three years and be tabled in the spring and
a fall performance report which will account to Parliament on what
has been achieved.
[Translation]
Why are we doing this Mr. Speaker? There are two overarching
reasons. First, this government promised in the red book that it
would restore public confidence in government institutions and,
specifically, in the role played by Parliament.
(1535)
Without the right information at the right time, Parliament
cannot perform its proper function. Second, this government
believes that to get government right, we must engage Parliament
in a meaningful discussion of government priorities, plans and
performance. The government realizes that it is not just cabinet
ministers and bureaucrats who may shape the future of Canada.
Before I outline our plans and proposals for improving such
information, I would like to describe how we have arrived at this
point. The process we followed reflects the care we have taken to
ensure that these proposals truly represent the needs of
parliamentarians and other users. Before we developed our
proposals, six departments and agencies presented their Part III
documents in a new format.
These documents were tabled in the House in March of this year
as part of a pilot project. An evaluation of the pilot documents
showed broad support for replacing Part III with separate planning
and performance information documents to be tabled at different
times of the year.
Extensive consultations with nine House standing committees,
the Senate Finance Committee, academics, the media, the auditor
general and others confirmed support for this approach. I would
like to thank the hon. member for St. Boniface for his continuing
efforts to bring about changes to the way the House reviews
estimates.
As a result of these consultations, the procedure and house
affairs committee recommended that 16 departments and agencies
table performance reports this fall as a pilot project. The report
containing this recommendation was unanimously adopted. The
pilot performance reports will provide Parliament with succinct,
meaningful, results-oriented information in the fall, when
Parliament can consider that information more fully.
[English]
These performance reports will allow parliamentarians to focus
on the results expected from government programs and the results
those programs actually achieved. This focus should in turn lead to
more meaningful parliamentary discussion of longer term
government plans and priorities. The pilot performance reports will
be tabled in October in conjunction with my report on improving
results measurement and accountability.
The 16 companion expenditure planning documents
incorporating the Outlook document will be tabled as part of the
estimates project in the spring. Departments not participating in
this round of pilots will be able to improve their spring 1997 part
III documents by incorporating many of the improvements tested
last spring. The 16 pilot departments will also table in year update
reports which will alert Parliament to significant changes in
planned expenditures or program delivery.
The IRPP is working with departments and the House to improve
electronic distribution of pilot documents which may include using
the Internet. If an evaluation of the 16 fall performance reports is
positive, the government may ask Parliament to require the tabling
of separate spring planning and fall performance reports for all
departments and agencies to begin in the following year.
If the House adopts these changes, I am optimistic that they will
help the committee deal with the remaining part of its mandate
which is improving the processes by which the House and its
committees consider and dispose of the estimates.
(1540)
[Translation]
I am confident that our efforts to improve the quality of
expenditure and performance information will make Parliamenta-
4354
ry debate more meaningful. This will be, I hope at least, another
important contribution to a more accountable government.
Unfortunately, we are not yet at the point of changing our
procedures for supply. Today, we must follow the usual process.
But before this House addresses the opposed item before us, I
would like to provide the overall context for the 1996-97 main
estimates.
The main estimates represent the results of a number of
initiatives by this government designed to put Canada on the right
track-to reduce the budget deficit and to more clearly define the
role of the Government of Canada. When I tabled the estimates in
March, I described the process of program Review, which has
contributed so strongly to ``getting government right.'' I also
stressed that ``getting government right'' means modernizing
federal programs and services to meet the needs of Canadians, as
citizens and clients, today and in the future.
The steps we have taken recognize that the effects of
globalization and technological change, fiscal pressures, and the
evolution of Canadian society require us to simplify and
streamline. These days, it is fashionable to talk about fiscal
responsibility and the need to reduce spending at all levels of
government. While it is not difficult simply to cut spending without
regard for the consequences, it requires great care to meet
necessary fiscal targets while ensuring that government policy
supports the priorities of Canadian society.
In asking the House to concur in the appropriation bill, I would
like to remind members that the Estimates we are considering
today reflect the care taken to reduce spending and, at the same
time, to target that spending on what is most important. For
example, we have reduced direct support to industry in favour of
policies that will stimulate growth and jobs. We have reduced costs
by transferring the air navigation System and airports to
not-for-profit corporations. We have taken steps to reduce
subsidies to Canada Post and to Via Rail. We have reduced defence
spending by $200 million in 1997-98 and by another $600 million
in 1998-99. These are just a few examples of the actions we have
taken to meet our fiscal responsibilities.
[English]
The impact of these changes is significant. In 1994-95 program
review yielded savings of $3.9 billion which will grow to $7.2
billion annually by 1997-98. The 1996 budget announced further
annual savings of $2 billion for 1998-99.
This year's main estimates call for $157 billion in planned
budgetary expenditures compared to $164 billion last year.
I believe that the record shows that we are succeeding in meeting
our goals but we cannot rest on these achievements. Getting
government right is an ongoing process. We will continue to use
the principles of program review to seek further opportunities to
improve.
In closing, I ask members of the House to support our request for
full supply. These estimates reflect appropriate action to meet our
fiscal targets while establishing a role for the government that is
right for the times.
(1545)
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether we are at
questions and comments on the speech of the President of the
Treasury Board.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. He is quite
right. I forgot all about this during the summer. It is now time for
questions and comments.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the President of the Treasury Board.
What he said raises many questions.
Apparently the government has established a system to control
expenditures and to improve budgetary preparations and
consultations, and is well on its way to providing satisfactory
program evaluation. The newspapers, however, are still full of
examples of poor expenditure control, and I would like to quote a
few.
For instance, millions of dollars are lost annually because the
system for issuing paycheques at the Department of National
Defence does not work properly. Will the situation be remedied this
year? Will the controls that have been put in place be able to correct
this situation?
The other point I would like to make is that in many
departments, especially at the senior executive level, the same
structures still exist that were there before the government started
reducing subsidies to industry.
The President of the Treasury Board mentioned the fact that
these subsidies had been reduced, and industry, provided everyone
is treated the same, is all for it. Has the government embarked on
the requisite downsizing at the level of deputy ministers,
consulting services and the bureaucracy, considering that, although
there is no more money for subsidies, people are still being paid to
run programs that no longer exist or are no longer operational? Has
anything been done about this?
There is one more sector that intrigues me a great deal, and that
is tax expenditures. Last year we saw a document that gave an
overview of tax expenditures entitled ``Tax expenditures 1995''. I
would like to quote a few examples from this document, where it
says there is no information available on the subject. It means the
government is unable to indicate the impact of these tax
expenditures, which makes it look pretty silly. Here are some
examples.
4355
By the way, these are not mere details. These are important
issues that are connected with tax fairness. For instance, deferred
capital gains or transfers between spouses. They cannot tell us the
real impact of this measure.
Non-taxation of certain non-monetary benefits. Here again, they
cannot tell us a thing.
Taxation of realized capital gains. Imagine all the capital gains
that have been realized, and they are unable to evaluate the impact
of such a measure.
I will quote just a few more, before concluding. The
non-taxation of incomes of Indians on reserves. Today, they cannot
indicate the impact of this situation.
Non-taxation of donations and bequests. I will conclude with an
item that will be a contentious issue in future debates, the fact that
the Senate refuses to be accountable for its budget to the House of
Commons. Some nerve. The members of a non-elected House who
are not accountable to the public for the results of their work are
actually saying they do not have to account for their budget. Will
this $43 million really be used for practical purposes? Is there no
duplication of the work done by members of the House of
Commons? Have some practices not become obsolete?
These are the kind of questions the government should answer.
Especially on this point, I would appreciate the opinion of the
President of the Treasury Board who has shown a concern for
genuine expenditure control. I think the government should set an
example in this respect for the Canadian public.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, the three points listed by my hon.
colleague are important and deserve a closer look.
There are unfortunately cases in which government funds were
not used properly. It is obvious that, in some departments-as the
auditor general himself discovers each year-government funds
could, in certain cases, be used in much better ways.
(1550)
What is important in a business with total expenditures of $157
billion is that we must be able to implement controls at two levels.
First, at the macroeconomic level, where members can control
the policies themselves and ensure that the money allocated by
Parliament to implement certain policies is used to attain the real
objectives of these policies. Most of the time, Parliament exercises
control primarily by allocating the money needed to implement
certain policies and, as I pointed out in my speech, this process is
now undergoing extensive reforms.
Treasury Board also has a responsibility to ensure that
departments follow the proper procedures in specific cases so that
money is spent in accordance with regulations and with the
provisions of the Financial Administration Act.
We must remain vigilant in these areas because each year every
department develops new ways of doing things and some of their
new procedures are not suitable and therefore result in
inappropriate expenditures.
This role of reviewing examples in every government
department, which is shared by the auditor general and the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts, must have the full
support of Treasury Board, and it does. Whenever new procedures
or ways of doing things to reduce the misappropriation of funds are
brought to our attention, we implement them.
The second point mentioned by the hon. member is that certain
departments still have not made in-depth changes and there is a
possibility that, while some subsidy programs may have been
considerably reduced or even abolished, the person-years required
to deliver these programs have not been subject to the same kind of
cuts.
This is why we have a system whereby every department must,
each year, submit to Treasury Board a plan for delivering their plan
of action. This means that, each year, Treasury Board's five deputy
ministers review how the various departments intend to bring
changes to their structure, to the way they use their person years, to
their programs and to the implementation of these programs, so as
to better reach their objectives.
Today, in my speech, I indicated that we also intend to conduct a
performance analysis and that we have already conducted a number
of pilot projects in this regard. The idea is to review the budget, not
the way we currently do it when we allocate funds, but by obliging
departments to submit a report on their use of funds and on the
extent to which their objectives are met, with, where possible,
some quantitative measurement of departmental performance. My
colleague was very clear in making that point and we are trying to
improve service delivery and evaluation measures.
The third point mentioned concerns the impacts of tax
expenditures which are not measured sometimes. Obviously,
evaluation issues are always very difficult. They are difficult
because there are a lot of results that cannot be examined or that
cannot be quantified.
For example, the impact of certain expenditures on the health
and general welfare of Canadians is impossible to measure
sometimes. We can measure the impact of certain specific actions,
but it is sometimes difficult to measure the impact of preventive
measures, for example, because we have altered a situation and it
then becomes extremely difficult to measure exactly what the
results would have been without these preventive measures.
(1555)
There are methodological problems. Each year we try to have
quantitative measures that are more accurate, but it is obvious that
we still have work to do in some areas. I can assure my colleague
that the Treasury Board understands perfectly well that there are
4356
still a lot of improvements to be made and is working towards
making these improvements.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, very
briefly, I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board, since
he is the one to handle the cabinet's big budget, if he does not
sometimes have to act like a bad government to be able to
distribute the money. I would like to give the example of the
commercial investment credit.
A number of farmers from the vast Eastern Townships region
have complained to my office-justifiably, I think-that, two or
three years later, the revenue department wants to recover, with
heavy interest charges, the 10 per cent, the credit to which they
were entitled and which ended on January 1, 1994, which they used
in good faith for purchases prior to that date.
As the President of Treasury Board, how could he explain that
these directives have gone solely to the Sherbrooke regional office?
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, you will understand that it is not easy
for me to have a detailed knowledge of all the applications of all
the Treasury Board directives in the 24 or so federal government
departments. With respect to this question, I shall look into the
example given by my hon. colleague and see whether it is possible
to solve the difficulties he refers to.
[English]
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek the unanimous
consent of the House to table the third report of the finance
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4356
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table the third report of the finance committee, dealing
with taxable Canadian property.
I would be very remiss if I did not pay credit to members from
all parties on our finance committee who worked so hard to do this
report, and particularly to the staff of the House of Commons who
under very great difficulties have made today's report possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to inform you that the official opposition has tabled
a dissenting report recommending that the government take steps
to prevent trust funds from transferring money abroad, like the $2
billion funds that recently left the country tax-free. Instead, the
Liberal majority attacked the auditor general's credibility and,
instead of closing the door, threw it wide open so more funds could
leave the country.
_____________________________________________
4356
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motions for
concurrence in the Main Estimates.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to oppose the motion to concur
in the main estimates. The Reform Party has argued that, since the
Senate refused to defend its budget before the committee on
government operations, we should not approve its budget. I think
this position is quite defensible. The members of the Senate were
not elected but appointed for partisan reasons.
(1600)
Let us look at the latest appointments to the Senate: a former
executive of the Liberal Party of Canada and a former minister of
agriculture.
For the past three years, the Liberals have been looking for a way
to regain control of the upper House because they were dealt a
devastating blow last June, when a bill aimed at preventing the
privatization of Pearson airport died in the Senate, voted down by
people who were not elected. Now I have seen it all! In this day and
age, in a democracy that brags about being one of the most active,
the most efficient in the world, the unelected House of Parliament
killed a bill in which hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.
This will cost money to taxpayers, regardless of the solution. All of
us, elected members of this House, could only watch the other
place make the decision instead of us. These non-elected people
made the decision.
Quebecers and Canadians are tired of this situation. The senators
added insult to injury by not appearing before the Standing
Committee on Government Operations to justify the need for such
funds. This alone is sufficient reason for opposing at least the
allocation of these funds.
However, we must go further in our review of the situation. In
Quebec, the legislative council was abolished 30 years ago, after it
was realized that non-elected houses no longer reflected the current
reality.
We went to the public. I personally tabled a motion in the House
which is supported by all Bloc members and by other members of
the opposition. Our petition on this issue is receiving strong
support, certainly in Quebec, whether people are staunch or soft
federalists, or whether they are sovereignists or independentists.
4357
Everyone is fed up with the Senate. We get this support because,
ultimately, people want two things from us: that we focus on jobs
and that we put an end to all this useless spending. The Senate is a
political example; it is an important symbol, which we must
absolutely target. We must abolish a house that is no longer
representative of Canada.
Let us not forget that the Senate was originally established to
represent the regions. Senators were appointed to represent
regions. I invite you to visit your constituents and systematically
ask them this question: Which senator represents you in the
Senate? What is his name. I am not asking you to have them tell
you that person's responsibilities, just their name. The response
rate will be shocking, because the senators have never assumed this
responsibility of regional representation. Not at all.
Nowadays, senators are appointed in the following manner: the
Prime Minister chooses someone he has decided to reward
politically. He calls them up and says: ``You should buy yourself a
piece of property; you need something worth $4,000 in such and
such an area. This is the condition you have to meet to become a
senator''. Often, the only time people hear about their senator is
when he goes to the registry office to check that the property he has
just bought has in fact been registered. The rest of the time, he is
not often seen.
I also heard this criticism of the Senate from all those I met last
year during the protest over employment insurance reform. They
said to us: ``If it were at least equal, if everyone at least had to
contribute equally''. But it was during these same months, if you
recall, we saw the senators asleep on television. They are paid, just
as we are, but they were seen sleeping on television during the
throne speech.
If the claim is that their role is one of decorum, let them at least
perform this role, but even that is beyond them.
I therefore think it important that the government be given a very
clear message, that citizens from throughout Quebec and from
Canada, whatever their province or territory, tell their MP that they
think the senators have outlived their usefulness, that they are not
representative. We think that the Canada of today must look closely
at all government programs, as the President of the Treasury Board
was saying. And the first target should be the Senate, because its
budget, the direct expenditure budget-I am not talking about all
the incidental expenditures, for example, the expenses assumed by
the House of Commons, which in fact are incurred by the senators,
but the direct budget-is around $43 million.
(1605)
A figure of $43 million a year out of the overall budget does not
seem astronomical, but it means that our system can still afford
today to pay out expenses amounting to half a million dollars, per
riding, per senator, for a useless role.
The other function of a senator was to see to better laws. When
the Senate was created it was said that the members of the House of
Commons would need people with more education, who would be
able to put the finishing touch to pieces of legislation, to finalize
them. It might have been true 125 years ago. Today with the kind of
members we have, the research departments, the assistants,
legislative or otherwise, it is not necessary any more. We have
everything we need and, in this respect, the senator no longer has a
role.
Since nature abhors a vacuum, the Senate has developed a new
role for itself. It has become the representative of all organized
lobbies in Canada. In this sense, it is highly detrimental to
democracy.
It seems to me that the study of this year's estimates provides the
perfect opportunity to give a clear message to the government, to
give a clear message to Canadians, to give a clear message to
Quebecers, to the effect that yes, indeed, we are really going to deal
with useless expenditures, we are committed to tackling useless
symbols.
We could also talk about lieutenant governors in Canada. They
cost money. They cost eight million dollars a year. People see them
about twice a year.
It has been said that in our system, in our beautiful country as the
federalists call Canada, there are still many things that are
unacceptable. These are only two symbols, but the one I would like
to draw your attention to is the whole issue of the Senate.
I find it interesting that so many members want to speak to this
motion. All speakers of the official opposition will split their time
to make sure as many members as possible have the opportunity to
speak and convey the message they received from their
constituents. During the summer, a period we consider to be quiet,
we have seen people sign thousands of petitions asking for the
abolition of the Senate.
I have visited many corner stores and met people sharing my
political opinion and some with a different opinion, but they all
agreed on this point. Members of senior citizens' clubs, employees
in companies, representatives from chambers of commerce and
community workers all agreed that we should send a clear message
to the government saying that the Senate must be abolished.
In short, we have an institution which is outdated and too
expensive, which has an inflated opinion of its lobbying function
and which is a patronage haven. For all those reasons, it seems to
me we absolutely must oppose this specific item if the Senate's
expenditures are included in the government's overall
expenditures. It is like a first step, a first signal, but I think that
before long, when we reach the point where we have to deal with
the substance of this issue and vote on the motion I tabled asking
the government to abolish the Senate, then each member of the
House will have to see if his constituents think, and if he feels in his
heart and soul,
4358
that the Senate is an institution that must go on or if it is one we can
no longer afford, one that no longer contributes to democracy.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
would like to congratulate the hon. member for his spirited and
passionate speech pointing out the unnecessary spending the other
institution can entail.
I would also like the hon. member to talk about his private
member's bill to limit the amounts available to senators and to tell
us about the petitions he is receiving from people who want to
express their opposition to the Senate.
(1610)
Perhaps, at the same time, other colleagues may also want to
sign this petition, so that his bill can receive more support.
Increasingly, Canadians are wondering whether the Senate is really
an institution that has outlived its purpose or whether it ought to
undergo major reform.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments remind me
of something that was discussed a few years ago, namely an
equitable and equal Senate. One thing is for certain: today's Senate
is inequitable and unequal.
Inequitable because senators are appointed for partisan reasons
and do not have a mandate from the people. Unequal because
representation is totally inconsistent with the role originally
intended for the Senate. For these reasons, but especially because
of the unnecessary spending, because we saw some senators dozing
off on television, I think the Senate should be abolished. This may
sound like grandstanding but, as we know, in practice the Senate's
role is much more often to represent big business and the banks.
Who are the campaign chairs or co-chairs for the major parties?
Senator Hervieux-Payette, and Senator Nolin for the Tories. All the
old parties that have appointed senators are using them as political
organizers. This makes a mockery of democracy. This is something
we should get rid of. That is why there is popular movement to
abolish the Senate.
You may tell me that this will not eliminate Canada's deficit, but
people expect their members of Parliament to make symbolic
gestures to show we are willing to cut at all levels and not always
on the backs of the same people.
I expect the third hour of debate on my motion to abolish the
Senate to take place in October, probably in the second half. Until
then, I would like my campaign to pick up speed and to collect even
more signatures for my petition. I hope we can convince a majority
of members that most Canadians are clearly in favour of
abolishing the Senate in its present form.
We want the public to support us. I will table petitions signed by
thousands of people, as will the hon. members for Frontenac and
Champlain. Altogether, I think we have collected between 20,000
and 25,000 signatures so far. I think this clearly shows what the
people want.
In Quebec, people clearly told us that they want to get rid of this
institution; they feel that it is unnecessary, that it costs too much for
no good reason. They are tired of having to pay the salaries of
people without mandates, whom they are unable to get rid of until
they reach the age of 75. To add insult to injury, some of them are
even appointed Lieutenant Governor of Canada after having
slapped Quebec in the face.
This kind of situation is unacceptable and that is why we must
reject the government's estimates, especially the money allocated
to the Senate, because it is a blot on Canadian democracy.
Mr. Speaker, in my remarks, I mentioned that all members of the
Bloc Quebecois, including myself, will be sharing their time, each
of us therefore speaking for 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank my hon. colleague. As he
indicated, he is sharing his speaking time. Therefore, the hon.
member for Frontenac has the floor.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today to participate in this debate of
particular significance to several of my colleagues and to myself,
of course. And I will not even mention how pleased some of my
constituents from Frontenac will be when they read what I have to
say.
(1615)
Today's debate plunges us into what I would venture to describe
as parliamentary nonsense and political burlesque. I could go on
and on about how futile I find the role the Senate plays, or rather,
should be playing.
First, I would like to thank the many senators who are following
this debate, either from their offices or from the gallery, this
afternoon. In this regard, I would like to read you at this time, if I
may, a few lines from the March 1995 issue of the Reader's Digest
(French edition), on page 31, under the title ``Très chers sénateurs''
or ``Dear Senators''. I will just make a few remarks, particularly
regarding their salary.
``I think all Canadians should know how much it costs to keep
the Upper House here, in Ottawa. On top of a $64,000 sessional
allowance, a $30,000 research allowance, a $20,000 allowance for
office expenses, and a tax-free expense allowance of over $10,000,
senators receive benefits of a totally different nature''. I will spare
you the details.
Canadians should also know that senators must be very fit. Of
course, they are only allowed to sit until the age of 75 nowadays,
4359
whereas they used to sit for life. ``To keep in shape, to maintain
their physical condition, senators have at their disposal a gym
which is fully equipped, including climbing simulators, stationary
bicycles, bodybuilding equipment, free weights, and I could go on,
as well as an aerobics room, with instructors. Only one thing is
missing in these state-of-the-art facilities, the senators themselves.
One senator only is a regular at the gym: Colin Kenny from
Ontario''.
In 1991, the then auditor general, Kenneth Dye, dared to take a
look at the Upper House. Not to worry, Mr. Speaker, for to audit the
senators' expenses, the auditor general had to get the authorization,
not of the Prime Minister, but of the senators themselves. This is
incredible. Of course, after much negotiation I presume, he
obtained the authorization to audit the books.
In concluding, I also invite the Canadians who wish to know
more on the subject or to voice their opinion about it to call a
toll-free number that I will now give. Canadians who wish to call
the senators' office can dial 1-800-267-7362.
Before coming in, I made sure to get the list of Quebec senators.
There are 24 of them and, of those 24, there is one independent
senator, who was appointed by Mr. Mulroney and who represents
the Senate division of de La Salle. There is only one independent
senator on my list, Marcel Prud'homme, who, incidentally, closely
follows the proceedings of the House of Commons. There are, of
course, several other senators from the Liberal and Conservative
ranks.
This summer, when I went around asking my constituents to sign
the petition to abolish the Senate, I would often ask them to name a
few senators.
(1620)
To be sure, the senator who represents my riding is a total
stranger. I am referring to the Senate division of-you see, Mr.
Speaker, I am a member of Parliament and I have already
forgotten-oh yes, Kennebec and the senator is Guy Charbonneau,
who is from the Trois-Rivières area.
Seriously, I was not able to find anyone who could name more
than one senator. The best known senator this summer appeared to
be Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, since her name came up a few times in
the news.
So, as far as Quebecers and Canadians are concerned, senators
are total strangers. And this is costing us a fortune. The figure of
$43 million has been mentioned, but I think the real figure would
more likely be $65 million a year.
There are asbestos mines in my riding. France is about to ban
this product on its soil. The French decision has been known for
two and a half months already. Up till now, except for a few
diplomatic notes, the federal government has not spent a nickel to
defend some 2,000 jobs directly related to the mining industry. The
banning of asbestos by France will have a disastrous impact on my
area and on the Asbestos area.
If we can spend $65 million to maintain 101 jobs, almost for life,
for political friends, could we not find $2, $3 or $4 million to
promote the use of asbestos and to counter the French decision to
ban asbestos on its soil?
Several ministers of this government have travelled across the
great region of the Eastern Townships and the asbestos area, saying
that they would take that matter up with their colleague responsible
for international trade or with their colleague responsible for
natural resources. However, nothing has happened and yet the
French decision will get implemented in two or three months from
now, on January 1 next.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you, which means could we use to try
to make this government understand that it should help us abolish
the Senate? You are going to tell me that this would require
unanimous consent and that senators would have to accept their
demise. How could we do it?
I will give you the recipe. First, we should stop immediately
appointing new senators. One of them, Jean-Louis Roux, just
resigned. He headed for Quebec City with a slight raise. He now
has $94,000, a chauffeur and a nice limousine, and he can also
appear on the stage. That is what we call double dipping.
At least, there is a vacancy following the departure of the former
senator Jean-Louis Roux. Let us not appoint a new senator to
replace him. We would have at least one vacancy, which will save
us over $100,000, with all the expenses related to this job.
As soon as some of the senators reach 65 years of age-
An hon. member: Seventy-five.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Seventy-five years of age, yes,
thank you for reminding me, let us not appoint new ones.
At some point, there will be no senators left, although when we
reviewed the list earlier on, we realized that the government,
especially the current prime minister, has been generous. I noticed
that some senators have been appointed until 2023. Can you
imagine, until 2023. As you know, job security, even in the civil
service-as I look at the table clerks, is a thing of the past. It does
not exist any more. But we still appoint senators until 2023. That is
simple awful, as you will agree.
(1625)
An hon. member: Quebec will be sovereign before that.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): I hope that Quebec will indeed
become sovereign before that.
4360
I am telling you, in my riding, the best known senator is Thérèse
Lavoie-Roux, and the senator who has just resigned has also
become quite famous, Jean-Louis Roux. But of course he is not
responsible for the fame he has acquired, because it is our good
old Prime Minister who did not deign to consult, as is the tradition,
his counterpart in Quebec in order to arrive at an agreement on
an appointment.
I see here, for example, Marie-P. Poulin, who was appointed
until the year 2020. This is terrible.
Of course, while our fellow citizens have to tighten their belts,
while both spouses often have to work, while everybody in a
household has to work, in Quebec, an education-employer sectoral
round table was set up to ask employers not to work students too
hard, because it has a negative impact on their studies. In many
households, 14, 15 or 16-year olds must work to help their parents.
But here, in the House of Commons, we appoint senators who
profit from the system.
Only this week, I read about a poll done in Great Britain.
According to this poll, 52 per cent of the respondents said they
were in favour of the abolition of the monarchy; 52 per cent of
British respondents said that, while here, in Canada, we have a very
British system with a representative of the same Queen who is also
costing us a fortune. And all provinces, even the smallest ones,
must have a lieutenant governor who is the Queen's representative.
So do you not think that the time has come to put an end to this
scandalous waste of public funds? While we are unable to find, at
Treasury Board, $3 or $4 million to help save 2,000 jobs in the
asbestos mines, we will spend-and I do say spend-needlessly,
without getting anything in return, $65 million this year to sustain
the Senate. It is a shame. It is outrageous.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, of
course, I want to congratulate my colleague from Frontenac for his
speech and for giving his voters a chance to express themselves
through the petition which is being circulated in his riding.
I would like to ask him a double question. He talked about the
senators' involvement in regional issues. On the asbestos issue
particularly, the hon. member, like the people from the industry,
must have a lot of work to do, and, normally, there should be a
senator from the area to help them in their efforts.
During the three years he has been here, did the hon. member see
the senator for his area work on an issue of direct regional interest?
We do not see those people very often around here. Maybe things
are different in his riding. I would like to have his opinion on the
subject.
You know, we do not see the senators very often. Of course, there
are the two or three we regularly meet in the corridors, like Senator
Rivest and Senator Prud'homme. As for the others, we do not see
them very often.
The second part of my question is this: Since there is currently a
debate on the question in his riding, is it true that his voters think
that the Senate should be reformed? What do the people he talked
to about Senate reform think? I would also hear his views on that.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, my distinguished
colleague from Témiscamingue should know that the percentage of
success in these tests is very low. If I could, I would ask my
colleague from Témiscamingue to give me the name of his Senate
division and the name of his senator. I would be willing to bet $10
that he does not know.
(1630)
In response to his first question, I can tell the hon. member that
the senator who represents the division of Kennebec is Guy
Charbonneau, who, until recently, was Speaker of the Senate. If he
visited the riding of Frontenac, he did it very quietly since we never
heard about such a visit. I have never seen the name of our senator
mentioned in the newspapers, yet I read them from cover to cover.
Even worse, at a press conference held six months ago, I did the
test with reporters from the asbestos region and none of them could
name the senator who represents us. Yet they all knew the names of
the Speaker of the House of Commons and his three assistants.
That was good, at least.
The second question is this: Has the senator for our senatorial
designation ever tried to do anything about important issues in his
designation? To my knowledge, we have never had the slightest
assistance from our senator, never.
This afternoon, we were visited by a group of Belgian senators.
In Belgium, the senators are elected. In the United States, they are
as well.
When we were trying to bring about a major constitutional
reform, which was blocked by a few people-I can still remember
the feather-we wanted to have a Triple E Senate, which meant
equal, among other things. In Quebec we have 24 for a population
of seven million, whereas in Prince Edward Island they have three
for a population smaller than that of Sherbrooke; four MPs, four
senators, they are overrepresented or we are underrepresented. In
any event, looking at the results, there is no big difference. But, if
senators were elected, I would be in favour.
I remember very clearly a senator saying to me on the way out of
the parliamentary restaurant last spring: ``As far as I am concerned,
the day we are required to campaign to get elected is the day I quit
the Senate''. That might be a good way to weed out some of them,
and it would get results.
4361
My colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup was again
telling us just now in his speech about the television news clip
that showed four senators sleeping soundly. Is that not shocking?
I remember when television was introduced in the British
Parliament and the camera panned the House and showed one MP
with his eyes shut; he lost his seat.
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): You are right to laugh. He lost his
seat.
I understand that it is not funny for Senator Prud'Homme, who, I
agree, is an excellent senator. It is sad for him, but a number of our
constituents remind us, and rightly so, of the news program where
they saw senators sleeping. There is no more than one throne
speech every two years. He could have gone to bed a bit earlier the
night before-
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): -because he had to work the next
day.
Now, we wanted a triple E Senate. Efficient, not asleep on the
job. When I used to hire people to work on our farm, if I had found
the guy I was paying to clear stones asleep on the job, he would not
have worked for long.
Thank you for your kind attention, and long live a triple E
Senate, maybe.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time is well and truly
up.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster.
I am pleased to initiate the first motion to amend the main
estimates. My motion, seconded by the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, will amend vote 1. It proposes that
vote 1, in the amount of $40,713,000 under Parliament-Payments
to the Senate, program expenditures in the 1996-97 main estimates,
be reduced by $10 million.
(1635 )
I would like to give some background to that motion. It goes
back to the government operations committee. Last March I moved
a motion in committee that we invite the Senate to come before the
committee to examine the estimates of the Senate. We debated that
motion and the vote was relatively close. The Bloc and the Reform
voted in favour and the Liberals were split. However, it went
through committee.
In order to send a letter to the Senate there has to be unanimous
consent of this House, which we got. The letter went to the the
Senate inviting it to come before the government operations
committee to basically go over the estimates for the $40 million for
the Senate. This was not an untoward request. Any business,
household, this House or any other institution has to justify how
they are going to spend money. All we were asking was for the
Senate to come forward and justify how it was going to spend the
$40 million.
However, the senators ignored that request. Subsequently I sent a
letter to Senator Kenny, the head of the Senate finance committee,
which was also ignored. We asked for a conference between this
House and the Senate to discuss these issues. That was ignored. We
simply have heard nothing.
My point is that if the senators refuse to come before the
committee to justify their expenses, there has to be a reason. What
is the reason? The reason could be that they figure they are way
over there and that they should not have to justify their expenses, or
perhaps they do not want people looking into the estimates because
there are areas that they do not want to or cannot explain. I would
suggest that could well be the case.
In 1991 the auditor general looked into the accounting process
within the Senate. Unfortunately it was a bit of a horror show. This
request, which originated from Reform, also has the backing of the
auditor general's accounting into the Senate. In 1991 he basically
found that it is an inefficient and poorly managed institution. There
has been plenty of time, five years, for the Senate to address the
concerns of the auditor general and to come before the Canadian
public. It was an excellent opportunity to come before the
committee and say: ``Okay. We are open and above board. The
auditor general said there were some major concerns, but we are
quite willing to come before the Canadian public and justify our
expenses''. That did not happen.
I would like to go through some of the points because they are
significant in that some areas, including travel and how the
accounts are processed, really leave a lot of room for concern for
the Canadian public. I will go through a number of these points but
I will not belabour them.
These are from the auditor general's report: ``The Financial
Administration Act does not apply to the Senate. Therefore the
usual accountability mechanisms simply do not apply''. Another
point: ``The Senate has neither formally nor informally delegated
clear responsibility to management, nor has it made it clear what it
will hold management accountable for''. Basically, it is a very
loose relationship within the Senate management team. Again:
``The Senate does not adequately report on its administrative,
financial or human resource management performance and does
not possess significant information to enable it to do so
systematically''. Again, it is a very loose system of managing the
support staff within the Senate.
4362
(1640)
The public reporting provided by individual committees does not
reflect all expenditures and does not provide detailed information
on expenditures, so we have a number of committees basically out
on the loose. Their expenditures are not recorded correctly. This is
simply not the way to run a business.
If that is the way things were going in this House, we would
clean up our act. However, because it is the Senate, apparently it
can do whatever it likes. That is the appearance and that is what has
Canadians' backs up. They feel that group refuses to be
accountable for its actions and refuses to come forward and have its
books audited.
To continue with the auditor general's points, basic facts about
Senate administration such as organizational structure, operational
goals, plans and performance are not published. Amounts reported
in the public accounts are incomplete and do not give sufficient
information to determine whether the expenses incurred were for
``the service of the Senate as required by the Parliament of Canada
Act''.
Senators are incurring expenses and those expenses cannot be
back traced to show that they are related to Senate business. It is
really getting to the point of being bizarre. Surely there must be
some points. We have the Parliament of Canada Act, yet the
senators refuse to abide by it.
I could go on and on. Anybody can pick up the 1991 auditor
general's report on the Senate. Auditor General Kenneth Dye went
into great detail on some of the areas that need to be tightened up.
The auditor general's report is long and scathing and it notes
many areas of possible abuse. That is the point and that is the
reason I moved the motion in committee to have the Senate come
before our committee.
We have a Liberal government across the way. Before the last
election the Liberals took the position: ``Elected representatives
must be permitted more influence on decisions regarding
expenditure priorities. This will require their meaningful
involvement in the process before government's actual spending
estimates are formally prepared''. I would like to ask members
across the way how much input they had on the estimates going to
the Senate. I would venture to say that it was very little, which is
unfortunate.
Talk of Senate reform has gone on for years. My colleagues from
the Bloc are advocating abolition of the Senate. My Reform
colleagues do not advocate abolition; we feel the Senate has to be
reformed. It is an institution that can work and can work very well.
However, it cannot work in its present form.
In 1991 the current Prime Minister told the House of Commons:
``Reform of the Senate is extremely important. I believe in it.
There is nothing sacrosanct about the present division of powers.
We must look for a division of powers that best serves the interests
of all the people, all the Canadian people''. This is from our current
Prime Minister. If this quote is accurate, I would expect that
Liberals across the way and Reformers would all want to have a
Senate that works, that is not a patronage haven for the old boys
and the old girls, but an institution that works.
I will return to the American and the Australian examples
because their Senates work. In each case, oddball goofy legislation
does not go through the lower house because they know it will
never go through the upper house. Those are Senates that work.
Unfortunately some of that legislation goes through this House and
lands on a Senate that is ineffective and inactive.
(1645 )
I would like to sum up with the issue of accountability. We have
a vote this evening on the estimates of the Senate. I challenge
members on the government side. They do not know what they are
voting for in the estimates for the Senate. They cannot because
other than lump sums, the Senate committees have failed to come
before us to justify exactly what the expenditures are.
Are government members going to vote as they are told or are
they going to question these estimates? If they are going to
question them, why are they not putting more pressure on the
senators to come before the government operations committee to
bring forward their reasons why some of the travel budgets, some
of the staffing and some of the accounting procedures are so out of
whack?
I sum up with the analogy of the dinosaur and where I see the
Senate right now. A group of dinosaurs are sitting on the edge of
the swamp. They can either carry on there and in a hundred million
years we will find them as a lump of coal, or they can turn around
and back up. Others will say the dinosaurs are gone anyway.
The point is that the Senate has an opportunity right now to come
into the 20th and 21st centuries and not become dinosaurs but
become part of an institution that really works, an institution that
this country is crying for. We need the two Houses to work well
together and right now they are not. Right now we have a lower
House that moves through the legislation and the upper House that
is just rubber stamping it.
My last point is that we must have accountability. The Senate has
refused to be accountable. My motion to reduce the estimates by
$10 million stands and I move that motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to ask a question of my colleague from the third party. The hon.
4363
member mentioned that the senators have refused to come before
the committee to account for the funds they received.
I have two questions for him. First does he believe that the
Senate could justify what it receives considering its present
political relevance? Secondly, since my colleague compared
senators to dinosaurs, ma question is the following: If a majority of
Canadians were in favour of the abolition of the Senate since
dinosaurs have disappeared, should the Senate be abolished to
make way for a new political vision? Otherwise, what would be the
solution?
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
questions. If I understood the question on relevance correctly I
believe it is relevant to have the senators come before the
committee. What is quite relevant is the fact that the Senate is
being handed a blank cheque for $40 million of Canadian
taxpayers' money. There has to be accountability and that is the
whole reason for the motion.
On the second point the difference between the views of the Bloc
and Reform of the Senate is whether the Senate should be
abolished, as the Bloc is basically moving toward, and the Reform
view that it needs to be brought into the 20th and 21st century as a
triple E Senate.
I used the analogy of the dinosaurs. If the senators keep going
the way they are going with no reforms they will join the dinosaurs.
If members wandered into the Senate these days they might think
they are mired in a swamp a hundred million years ago.
I hope I have answered my colleague's questions and if there are
any more I would be delighted to answer them.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am in great sympathy with the motion from my
colleague from the third party.
(1650 )
I point out to the House that what is at issue is not just
accountability, which is key to the issue, but also that the Senate
would like the country to believe it is a house equal in authority to
the House of Commons.
The reality is that there is only one highest authority in this land
and that is this House of Commons which is responsible to every
aspect of the land. It is the ultimate chamber of accountability. The
Senate must be subject to that because it is not elected as are we in
the House of Commons.
I strongly endorse the motion put forward by the member for the
third party, even though he is a political opponent. He is right. He is
on the right track. Accountability from the Senate will make a
responsible Senate and the Senate can therefore contribute
materially to this nation in a very responsible way.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege of speaking to my
colleague's motion to reduce the estimates of the Senate by some
$10 million.
The member for Comox-Alberni spoke very eloquently
regarding the Senate. He gave us a lot of facts and he also told
about the unaccountability of the Senate. I too will touch on the
unaccountability but I want to talk a little about some principles
and some attitudes as well as accountability with regard to this
matter.
First of all, whose money are we talking about? If we look at the
estimates, it says $40.700-some for the Senate. Someone might say
that this is the Senate's money. It is not the Senate's money. It is
Canadians' money because these are taxpayers' dollars. Some of
that money is yours and mine and the other 29 million Canadians
who support the Senate through their tax contributions.
We are talking about reducing spending by the Senate by $10
million in this motion. That $10 million is not the Senate's dollars.
We are not taking $10 million from the Senate. What we are doing
is talking about how we are going to spend $10 million of
taxpayers' money.
In Kindersley-Lloydminster, if someone is speaking to a group
or to an individual and wants to draw a laugh, start talking about
the Senate. That is the esteem in which the Senate is held by
average Canadians. We are spending $40 million for something
about which Canadians do not think very highly. The attitude of
Canadians is that the Senate, in the form in which it now exists, is
not a very good investment.
I can guarantee that if someone surveyed Canadians from one
end of this country to another and if they had any criticism of this
motion, they would say that they are not reducing the Senate's
spending by enough. Ten million dollars is pretty modest. After all,
that is our money and we think it could be put to better use.
I think of my own riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster. How
could that money be used in Kindersley-Lloydminster? Because
of health care funding cuts, hospital have been closed in the
Kindersley-Lloydminster constituency. It means that while there
are still some good health care facilities available, some people
might not get there on time. Lives may actually be lost because of
the health care cuts experienced in Kindersley-Lloydminster.
I also have a stretch of the Yellowhead highway that goes
through my constituency near Lloydminster and also near
Saskatoon. A lot of that highway is still two-way traffic. It is one of
the major transportation arteries across this country. Funding in
part to upgrade that highway is a federal responsibility. There has
been talk and commitments of upgrading the Yellowhead highway.
I know the constituents in the Lloydminster area would much
rather see this $10 million go into highway construction on the
Yellowhead than see an unaccountable Senate spending those
dollars on what we know not.
4364
The concern of Canadians is why would they fund something for
which they have no respect? Our concern should be then, what do
we do about it? Immediately, what we can do is reduce their
funding. There are some longer term things that need to be done.
My colleague from Comox-Alberni has touched on that.
Certainly he has tried to initiate some accountability from the
Senate and I appreciate his endeavour. He requested the Senate to
appear before this House and account for how those dollars are
spent. It was not a very threatening request. It was fairly civil and
fairly reasonable, in fact very reasonable and very important. It was
an opportunity for the Senate to justify the way it has been
spending tax dollars but it ignored his request. That tells us a bit
about the attitude of the Senate itself. Canadians' attitude may not
be good toward the Senate but it is reciprocated by the Senate,
which has a very low opinion of Canadians and of its role in
accounting for the money that it spends.
(1655)
There is a difference between this House and the other place. In
this House we are held accountable. We can hold one another
accountable in debates and so on and how we vote on legislation,
but there is that accountability that comes at election time.
One of our colleagues actually wrote a letter to the Saskatoon
Star-Phoenix which is published in today's edition and it is
absolutely wrong. This member for Saskatoon-Humboldt said:
``In June I spoke in the House of Commons in opposition to a
Reform Party motion aimed at the destruction of the Canadian
Wheat Board''. People who read Hansard could look there and they
would not find one word by one Reformer who ever called or
indicated any aim of ours to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.
We talked about reforms to the board, improving the board and the
long term viability of the board but in no case did we ever talk
about the destruction of the board. In fact we said that is not what
we want to accomplish.
The member for Saskatoon-Humboldt can be held accountable.
We can talk to her constituents and they have an opportunity at the
next election not to vote for her if she was wrong on this issue,
which she was, and in other areas in which she may be wrong.
That is not the case with senators. They are not accountable.
They are patronage appointments. Once they have that seat in the
other place they are pretty comfortable. They can pretty well do
whatever they want. They can make statements that are rather
ridiculous like the statement made by the member for
Saskatoon-Humboldt and nobody can challenge them. Canadians
have no way to hold them accountable. They do not have to be
answerable for their actions, for their words and for their deeds.
Everyone in this House would agree that is not a very healthy
situation. We need to bring more accountability to the Senate.
Perhaps if we vote them $10 million less of Canadian taxpayers'
dollars to spend it will wake them up. Some of my Bloc colleagues
have been talking about them sleeping. Sometimes when you take
some money out of your back pocket it wakes you up if you are
sleeping and that is what this motion intends to do.
We have on record Liberal promises to the effect that the Liberal
Party, if it was in government, would reform the Senate. There are
more broken promises. We have a promise from the Prime Minister
that he is committed to an elected Senate. He has not kept that
promise which is one of many that the Liberals have broken. We
wonder how much longer Canadians will let the Liberals get away
with making promises that they have absolutely no intention of
fulfilling.
We do not even need a constitutional change to invite the
provinces to elect senators. We have already had one elected
Senator in this place, Senator Stan Waters, who has since passed
away. He was elected by the people of Alberta and the then prime
minister appointed an elected person to the Senate. It seems funny
to appoint an elected person, but because of our Constitution that is
the only way it can be done. A long term project would be to fix
that process.
As the House knows, I am a committed supporter of the triple E
concept. I want to see an elected, an effective and an equal Senate.
It is certainly very important to the people of Saskatchewan. For
the Liberals, as I said, who promised an elected Senate we just have
to look at the record. Since they took office in the fall of 1993 they
have appointed 18 Senators and most of them for a very partisan
activity.
It is very interesting for me because I am the agriculture critic
that one of the senators is Eugene Whelan who has a long history of
being involved in agriculture. He was appointed on August 9. It
would be great to have someone who is a voice for agriculture in
the Senate if they were accountable. If farmers could say: ``We
want you to vote this way and if you don't, we don't want you in the
Senate any more''. Of course Mr. Whelan is in there until he is 75
years of age. The farmers have no way of removing Mr. Whelan
from the Senate should he not represent their interests in the
Senate.
Mr. Whelan is from Ontario and so he should be representing the
interests of Ontario farmers; the corn producers, soybean producers
and the milk producers. However, Mr. Whelan can just support the
Liberal agenda no matter whether it is good for the farmers of
Ontario or not. That is extremely unfortunate. I do really think that
when one makes a promise it is extremely important to keep it.
4365
(1700 )
We talked about the attitude of Canadians toward the Senate.
Canadians have an attitude toward us in this place as well. We had
better be on our toes and perform for Canadians, or the attitude or
esteem they hold us in may not be much better than the attitude or
esteem they have for the Senate. The one way to build up people's
confidence and trust is to keep one's promises.
In the red book the Liberals criticized the Conservative practice
of choosing political friends when making thousands of
appointments to boards, commissions and agencies that cabinet is
required by law to carry out. They also campaigned on integrity in
government, patronage appointments and lack of accountability in
the Senate. They have clearly broken these promises.
I quote from the Prime Minister. In October 1990 in the province
of Alberta, out west where there is real call for Senate reform, he
spoke to the federal Liberal Party and said that in two years the
Liberal government would make it elected. Obviously the Liberals
were in opposition then so we have to understand that he meant two
years after the Liberals formed the government. I think that is fair
to say.
Let us look at when the Liberals formed the government. It was
in October 1993. A little simple math tells us that two years later
would be October 1995, which is almost one year ago, and this
promise has not been kept. There is not even the slightest
indication in the throne speech that the Prime Minister intended to
keep his promise. There have been no words from members on the
other side that the Liberals intended to keep this promise. What are
we to conclude but that he never meant it. It is another broken
promise.
In 1991 the Prime Minister changed a bit. He said that he would
propose a 2E and a 1R Senate: elected, effective and representative
of the regions. This is not what we called for but it is an
improvement. We would look for the Liberals to do what they
usually do, and that is a half-baked job. They have not even done
that.
It is time to conclude my presentation. I certainly support the
motion to reduce spending in the Senate by a mere $10 million. I
could have supported more. To wake senators up perhaps we need
to make them a bit hungry. If they were a bit hungry they would not
be going to sleep over there. In fact they might be a little more
interested in reforming themselves. They might be a little more
interested in coming over here and accounting for tax dollars they
are spending, which would make Canadians feel a whole lot better.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think we should set the record straight. In 1992 the Reform Party
had an opportunity to support major Senate change in the
Charlottetown accord. Of course the Reform Party campaigned
against it. So much for the Reform Party's credibility on that issue.
On the motion brought forward by the hon. member, our friends
opposite are mixing two issues. One is the issue of Senate
accountability and the other is the issue of the future of the Senate.
I do not think there is anyone in the House of Commons who does
not want major change when it comes to the Senate. I certainly
want major change. I am not even too sure whether we should have
a bicameral legislature.
The other issue-and the member should not be mixing the
two-is the issue of accountability. I would be much more
impressed if the hon. member, a number of months ago, had simply
walked down the halls of Parliament to the Senate, presented
himself to the Senate's finance committee, and demanded a change
in the way the Senate accounts to Parliament and to the Canadian
people. When he did what he did in trying to force the Senate's
hand through the committee on government operations, it looked
like grandstanding. It looked like he was trying to put on a show.
For all intents and purposes the other place is autonomous and
separate from this Chamber. If we want greater accountability from
the other place, which is what I want, we have to follow proper
procedures. This motion and what the hon. member tried to do in
the last few months only get the senators' hackles up. If we want to
do this properly and with credibility, we go to the Senate and force
it to hold a hearing to deal with this question. We should not do it
the way the hon. member has tried to do it. It simply does not have
credibility and will not work. It has been shown that in the last few
months his attempts have fallen flat. He got absolutely nowhere
with senators because they have their pride whether or not it is
wrongly placed. Those are my comments.
(1705)
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg
St. James for his comments. My colleague followed the proper
procedure. He was not grandstanding, which is proven by the fact
that the House gave unanimous consent. Members of the Liberal
party supported what he was trying to do. Unanimous consent is the
consent of the NDP, Bloc, Liberal and Reform. All agreed that the
Senate should be held more accountable. The member for
Comox-Alberni met in a very respectable way with Senator
Kenney to request that type of co-operation, and they thumbed their
noses at a very responsible approach.
The member mentioned the Charlottetown accord and said that
Reform refused its opportunity to support Senate reform. He must
have a very short memory. He probably does not recall some of the
changes called for in the Charlottetown accord regarding the
Senate. It was actually kind of a racist approach to Senate reform.
If I remember correctly, Senate seats were based on heritage,
ethnic origin. There had to be so many francophone senators and
4366
the majority of them had to vote for legislation that affected
language and culture. Talk about pulling scabs off wounds inflicted
hundreds of years ago.
Anyone who supported the Charlottetown accord and the type of
Senate reform that it was calling for would have done a terrible
disservice to Canada. Canadians supported Reform's opposition to
the Charlottetown accord by voting against it and by voting against
the judgment of the Liberals and Conservatives who tried to
impose this terrible piece of legislation on Canadians.
I applaud Canadians. I am very disappointed in the member for
suggesting that anyone should stoop to supporting to Charlottetown
accord.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke opened his speech by
stating the reason he was making his points was that the federal
government had responsibility for reconstructing a road in his
constituency. Could the hon. member give the House a yes or no
reply to the question whether he is agreement with the Reform
party's budget published last year, which said the federal
government should get out of the business of road construction and
turn it over to the private sector so that the general public could pay
for the road through tollgates?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not pay
very much attention to what Reformers have been saying about
roads. If he had done so, he would realize why we did so very well
in the Labrador byelection when we talked about a road that needed
to be built in that part of Canada for which the Liberals had
absolutely no regard and almost lost the byelection over. Reform
had zero votes in 1993 and almost won the byelection in 1995.
I take some solace in the fact that Reform listens to Canadians
and knows where they want to spend dollars. Reform does not
support spending where the federal government does not belong.
We stand by our budget. We stand by spending money for federal
infrastructure where the federal government is required to play a
role.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to speak to members of the House today on the subject
of full supply of the estimates for fiscal year 1996-97. This year the
main estimates total $157 billion, a reduction of $7.2 billion
compared to the 1995-96 main estimates.
Of the $157 billion, $111.7 billion or 71 per cent represents
statutory payments authorized by Parliament in previous years. The
government is seeking approval to spend the remaining $45.3
billion for programs that rely on annual appropriations.
To improve the information available to parliamentarians on the
main estimates and their relationships to the budget, this year the
government introduced a new document entitled ``Program
Expenditure Detail: A Profile of Departmental Spending''. This
new document, while not formally constituting part of the
estimates, combines federal program spending details previously
presented in both part I of the estimates and the budget. Presenting
spending information on a basis consistent with the expenditure
plan contained in the budget provides parliamentarians with a
bridge between the budget document and other estimate
documents.
(1710)
The government has maintained its resolve to reduce program
spending. In 1996-97 program spending including public debt
charges is $109 billion or $5.4 billion less than the 1995-96 main
estimates. This is an important achievement. It demonstrates that
the government's program review continues to have a significant
impact on the level of program expenditure requirements.
If we examine the composition of spending, it is evident that
most sectors of government show a decrease in planned program
spending compared to the 1995-96 levels. In the estimates we
categorize program spending in 10 sectors. Expenditures on social
programs represent the largest component of program spending at
46 per cent.
Social sector major transfers to persons which include veterans
pensions and allowances, unemployment insurance and elderly
benefits constitute 34 per cent of this amount. The remaining 12
per cent is allocated to social programs directed primarily at
employment, health and housing initiatives, programs that benefit
aboriginal peoples, and immigration and citizenship programs.
Direct program expenditures for 1996-97 in the social sector are
$13.2 billion or 2.4 per cent less than in 1995-96. Reductions in
direct program expenditures in the social area have been facilitated
by clarification of core mandates of the social program
departments, a key element of the program review process.
I will provide the House with a few examples of adjustments
departments in the social sector are making to serve Canadians
better with declining resources.
Health Canada is achieving spending reductions by maximizing
efficiencies, refocusing its programs and implementing cost
recovery initiatives, more specifically to shift the burden of paying
for some services away from the general taxpayer to industry
clients that benefit most directly from them. These were introduced
for some health protection services.
In addition, efficiency measures are being undertaken by
consolidating food inspection services in Health Canada with those
of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans into a single food agency.
4367
Another department in the social sector implementing
innovative approaches while reducing program spending is Human
Resource Development Canada. HRDC's program spending will
decrease by $419 million in 1996-97. Yet HRDC will continue to
develop further its services orientation with an increased emphasis
on responding to the needs of specific communities and on
management by results.
To illustrate this, over the next years a new service delivery
network will combine offices, kiosks, electronic online services
and community partnerships to integrate the department's services
and improve access for our clients. Programs and services will
reflect local priorities and offer more points of service through the
application of new technologies.
The heritage and cultural program sector is important to all of us.
It supports the growth and development of Canadian culture and
life, the nation's linguistic duality, its diverse multicultural
heritage, and the preservation of parks and historic sites.
Expenditures in this sector amount to $2.5 billion in 1996-97 or
approximately 5 per cent of the total direct program spending.
(1715)
The main estimates in this sector have also decreased. For
example, planned spending for the Department of Canadian
Heritage in 1996-97 will decline by 4.4 per cent relative to the
1995-96 level.
Many are aware of the significant changes which are occurring
in the natural resource based program sector. This sector, which
accounts for 5 per cent of direct program spending, supports
sustainable development to maximize economic benefits while
protecting and enhancing the quality of our environment.
For example, in agricultural programs we are moving in
partnership with the provinces from commodity based agricultural
subsidies to a whole farm safety net focusing on income
stabilization rather than income support.
Costs are also being reduced in the natural resource based
programs by addressing overlap and duplication. Consolidation of
activities, such as the merging of the Canadian coast guard fleet
with that of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans delivers
services more efficiently to clients.
In the industrial, regional and scientific technological sector
program orientation has been altered significantly. Our objective in
this sector is to foster economic growth and job creation through
measures that stimulate private sector investment across Canada,
encourage regional development and promote and a stronger
science and technology capability in Canada. Program
expenditures of $3.6 billion will shift from direct business
subsidies to more active business support measures. The focus of
federal regional agencies will be on community based economic
development and improving access by small and medium sized
enterprises to commercial financing. Any remaining direct
contribution programs will be fully repayable.
As a result of the major restructuring initiatives which are under
way in the transportation sector, transportation programs will
spend $400 million less in 1996-97 than in 1995-96. Program
expenditures of $1.9 billion will be redirected from operating and
subsidizing specific elements of the transportation infrastructure to
focusing on policy development and ensuring standards for safety
and security. Furthermore, commercialization of many services is
being implemented to increase effectiveness in the transportation
sector and to enhance responsiveness to local needs.
The general government services sector includes departments
and agencies which provide central services in support of
operations of government. It also includes, under the department of
finance, transfer payments to the provinces and territories which
are paid pursuant to the federal-provincial transfer payment
program.
Although transfer payments are not part of the direct program
expenditures which have been the focus of my remarks, these
transfer payments to other levels of government like social sector
transfer payments to persons described earlier, are part of the total
program spending.
Major transfers to all levels of government include the Canada
health and social transfers, transfers to territorial governments,
fiscal equalization payments and other major transfers such as
statutory subsidies and grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities. In
1996-97, major transfers to other levels of government will total
approximately $29.1 billion.
To return to direct program expenditures, the government
services sector has rethought how it delivers services in order to
increase efficiency and cost effectiveness. For example, the
Department of Public Works and Government Services contains
three special operation agencies: the Canada Communication
Group, Consulting and Audit Canada and the Translation Bureau,
which are financed on a revenue dependent basis. The net spending
of the Department of Public Works and Government Services will
decrease by $98 million in 1996-97 as the department continues to
explore ways to streamline operations and reduce costs.
(1720)
I would like to conclude my remarks in support of a full supply
by noting that the government will continue to use innovative
approaches, new technologies and organizational reforms because
of the positive results it is achieving in all sectors. The government
is improving efficiency, reducing costs and making programs more
responsive to the needs of Canadians.
4368
I trust that members will support our request for full supply in
the 1996-97 main estimates. We are on the right track of fiscal
responsibility combined with a better program and service
delivery for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech by the hon. member for
Bruce-Grey, but I think he did not spend enough time on a
number of important aspects of votes, which are basically
unnecessary expenditures.
Last week we read in the newspapers about the pay system at the
Department of National Defence, which is after all pretty
fundamental and basic and which should work properly. It seems
that some $40 million were wasted because of a lack of
modernization in a department that has certainly not lacked for
funding during the past 20 years. It has always received enough
money, in generous and significant amounts. During the last few
years there were cutbacks and bases were closed in the regions, but
as far as the bureaucracy is concerned, are we not seeing a situation
where, when we look at the votes, there is a tendency to slowly but
surely starve the regional branches of a department, while those at
the decision-making level, in the bureaucracy, at the deputy
minister level whom we see around here in Ottawa, have been able
to survive quite easily?
I have another question for the hon. member regarding the
Senate votes. Does it seem reasonable and normal to you that a
non-elected House, after the Standing Committee on Government
Operations, whose meetings you attend regularly, adopted a
resolution, should say: ``Sorry, we will not come and defend our
budget, we do not have to, we are above that sort of thing''? Does
this position on the part of the senators seem normal to you?
Excuse me, I ask this question through you, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can comment on the
other place, but at the outset let me make this point clear. The
government intends to make its operations very efficient and
effective. It intends to be a leaner organization. When we get
interventions from members of the opposition or the auditor
general we will try to do the best we can to make the system better.
Earlier an hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois asked a similar
question of my minister. He responded to the first part with regard
to the department when he said that information will be
forthcoming.
Treasury Board was established to review spending of
departments and agencies in accordance with the Financial
Administration Act. In the case of the institutions of Parliament
such as the House of Commons and the Senate, Treasury Board
does not perform a review of spending plans but agrees to table
before the House for consideration their main estimates and
supplementary estimates. It is a customary courtesy that we
perform.
Questions regarding the detailed spending plans of the Senate
which are approved annually by Parliament should be referred to
the chair of the Senate committee on the internal economy.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for his
excellent speech and the excellent job he is doing as parliamentary
secretary to the minister.
(1725 )
I would like to ask him, in his position as parliamentary
secretary, whether he is happy with the performance of the
Government of Canada as now being the leader in the world in
economic development and its prospects for the future. Is the hon.
member happy to be a parliamentary secretary in a government that
now leads Japan, the United States, England, Germany, France and
all the other countries?
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Gander for
his excellent intervention. He is one of those gentleman who I have
admired since being here.
One is never satisfied with what is happening. We are always
trying to do better. If we are a team and want to be number one
most of the time, we always have to watch our backs because
number two is coming up.
This House and all its members, not only on the government side
but on the opposition side, by working together for Canadians who
have such great resources both in human and in natural resources,
once we focus on what we do as a country and a government, once
we look after our young people, our young pages here, our people
who will come up with the ideas, once we stop the infighting and
once we have opportunity for everybody within our communities,
we will continue to be the best country in the world. I thank my
friend from Gander for asking that question.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
member for the riding of Saint-Hubert and on behalf of my
colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to say that we are
opposed to the motion by the President of Treasury Board on Vote
1, in the amount of $40,713,000 under the heading
Parliament-Senate being concurred in.
The Bloc has always maintained its opposition to the very
existence of the upper House. We believe that it is not only an
anachronism but useless. It is particularly outrageous in this day
and age to ask taxpayers to sink millions in such an institution,
when the economy is on the verge of collapse, unemployment is
dangerously high, and services to the public are being drastically
reduced.
4369
In a time of budgetary restraint, when Canada's total debt is
over $500 billion, and when the government is constantly asking
people to tighten their belt, it is unacceptable to give 104 senators
a $40 million budget.
Over and above a $64,000 annual salary, a $30,000 research
allowance, a further $20,000 for their office expenses, and a tax
free expense allowance of more than $10,000, senators enjoy other
benefits very difficult to justify.
The main duty of the Senate is to study bills coming from the
House of Commons and pass them. The role of the Senate
duplicates that of House, nothing more, nothing less. Sir John A.
Macdonald, when defining the role of the second House, called it a
``House of reflection''. I must admit that in times of budget cuts, I
find that reflection to be very expensive.
Former senator Chaput-Rolland once said that this other House
was simply a large dormitory. Please do not misunderstand me; I
have nothing against the senators. It is the institution itself we must
question. As far as we are concerned, this institution is nothing but
a club of venerable old partisans whose only purpose is to reward
friends of the party in power.
When we read the Confederation debates, we see that the Fathers
of Confederation thought the other House was very important. Both
Macdonald and Cartier wanted it to be a forum for reflection that
would curtail what they called ``the excesses of democracy''. It is
logical, a Senate which is not elected but appointed does not have
to abide by the principles of democracy. On one of the walls in the
upper House, we can see Cicero's maxim which states: ``The role
of nobility is to counter the instability of the people.''
(1730)
Therefore, members of the other House are supposed to control
the elected members of Parliament. In fact, the very existence of
the Senate is a remnant of elitism which, in a way, runs counter to
legitimate democracy.
Since members of that House are appointed by the Prime
Minister, it would be absurd to think they would add a reasonable
and moderating influence to any legislation proposed by the House
of Commons, without any kind of partisanship.
Seats in the Upper House have always been filled by friends of
the party in power. It is a well-known fact, senators are chosen for
their political allegiance and their long record of service.
When former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau was in
office, 81 senators were appointed, 71 of whom were of Liberal
persuasion. When former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was in
office, he appointed 42 senators, 41 of whom were Conservatives.
Since September 15, 1994, the current Prime Minister has
appointed 17 senators, of course all good Liberal supporters.
Consequently, the institution is in no way representative of
Quebec and Canadian people. Members of that House are at the
most representatives of the prime minister who appoints them.
Even though the Upper House has impressive powers and the
institution is protected in some way by the Constitution of Canada,
it does not play a very significant role in the federal regime as we
know it today.
As everyone knows, the Upper House of Parliament was created
by the 1867 Constitution Act to defend regional interests in the
country and to contribute to political stability by acting as a
counterbalance to the House of Commons. However, it was
realized very quickly that this mandate was incompatible with the
objectives of a centralizing government. In fact, very early in our
history, it became obvious that the provinces themselves were
promoting their own interests.
Even Senator Peter Bosa said in an article that was published in
the Canadian Parliamentary Review in 1982 that the Upper House
did not really represent the regions. He said, and I quote: ``The
belief that the Senate does not really represent the regions is, I
think, justified''.
While the bicameral system still prevails at the federal level, all
the provinces where this type of institution existed have considered
it wise to simply abolish it. That was the case of the province of
Quebec, which abolished the legislative council in 1968. Quebec is
no worse off since abolishing this institution.
Countries such as New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and
Spain, to name but a few, have a political system based on a single
representative assembly, not two as in the case of Canada.
I realize that a constitutional amendment is required to abolish
the Upper House. More specifically, under section 41 of the 1982
Constitution Act, such a change requires not only the unanimous
approval of the House of Commons and of the provincial
legislatures, but also the approval of the Upper House itself.
Moreover, the current constitutional status quo plays in favour of
maintaining this institution, even though polls show that the public
supports its abolition.
According to a Gallup poll conducted in 1993, 54 per cent of
Canadians are in favour of abolishing the Senate. In Quebec, the
results are more conclusive since 68 per cent of Quebecers support
such a measure. Quebecers and Canadians are very clear on this
issue.
For the Bloc, which not only promotes the interests of Quebec
but also the democratic values of Canadians, the contradiction
between the arm's length relationship expected of a House of sober
second thought and the partisanship actually displayed by that
House is reason enough to oppose any funds that may be allocated
to that institution.
4370
(1735)
Moreover, since the Upper House does not have to be
accountable for its financial management, what are Canadians to
do to get a clear idea of how the public funds allocated to the other
place have been used? Quebec and Canadian taxpayers are entitled
to know how public funds are used. After all, taxpayers are those
providing the money allocated to that House.
Yet, we had to wait up till 1991 before a historical first audit of
the administration of the other House was ever made. The Auditor
General of Canada thus tabled a report in which we found that the
Financial Administration Act and the accountability mechanisms
do not apply to the other House. So, how can Quebec and Canadian
taxpayers be satisfied that the expenditures of that Parliamentary
institution are managed efficiently?
If my memory serves me well, my colleague for Terrebonne told
us recently in the House of Commons about a senator who allowed
himself the luxury of having his office renovated in order to get a
better view, and this for a mere $100,000. In any case, the auditor
general put forward in his report 27 recommendations to deal with
the flaws in the administrative management of the other place.
However, since the release of that report in March 1991, strangely
enough, the Upper House has not been subjected to further audits.
In my opinion, it is high time this government understood that
sound management of public administration must begin with a
careful and above all efficient use of taxpayers' money.
Since the Upper House does not contribute at all to the working
of our modern democracy, I find it useless to allocate $40 million
every year to that institution.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate on the outrageous symbol the
Senate has become, given our current political and economic
situation.
There is obviously something repugnant in the fact that senators
refuse to appear to justify their budgetary votes. These people are
not elected, they are not accountable to anybody except their
friends who have appointed them, and they refuse to appear before
the elected representatives to justify their operating expenditures
and the total budget allocated to them.
When we talk about the Senate as a whole, the expenditures we
are talking about today are only the vote of $43 million allocated to
the Senate, but there is more. We know other costs are paid in part
by the House or result from the presence of senators here. So, the
actual costs are much higher. We are talking here of an average of
at least $500,000 for each senator.
Do you think that, in the current context, we can really afford to
waste tens of millions of dollars year in and year out? Just imagine
what that adds up to over a period of 20 years. It is more than a
billion for these people.
We can conclude that, after 25 years of constant deficits, the
amount that has been spent on senators and their operating
expenditures tops a billion dollars. We figure that a few billion
dollars of the debt are due to this political institution, which has
totally outlived its purpose and which has no tie to any serious
political process that could yield some concrete results.
What do they do? That is the question the people in my region
keep asking me. What do they do? Not much. They come here for a
few days of rest, they get their pay cheque and then go back where
they came from. I recently read in a newspaper: ``We contacted the
senator at his home''-in Fort Lauderdale, I think it was. Fort
Lauderdale. Indeed, they had contacted him at his home. It is really
something else to live outside the country when you sit in the
Senate of Canada.
(1740)
I would like these people to account for their actions and to
explain why we should set aside some budgetary votes to pay for
their operating expenditures. I hope their travel expenses do not
include their trips between Canada and the United States.
Do they have any legitimacy? I said earlier that these people are
appointed by the Prime Minister or his office and that sometimes,
depending on the circumstances, the appointment can be seen as
some kind of reward. Anyone can be appointed, a minister we want
to get rid of, someone we want to keep out of the way, or a friend
who did us a few favours. These people are being rewarded for
services rendered.
When you do a Prime Minister or someone who could some day
become Prime Minister a favour, it is like buying a 6-49 ticket: if
you are lucky, some day, you could win a seat in the Senate. If you
are young, you can hit the jackpot, because you get appointed until
you reach 75 years of age. And at 75, you are not left in the lurch,
there is a pension plan for senators. Do not worry, you are entitled
to a gold-plated pension, a nice little cushion.
We can laugh about it, but at some point it no longer makes any
sense and somebody has to put a stop to it. I know that a votable
motion concerning the abolition of the Senate will be put before the
House in the near future. I cannot wait to see it. I look at my
colleagues in this House, especially the hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi, who will vote on this issue and will surely
support our position. He will not have any choice. I know his
constituents. Some of my relatives live in his riding. These people
want to sign the petition which is being circulated in my riding to
have the Senate abolished. I am asking him to circulate the same
petition in
4371
his riding. While he is getting people to sign it, he will get to know
his constituents better and try to convince them. I wish him good
luck.
In short, my colleague talked about a poll where 68 per cent of
the respondents said, in 1993, that they were in favour of the
abolition of the Senate. Just think about what that percentage is
today when cuts are made in social programs, in unemployment
insurance, when the economic situation is very bad. Listen, the
number of people in favour of the Senate's abolition cannot double
because it would exceed 100 per cent, but I am convinced it is
higher now.
In my riding, I started a petition with my colleague of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup no more than a week ago. We sent
it to a number of organizations, and answers have started to come
in. I am even thinking of hiring another staff member in my office
to handle the petitions because there are so many of them. We got
close to one thousand signatures in a few days. Think about it. To
get so many signatures in just a few days is significant. Most
members who tried it in their riding found out readily that the
people are spontaneously in favour of the Senate's abolition.
And there is something else I would like to add. Not only the
senators do not do much here, but they do not do much either in
their region. Normally, most senators are appointed for an area or
represent a region.
In the three years I have been a member of Parliament and have
followed various matters very closely, I do not recall having
worked with a senator who represents us. In fact, there is one who
comes from our region, but he does not represent a specific area,
just the province of Quebec. When there was heated debate in the
Senate on such things as the GST and free trade, Prime Minister
Mulroney, a Conservative, who did not have the support of the
majority in the Senate, used his power to appoint additional
senators. The senator from our region is one of those new senators.
There is probably another senator on the list who is supposed to
represent us; our region must be grouped together with other
regions, but nobody knows who the senators are. We do not see
them. They are not working on any issues. They are not there, they
are not active, they are nothing but ghosts. They are not even there.
I am sure there are people from Abitibi-Témiscamingue
watching us. If somebody somewhere remembers a matter about
which a senator actually did something, call and tell us. We would
really like to know. However, I am sure the phone is not about to
start ringing because we have not seen any senators regularly.
By the way, if you want to sign the petition and you do not know
where to find it, you can call our office at 1-800-567-6433 and we
will be happy to send it to you. You can then circulate it in your
area.
Some of my colleagues talked about the process. Not only is it
outrageous to waste money, but look at how inflexible our political
system is. Despite the obvious will of the people, particularly in
Quebec, to see the Senate abolished, and even if the House of
Commons were to vote in favour of abolishing the Senate, which I
hope it will soon, the senators themselves would also have to say
yes for the Senate to be abolished.
(1745)
We are therefore giving them a veto, as it were, over their future,
and do you think that in the end they will agree to disappear of their
own accord? The only way that will happen is if there is so much
pressure that they are forced to resign, because it is embarrassing to
be a senator and they can no longer show their face. They will have
the option of joining our other colleague in Fort Lauderdale. That is
one possibility, but, that aside, for those of them who want to live
in Quebec and in Canada, it will be difficult explaining to people
that they are taking money from the federal government to sit in the
Senate.
This shows clearly how far they have gone to protect themselves.
It proves one thing, which is that these people were probably
worried about being criticized one day and having their future hang
in the balance.
This being the case, what we can hope for is more support. I urge
people, particularly those in my riding, in my region, to add their
voices and their signatures to the petition that is circulating and that
will be tabled here in the House, particularly around the third hour
of debate that remains on a motion by the Bloc Quebecois to have
the Senate abolished. That is one thing we can do, something
concrete. The more signatures we get, the more it will show that we
have the support of the public.
Now, there are people who would like to reform the Senate,
make a few adjustments, fix it up. That, too, has serious
limitations, because I am not sure that the public wants to see
another political level added. Take the case of Quebec, where
people are already voting in municipal, provincial and federal
elections. And school boards are elected as well, I almost forgot
about that. More and more, people are talking about
decentralization, but we do not know exactly what is going to
happen. Probably, when decentralization comes, there will be some
accountability. We can therefore assume people will exercise their
franchise at a more local level, but in any case above the municipal
level.
Are we going to add, on top of all that, a level of elected
representatives in Ottawa who will monitor other elected
representatives? Our best monitors are the public. When these
people get sick and tired of having us around, after four years they
can wield their pencils and turf us out.
In fact, if we look at the last election, they exercised that right
brilliantly and quickly changed the colour and perspective of
Parliament. So I think they are capable of looking after their own
4372
interests. Citizens are informed and follow the debates and the
major issues. The media are there to pass the information on.
The concept of having a committee of elders, even if they were
to be elected, is something I am not sure the public would accept.
In fact, we are working very hard to get rid of a whole political
level. And we certainly would not want to add another one with the
Senate.
That being said, I am personally not very keen on this debate. It
is also a fact that some provinces would like to take advantage of
this debate to make all provinces equal in Canada. However,
Quebec will never tolerate having only one-tenth of the
representation in a Canadian parliamentary forum, when it has one
quarter of the population. In Quebec, that would not get much
support.
When there were discussions on proposals by western Canada
for Senate reform, Quebec Liberals did not support those
proposals.
As I said earlier, it would be interesting to see in the weeks to
come-because this fall, this will be a much discussed issue-what
the attitude will be of members opposite. Liberal members who tell
us about the need for efficient and effective management, for
cutting waste and unnecessary spending, and I see some members
here in the House who have said so many times, who do so in
committee and who attack all fiscal expenditures and the rest, they
will have to prove they mean what they say.
Now, those people may mean what they say about making an
effort and tightening their belts, but they are not even called to
account. Sure, they will make cuts in places where they have
friends, friends they appointed, and it may hurt them a little. We
call that cutting the fat. That will not hurt anyone.
Besides, these people are not penniless. They are paid for
services rendered. I do not think this will dramatically affect the
financial situation of the people who are there. It will not cause a
major social tragedy. There will be no need to set up committees of
therapists or psychologists to help people cope with the shock of
losing a job with the Senate. So there will no serious damage.
(1750)
Consider that between now and the year 2000, between 250 and
300 million dollars will be wasted. Will this be stopped? We say
yes. We say it must stop. I hope members opposite will have the
courage to act accordingly, including the hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with some degree of attentiveness to the member's arguments that
he was putting forth in his speech. There are a few questions I
would like him to answer based on what he was telling me, which
of course does not conform with Reform Party policy.
He talked about wanting to abolishing the Senate. That is fine.
However when we take a look at what the Bloc's sister party is
saying in the province of Quebec and indeed what the Bloc
Quebecois is saying, it is that they will not respect the rule of law
regardless of what the court decides for example in the Bertrand
case; that the rule of law can be ignored, thrown out the window by
a political party such as the Bloc Quebecois and its sister party, the
Parti Quebecois in Quebec.
The Senate has been as we know a chamber of sober second
thought. The reason we have a chamber of sober second thought is
that periodically, maybe once in a hundred years, there are times
when we need a check and a balance on the headstrong attitudes of
people who are elected to office. That time is perhaps now when we
see what is happening here in this House by a party of separatists
who want to break up the country and by a party in Quebec which is
in government yet has stated quite clearly and quite succinctly that
it will ignore the courts and the rule of law in this country.
The Minister of Justice has stood in this House repeatedly and
told us how important it is in a democracy. Surely the need for a
Senate to guarantee that sober second thought is important in a
democracy rather than abolishing it and allowing a party
headstrong, without real commitment to democracy to go ahead
and do what it thinks is right. I would like the hon. member's
opinion on the sober second thought versus the abolishment.
Another point I was concerned about is the waste of money and
of course we as Reformers are concerned about wasting money. He
was quite critical of the cost. He mentioned the pensions and
everything else that we pay for members in the other place.
I think back to about a year ago when the government introduced
a gold plated pension plan, which Reformers objected to.
Reformers felt that we could not participate in it because there are
so many thousands of Canadians out there who have practically no
money at all, who are virtually destitute. Yet this government felt it
more important to give themselves a gold plated pension plan
rather than looking after the seniors and the poor people, but that is
another argument.
My point is that the Bloc Quebecois members voted for the gold
plated pension plan to be paid for by Canadians while they want to
leave the country. I found that a bit confusing. They want to leave
but they want us to pay for them after they have left. To me that
would seem to be a tremendous waste of money. Canadians would
have to pay a pension to separatists after they had left the country.
I would like the member to comment on the waste of money on
pensions to MPs, especially separatist MPs, versus money paid to
pensions in the other place. Also, I am serious when I ask about
4373
sober second thought. It may only be once in a hundred years that
we need that sober second thought, but perhaps this is the time.
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: Mr. Speaker, as caucus chairman, I might have told
the hon. member that he was out of order, but I can understand that
great tolerance is shown.
(1755)
I find that somewhat regrettable. Reform members always talk
about members' pensions. This issue seems to bother them quite a
lot; it seems to be their main concern. I do not know if it is because
they have financial worries, but there are many other problems
which have to be examined. It is somewhat regrettable that their
analysis is so simplistic.
I would like to come back to a comment made by the hon.
member, in particular with regard to respect for the law. Of course,
he toed the same line as the Minister of Justice, saying that
sovereignists have no respect for the law, that they would not abide
by the law or the Constitution.
What I want to point out is that, as one involved in politics, my
primary concern is respecting the will of the people, respecting the
democratic will. That is what democracy is all about. As well,
when that opinion is voiced in a consultation like a referendum, I
think that respecting democratic will ought to be the primary
concern. And so it was. In the last referendum, 49.5 per cent of
people said they wanted sovereignty. Yet no one said: ``Let us go
ahead anyway, because 49.5 per cent is enough''. Everyone said:
``No, we did not succeed and will have to work harder to try to win
next time''. Not only will we try, but we will win next time.
That is what respecting the democratic will of the people is all
about. I am pleased to see that we even seem to be gaining
supporters from the other side.
As politicians, our first concern must be to respect the will of the
people. As for abolition of the Senate, that we will not do, because
it is impossible, the law does not allow it. Since the law does not
allow it, let us not change the situation. If the law does not allow it,
and the will of the people is something different, let us change the
laws to reflect the will of the people, particularly if that will is
expressed in democratic consultations held within the rules. That is
what we sovereignists are doing.
I would like to tell the hon. Reform member that he should be
consistent. He is so concerned by public finances that, instead of
wanting to bolster the Senate, improve its powers, he should
instead rally around a position that is far closer to current reality
and to what people want, which is to demand, and what is more to
ensure, that the government will be forced to vote for the
disappearance of an institution that is useless, out of date, and very
costly.
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to talk
about the main estimates.
I would like to begin my comments by clearly and unequivocally
stating that I support the government in its spending estimates. I
also support the adoption of the full estimates. I reject all of the
amendments that have been placed on the Order Paper by the
opposition.
I support the Prime Minister, the finance minister and indeed all
of the cabinet. I believe and the Canadian people have
demonstrated in poll after poll they understand that we have
demonstrated sound fiscal management of this nation over the past
three years. That is reflected in poll after poll where we hear
Canadians saying very clearly that they have confidence in the
Prime Minister and the Liberal Party but have very little
confidence in those parties which sit opposite in this House.
There is a very clear reason for that. It is because the Liberal
government clearly understands that it has a dual responsibility in
government. It understands that it has a fiscal responsibility. It
understands that it is necessary to make sure that there is full value
for every tax dollar that is spent and that Canadians have an
efficient government and one that is operating like a business
although understanding that it is not a business.
Besides the fiscal responsibility, this government understands
that it has a social responsibility. We collectively have a social
obligation to each other in society. We have operated in this nation
for well over 50 years with a collective understanding that we will
not allow individual Canadians to fall below a certain level.
When people go to a hospital in this country the first question
they are asked is not how much money they have or what is their
insurance plan. They are asked: ``How are you ill and how can we
help''?
(1800)
We have people in this country who need social support from the
government. This government is determined that it will adhere to
that social responsibility in addition to its fiscal responsibility.
The sound management of our country has worked well. It has
led to good economic fundamentals which have led to economic
growth, which has increased job creation, all while maintaining
those critical support programs for Canadians.
I would like to spend a few minutes looking at the
responsibilities the government has undertaken, both fiscally as
well as on the social side. The Minister of Finance in his last three
budgets has clearly demonstrated sound fiscal management.
4374
We have taken the nation from a deficit of approximately 6.4
per cent of GDP and as we promised in this fiscal year we will
have reduced that amount to 3 per cent of GDP. The minister in
his last budget went beyond that and indicated it will be 2 per cent
of GDP in the following fiscal year.
Percentages can sometimes be difficult to grasp. To put it in
dollar terms, the finance minister will be reducing the deficit by
some $25 billion. Even more important than the actual amount of
the deficit reduction has been what has been done in terms of
borrowing needs, the actual amount the government must borrow
from the markets, the amount on which is incurred additional
interest costs. When the government came to power it was
borrowing almost $30 billion annually. By the next fiscal year it
will be reduced to $6 billion. It will be the lowest level of
borrowing by a federal government in almost 30 years. That is the
key. If borrowing is reduced, interest costs will be reduced. If
interest costs are reduced then financial resources are available to
use in other critical areas. The government has done that well.
The government has done a good job of reducing expenditures.
The program review undertaken by the President of the Treasury
Board shows a $14 billion expenditure reduction. The government
has gone from a program expenditure of 16 per cent of GDP down
to 12 per cent. That 12 per cent figure is the best a federal
government has done since World War II. Since World War II it has
done as good or better than any other government in taking control
of its program expenditures.
When we look a the cumulative effect of the finance minister's
three budgets and the cumulative effect on the 1998-99 budget
period, it will be collective savings of $28.9 billion. That is a
government that is committed to sound fiscal management and
committed to keeping its expenditures under control.
The size of government has been reduced. The size of the civil
service has been reduced. We are making sure that government
does things right, prudently and efficiently.
We made another major change from previous governments with
absolutely no increases in personal income tax. Compare than to
what the finance minister mentioned during question period, the 39
tax increases in the previous government's regime.
We do not have sound fiscal management just for the sake of it.
The interest is not just simply to keep individuals on Bay Street,
Wall Street or Tokyo or London markets happy. That is not the
motive for sound fiscal management. The motive is to create an
environment in which jobs can be created. Sound fiscal
management is allowing things to happen because we have been
able to see strong economic fundamentals exist in this country.
These strong economic fundamentals are allowing the private
sector to do what it does best and that is create jobs. It is working.
(1805)
The unemployment rate has dropped from 11.1 per cent to 9.3
per cent and 650,000 new jobs have been created. Is it enough? Is it
something to which we just say great and rest? Obviously not.
There is much more work to be done on the job creation side. Good
and substantial progress has been made. It is coming about because
of sound management by the government. Those economic
fundamentals that I speak of are familiar to us all but I would like
to enunciate some of them because it is important.
Interest rates are low. They have dropped almost four points in
the last year. Indeed, for the first time in a long time, short term
interest rates are actually below those of the Americans. That has a
real and important impact on Canadians. If there is a three point
decrease in interest rates and a person's $100,000 mortgage comes
up for renewal, that means a saving of about $3,000 a year in after
tax dollars. That is putting money back into the hands of
Canadians. It is stimulating consumer demand and creating jobs.
Inflation is at its lowest sustained level in 30 years. It is a strong
economic fundamental that is encouraging people to invest in
Canada, to invest in jobs.
Canadian exports have increased by 40 per cent in the last three
years. The government has worked hard in that area, on the whole
Team Canada approach where the Prime Minister has gone abroad
and helped sell Canadian business. Through the Team Canada
approach, almost $20 billion in new trade contracts have been put
together.
As I mentioned earlier in continuing with economic
fundamentals, the reduction of the deficit and, most important, the
reduction of borrowing needs means that the government is no
longer crowding out the private sector for much needed investment
capital. All these economic fundamentals are leading to job
creation. Six hundred and fifty thousand-plus jobs is the net
increase since the government took office.
The Liberal government also understands that there are times
when it is necessary to directly intervene in critical areas of the
economy to help with job creation and with employment. In the last
budgetary cycle and since, there have been some good examples of
the targeting of resources to areas where they are needed and where
they will have the best impact.
In the last budget the finance minister announced a $315 million
investment in youth employment, an area of critical importance, an
area of critical need. The government has recognized it and has
responded to it.
4375
High technology is a growth area in Canada. It is an area that
is capable of creating jobs in large numbers. The government has
invested in the high technology area.
The Minister of Industry announced a $150 million fund which
will grow to $250 million to help support growth in the high tech
area. It is not simply government throwing the money at the high
tech area. It is being done in partnership with the private sector,
with a sharing of risk and a sharing of reward on those things that
are successful. There has been a $50 million investment in the
Business Development Bank of Canada to assist in the high tech
field, again to support emerging growth industries that can help
create jobs.
I mentioned one of the fundamentals. The export area is an area
of growth and an area of job creation. The last budget had a $50
million increase in the money available to EDC to help firms that
are exporting.
Over the three years of the government, important investments
have been made. The infrastructure program was widely accepted
across the land. It has helped not only create short term jobs, but
also long term jobs by putting in place the infrastructure that is
needed for the development of industry that is needed for the
development of long term jobs. That has taken place as part of this
infrastructure program.
(1810)
There has been other assistance for job creation. The Minister of
Human Resources Development has put together a $300 million
transitional fund which is meant to help areas of high
unemployment with economic development and job creation. It is a
specific need, and a specific action has been taken to meet that
need.
We have seen the five employment tools brought out as part of
the employment insurance reform which will help individual
Canadians in obtaining employment and helping them to be
reintegrated into the workforce.
The government has always understood that one of the engines
of the economy, one of the things that drives job creation, drives
economic growth, puts the people back to work, particularly in an
area like mine of Parry Sound-Muskoka, is the support of the
small business sector. It is the engine that drives the economy. It is
where new jobs are being created in the Canada of 1996 and well on
into the 21st century.
Many things have been done to help in that area. A major thing
has been working to increase the access to capital for these
businesses, not simply by saying that government can be the lender
to all businesses, but by working with the private sector to insist
that it provides additional capital to the small business men and
women, the entrepreneurs who are out there.
Over the last two years through the work of the industry
department and in particular the industry committee, a number of
tools have been developed with the chartered banks: a code of
conduct that governs the relationship between a bank and the small
business person; an alternative dispute resolution system; a
mediation process when there are disputes; an ombudsman in each
of the banks; an industry ombudsman that can deal with problems
that cannot be dealt with within the organization.
Most important, the banks have agreed to provide Parliament
quarterly with their small business lending statistics. Then we can
evaluate. We will know it is not just words we hear that these codes
of conduct mean something. We can actually see what their lending
is to small businessmen and women in this country. We can react
when we do not believe it is happening the way it should.
These are important tools. Progress is being made. Much yet
needs to be done in terms of access to capital but progress is being
made and we are working to help small businessmen and women.
There are some direct things we have been able to do in that
respect as a government. The amount of money available to the
Business Development Bank of Canada this past year has been
increased from $3 billion to $15 billion. There is the small business
loan program, a government guaranteed loan program, which the
chartered banks and others administer. That has been increased
from $4 billion to $12 billion, again to allow more access to the
small business sector.
The Minister of Industry began the community investment plan.
Communities will be allowed to bring together the small business
people in their areas with individuals who have investment capital.
The two will be brought together in partnership to help their
individual communities grow.
Recently I had an opportunity to work with both the chartered
banks and the community futures organizations. They have entered
into a program that will see $2 million flow from the chartered
banks to community futures in rural Canada, rural Ontario. This
will provide more capital at the higher risk end. Small businessmen
and women who are having difficulty accessing capital can go to
the community futures and be able to borrow.
Obviously we have worked hard in the area of small business to
provide it with the tools it needs to create jobs in our communities.
It is not just a matter of fiscal management, it is not just a matter
of getting the economic fundamentals right. All of that is important
in government, but we also have to remember our social
responsibility, and this government lives up to that very much.
Look at some of the expenditure figures from the last budget:
OAS, $21.9 billion; employment insurance, $13.8 billion; CHST,
4376
$26.9 billion; veterans affairs, $1.8 billion. This is a government
that cares about individual Canadians.
(1815)
In conclusion, when evaluating whether or not these things have
worked for Canada, when you evaluate whether this government
has done a good job for Canada it is simply a matter of asking some
questions. Is the unemployment rate down? Yes it is. Are more
Canadians working today than three years ago? Yes there are. Has
the deficit been reduced in the last three years? Yes it has. Are
expenditures down? Yes they are. Are interest rates down? Indeed
they are, by more than three points. Are exports up? Yes, 40%. Has
our tourism deficit been reduced? Absolutely, by more than $3
million. The best question to ask, and it has been asked three years
in a row by the United Nations, is Canada the best country in the
world? Absolutely, it is the best country in the world. We have
made good progress as a government. There is still much to be
done and we are committed as a government to doing it.
Our government's actions and performance has been one of
strong actions, hard work and most of all, as I just indicated, one of
accomplishments.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my
colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka tried to praise the
government for its good management, comparing the running of
the government to that of a major corporation or any business
doing well in the private sector.
I would like him to tell us how he can make such a comparison in
view of certain careless mistakes on the part of the government and
certain measures it did not take when it could have. We realize that,
in the private sector, decisions are made every day to ensure that
each department of a particular company is financially viable, that
the business turns a profit, and that every penny which can be saved
is.
The most recent example is CP Rail, which has just been
privatized. We noticed that, as soon as it was privatized, CP Rail
took all the least profitable parts of its system to form one
company, which is going to try to make the eastern system more
profitable. This company is giving itself three years to succeed.
This is the kind of management you find in the private sector.
Has the government done the same thing with the Senate since
1867? How can the government claim it has taken the necessary
steps to reduce expenditures to the bare minimum, and that it has
gotten rid of the non-profitable parts of its enterprise?
How can the member justify a propaganda campaign such as was
undertaken concerning the Canadian flag? Is this ongoing $23
million expenditure justifiable under the broad principles of good
management referred to by the member?
Could the hon. member tell me which large and well managed
company, which large Canadian, Quebec or Ontario company
would keep 104 directors who, most of the time, are asleep at their
desk, and that we pay presumably to check decisions already made
by other directors?
Always from the point of view of sound management, would a
single profitable company behave in such a fashion? Yet, that is
what the government is doing with the Senate. Today, we are being
asked to approve a $50 to 60 million budget, for a single year, to
support 104 senators who no longer have anything to do regarding
the profitability of the large Canadian company called Parliament.
Could the hon. member tell me that sound management
principles apply in the case of the Senate? How can the hon.
member reconcile this ignorance of Parliament for an obsolete
institution which should be done away with as soon as possible? I
would like the hon. member to answer that question.
(1820)
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify a number of points
the hon. member made.
In terms of comparing the government to a business, I said very
clearly that the government had to operate in a businesslike manner
but at the same time understand that it was not a business.
We undertake things in the House not to make a profit. We
support medicare not to make a profit. We support Canadian over
age 65 not to make a profit. We make sure there is an EI system not
to make a profit but because government understands it has a social
responsibility and acts collectively on behalf of all Canadians. It is
important to understand that.
We talked a bit about fiscal management. What is the fiscal
management of the government? I will remind the hon. member of
a $25 billion reduction in the deficit and collective savings of $28.9
billion. That is fiscal management.
The hon. member talked about propaganda. I want to tell all
members in the House and everyone watching television that
having pride in Canada, being patriotic about the country,
understanding its history or living day by day with a love of the
country in one's heart is not propaganda. It is being a good
Canadian. I am proud of the country and the Canadians who live in
it.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the member's long speech on anything other than
the other place, which is the motion we are supposed to be debating
at the moment. We are debating the estimates and the motion
pertaining to the other place at the moment. We will vote on the
larger issue of the estimates later today.
4377
Many Canadian feel the other place is largely superfluous and
perhaps is a waste of money. If we have to listen to more speeches
like we have from the member, Canadians will start thinking that
this House is superfluous. There was nothing but unabashed
promotion of what the government thinks it has accomplished for
Canadians.
I remember jobs, jobs, jobs as being the cry during the last
election. We all remember that. Unemployment is barely less than
10 per cent today and families need more and more part-time jobs,
several jobs. It is more difficult for them to make ends meet. They
feel more and more pressed as their standard of living is getting
squeezed. These are the real facts being published in the tons of
paper emanating from government offices. When we look at the
fine print we find that Canadians are not enjoying greater
prosperity and they do not have all these jobs the government
promised.
When we take a look at the deficit we see that it is coming down,
but the point is that the deficit has come down strictly because tax
revenues have gone up. A $25 billion reduction is exactly the
amount of additional revenue the government is getting from the
Canadian taxpayer, and government members stand and say what a
wonderful job of management of the deficit they are doing.
A month from now the Minister of Finance will have an
announcement saying our new target is 1 per cent of GDP. He will
not say that it will come down because we will squeeze even more
taxes out of Canadians. He will talk about the fact that he has not
raised taxes. That is wonderful but he does not say he is eliminating
tax deductions for seniors. He proposed in his last budget that the
first $1,000 of pension income which used to be tax free would no
longer be tax free. That sounds like a tax increase to me.
(1825)
Mr. Strahl: It is a grab.
Mr. Williams: Seniors who have been entitled to an exemption
of around $3,000 to $4,000, to reduce their tax bill because they are
over 65, will have that tax deduction eliminated. That seems to me
to be an increase. Why does the hon. member feel he can stand and
tell Canadians that everything is coming up roses when they feel
things are getting bad out there?
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I differ with the hon. member's
interpretation of things. If we look at pollster after pollster who
talks to Canadians, they come back each and every time and
demonstrate confidence not only in the government but in the
Prime Minister. The member is right that more work needs to be
done, but 650,000 new jobs were created.
He went on to talk about nothing being done on the deficit.
Indeed the deficit is coming down by $25 billion. Then he said that
we cannot count new revenue coming in; that is not allowed. He
ought to talk to the finance critic in his party who puts together its
budgetary plan which calls for over $20 billion of new revenue to
come into the government.
Maybe he would want to talk to his finance critic if he does not
accept the fact that economic growth is one of the ways to bring
down the deficit. Perhaps he wants to be like all the other
Reformers who feel the only way to do it is to slash and burn and
take away from the most needy Canadians. A balanced approach
does things: economic growth along with sound fiscal
management.
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you
clear up the matter of what is under debate right now? Reformers
have made the point that they believe we are confined to a debate
on the Senate. Is that correct? Or, are they wrong again?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member has put the
Chair in a strait-jacket. Suffice it to say I will not rule on right or
wrong.
The debate is open in its fullness on the estimates. Correctly a
notice of opposition was put forward by the Reform Party with
regard to the other place. Other notices of motions have been put on
the order paper with regard to other departments. However this
debate, which could last until 10 p.m. this evening, is on the
fullness of the estimates. I hope that answers the question.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad to see that you are not caught in a strait-jacket. That would
be unfortunate.
It will be difficult to top the bombastic statements we just
endured from the other side. Maybe I am capable of it. We will see
as the debate goes on.
I want to talk about the other place somewhat. The issue today is
a good one. I saw it starting today in a press conference. Today was
the day the Senate was asked to appear before the House some time
before the end of this sitting day to explain itself, to account for the
money it is spending.
On May 9 the member for Comox-Alberni, when on the
Standing Committee on Government Operations, sent a letter
asking the Senate for an accounting of how it was spending its
money. It was not an absurd request. It is a public body and has a
$40 million budget. It is spending taxpayers' dollars and we think
we should be entitled to see how it is spent.
(1830 )
The Senate says it is not going to respond to the letter. Not only
that, it is not going to respond to any demands by the House of
Commons. It answers to no one, which is not entirely true. It does
4378
answer to someone and it does dance to a tune, but it dances to the
party tune of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I was in the House when the Prime Minister stood and said: ``I
will appoint people to the Senate and the people I appoint will be
good Liberals who will do as they are told''. The senators answer to
no one publicly. They answer behind the scenes to the man who sits
over at that desk, and that is a shame.
There are people in Canada, especially in the west-I will not
speak for all of Canada; I do not claim to have omniscience. People
in most parts of Canada have said for a long time that we need
some Senate reform and if there is going to be a Senate, it should be
accountable. It should be through election so that if the senators are
not doing their jobs of representing their home provinces or
regions, they can be yanked out of office. As Mr. Manning Senior,
the former senator, said in times past: ``It is a place of protocol,
Geritol and alcohol''. Is that true? I hope not, but if it were, the
senators should be accountable. They should be accountable. They
should be able to be pulled back through an election but that cannot
happen.
Senators should have some job to do. Does anybody really know
what the job of the Senate is? We in this place know that the
Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod traipses in here once in a while.
He hammers on the door and we traipse there, they traipse here, but
does anybody really know what they do?
I suppose senators do some effective work but we cannot know
because we cannot look at the budget. They will not explain where
they spend their money. They will not tell us. They just send us the
bill and we just sign the cheque. That is unacceptable.
This is not just a Reform Party issue. In 1926 there was a study
published entitled ``The Unreformed Senate of Canada'', by Robert
MacKay. I do not think anybody here was involved in writing this.
Here is what was said some 70 years ago:
The House of Lords still represents an important class in the community; the
American Senate, even before it was elected directly by the people of the various
states, represented the states-the Canadian Senate as a House of Parliament
represents nothing. The Senate-is a bribery fund in the hands of the Government,
and paddock for the `Old Wheel Horse' of the Party, nor on its present footing, can it
ever be anything else-
Probably on no other public question in Canada has there been such unanimity of
opinion as on that of the necessity for Senate reform.
People were saying that 70 years ago. Maybe some people define
Canadianism as not being American.
The other common thread we seem to be hearing often on the
Senate in answer to the question ``do you respect the Senate'' is
that they do not. This answer comes from all Canadians whether
they are from Quebec-the members sitting here-from the west
or from Atlantic Canada. The reason is the Senate does not give
them a chance to respect it.
As we are talking about the estimates tonight, the Senate will not
account for the money it is spending. We are coming up to an
election year. It is possible that an election will be held in the
spring of 1997, the fall of 1997, who knows? As we gear up toward
that election, what is the Senate spending its money on? I have
some suspicions.
I see prominent members of the Senate appointed to prominent
positions on the Liberal campaign team. They seem to be chief
fundraisers, chief message boys, chief organizers, chief election
readiness people. I saw a similar thing happen. I was an observer at
the PC convention-I do not want to pick only on Liberals-but
their chief organizers were from the Senate. Why? Because the
taxpayer pays the bills.
(1835 )
Senators travel the country, they do not have to account to
anybody, they do not have to show up, they do not have to sit on a
committee. They do not have to do anything. All they have to do is
answer to the person in the chair over there, the leader of the
government. That is all they have to answer to.
There are limits on spending for political parties. There are
limits on how much we can raise and spend on advertising, all that
kind of stuff, but there are no limits on what is being spent
indirectly through the Senate. That is unfortunate and there seems
to be no thirst or willingness on the part of the government-and
there is complicity in this, of course-to force the Senate to come
forward.
We do not have to give these people the money. We could force
them to come forward. Maybe they are spending it wisely. I have
my doubts but at least we could come forward and debate that if we
could see it but we cannot see it.
I have a quote from the auditor general in 1991. He said:
``Frequently senators and senior management do not know whether
operations are achieving their intended purposes or are being
carried out in an economical and efficient manner''. This is from
our auditor general, a neutral person, who says that they do not
even know in the Senate whether they are spending their money
wisely or efficiently. All of this would be a moot point-maybe I
am a snarky Reformer with a bad attitude-if that were true.
In 1990 the Prime Minister said: ``The Liberal government in
two years will make the Senate elected''. That promise is gone. In
1991 the Prime Minister said it again. It is in Hansard. What has he
done so far? He has appointed 14 people to the Senate. The
headlines in the paper read: ``Chrétien Senate plums make
Mulroney look like a piker'' and ``The PM's sad slide on the
Senate''.
4379
The Senate should be elected. More than that, it should be
accountable. It should have to account for the money it spends.
I should have to out of my member's budget; this House should
have to; the Speaker in the Chair should have to; all of us should
have to account for public funds. The fact that the Senate will not
account for it and will not report back is an indictment in and of
itself.
It is an unfortunate development. I wish the senators had listened
to the committee and I wish we did not have to have this debate.
Unfortunately somebody has to call the Senate on the carpet. If the
Reform Party is the one to do it, I am happy to raise the issue.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
listening to the comments made by my colleague from Fraser
Valley East, I have a question for him regarding his party's
platform with regard to the Senate, since what we are hearing on
this issue is less and less clear: Does the platform of the Reform
Party of Canada still include an elected, equal and effective Senate
where each province would have the same number of senators
chosen by the people?
In this respect, I would like to know, in view of the great
disparity of population between provinces, and I will raise this
again when I deal with the substance of the motion, how would
electing senators make them more effective? In my opinion, the
more equal the Senate becomes, and if it is totally equal as the
Reform Party has been suggesting so far-total equality among the
ten provinces-the more likely it will be for its effectiveness to be
zilch. The Senate will be able to block a piece of legislation for 20
or 30 days, that is all; as far as money bills, supply bills, and
allotment of public moneys are concerned, we would still be in the
same situation.
Is the triple E Senate a concept which is still defendable in view
of the analysis conducted by our colleagues from the Reform
Party?
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, certainly the hon. member has
identified the party's platform on the triple E Senate. The triple E
Senate of course has always been the first of our principles in our
published papers. We do believe in what we call a triple E Senate,
which is equal numbers from each of the provinces, elected and
effective. In other words, it needs a job to do, something that
senators can put their teeth into.
(1840)
Our argument on the Senate has always been that the Senate's
job originally was to represent the regions. Here we have
representation by population. Quebec is well represented in
numbers here with the Bloc. I do not always agree with their
politics, but in numbers it is represented according to population.
The Senate on the other hand represents each province with an
equal number. What we have said is that by doing that, a message is
sent. For example, in this place where Quebec has 75 seats, it has a
significant influence on the House of Commons. It is a very
dominating force. It has a lot of influence and people in key
figures. It is able to influence matters in the House of Commons
very well. However, to protect the outlying regions, say a weakly
populated province like Prince Edward Island or Saskatchewan,
which are not well represented numberwise, the Senate would
represent those provinces in the other place, in the Senate itself.
By doing that, there is a balance. In the House of Commons,
there is rep by pop. Rep by pop allows people to know that they
have as much say as any other one person in the province through
their representative here. To protect the regions and to protect the
provinces that do not have huge populations, something else is
needed. We say that that something else should be a Senate.
What could a Senate like that do? The arguments go back and
forth. Our current Prime Minister said in 1991 that ``the regions of
Canada need to be more involved in decision making and policy
making at the national level to meet the hopes and dreams of those
who live in the west and the Atlantic'', and that ``a reformed Senate
is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and
equitable'', as he called it. ``Such a Senate should have the power
to examine appointments to important federal institutions and
agencies''.
What that means is there is consensus that the Senate needs a
job. One of the things it should do is approve of important
appointments to federal institutions and agencies. If, instead of the
wife of the current defence minister being in charge of patronage
appointments-that is her job-would it not be something if we
had a Senate including the province of Quebec that would be able
to say: ``On the appointment to the CRTC, we in Quebec have a real
problem with this person, what they have done, what their
academic record is, what they stand for and what they have been
doing''.
Someone could step in at that stage and say: ``I am going to put
the kibosh on this. I will stop this now''. So could people from B.C.
So could have Alberta during the national energy program. So
could have people from Manitoba when the F-18 contract was
hived off. There could be a check and a balance in there.
As the Prime Minister said, that would be a good job for the
Senate. Its job now is not that. Its job right now is election
readiness. That is its job right now. It is a place where all kinds of
people who are on the organizational shelf of the Liberal Party have
been plugged into the key positions. Taxpayers are paying the bills;
we do not know how much. Senators travel the country at
taxpayers' expense. They do whatever they want. Nobody knows
because they are not accountable to anybody. The only one they are
accountable to is the Prime Minister.
4380
That is not right. As the Prime Minister himself has been saying
for some years now, that is a lousy way to run an upper house.
The upper house needs to be reformed. It needed to be reformed
said Mr. MacKay in 1926. It needed to be accountable said the
auditor general in 1991.
In 1991 the Prime Minister said that a reformed Senate is
essential. Why? ``To meet the hopes and dreams of those living in
the west and in the Atlantic regions, a reformed Senate is
essential''. That is the Prime Minister. I wish he would go back and
read some of his old speeches. I wonder if he realizes the impact
that this status quo stuff is having on British Columbia.
(1845)
When I hear promises being made and then not delivered on I
wonder if that is part of what makes Quebecers so angry. They were
promised distinct society in the Constitution and it was not
delivered. That is a broken promise. Would that not make
Quebecers angry?
From our perspective in the west we were promised Senate
reform. The Prime Minister promised that within two years an
elected Senate would be in place. He did not deliver. In 1991 he
said it has to happen. If we are going to keep the hopes and
aspirations of the west and Atlantic Canada we have to do
something to provide an elected Senate. He did not deliver on that.
In the west what are we supposed to take from that? Was he saying
what he thought we wanted to hear during the election campaign?
Did he really sincerely believe it and then find out there was too
much pressure from within his party or other regions that he could
not deliver?
I do not know what goes on behind closed doors. But I do know
that in British Columbia the support for the Senate in its current
form is approaching zero. It is seen as a waste of money. That is
what we are trying to address here today.
If we could address some of those concerns and say to the people
of British Columbia that the budget is like so, the travel budget is
like this, and office budgets and so on, then we could say it looks
like it is all in order and above board. But when we get the auditor
general saying they are inefficient and have no accountability for
the way they spend their money I cannot guarantee to the taxpayers
of B.C. that their money is being well spent.
Certainly at a political level when somebody says, including the
current Prime Minister, that it is not effective, I am not going to
argue with him. I agree. The message it sends, both on
accountability and the reform of the political institution itself, is it
just does not matter and we do not care what you say, or what the
people in B.C. think, or Quebec or any other region. If that message
is consistently hammered home by the Prime Minister leading up
to the next election I do not suppose he will be surprised when he
comes out to British Columbia to find a less than hearty welcome
from people who are expecting some changes.
The old poem says that a promise made is a debt unpaid. It is
from Robert Service. I think that is true for most of us. For
example, I promised to opt out of the MP pension plan. I did not do
it because I want to live a life of poverty when I grow old. I did it
because I promised to do it during the election campaign. I
promised also to fly economy class, not that I like my legs shoved
up around my chin. However I made a promise to try and save a
few dollars. I promised to move into the office of my predecessor
and make no changes to the furniture. As a matter of fact I used the
same phones and everything he had so it would not cost any money.
Those were promises made and I have kept them.
I also promised to treat tax dollars as funds held in trust on
behalf of the taxpayers. I can go back in the next election and say
that I have kept my promises and I am willing to do it again
because I will be running again in the next election.
(1850 )
I do not know what we are supposed to read into the fact that the
Prime Minister will not keep his promise. What Reform reads into
it, of course, is that the Prime Minister is using this for expediency.
He is not really interested in Senate reform. He is not really
interested in accountability. He is not interested in saving a few
dollars. And he is not really interested in doing better than the
treading of water that we have seen for three years.
I heard the hon. member from the Liberal Party say that he was
proud of the employment rate that is pushing 10 per cent. I am not
happy with that. The government has taken $25 billion or more out
of the economy and I am not happy with that.
I am not happy that whenever the heritage minister seems to be
in a pickle the finance minister can come up with another $150
million to try to get her out of that bind.
I am not happy that the budget is going to be balanced at some
indefinite date off in the future. I want to see a date where we can
look forward to some tax relief. There are no promises of tax relief
and there never will be unless the government makes a promise,
lays out the plan and then follows through. Following through
means when you give your word on something. That is a promise
and it will happen.
We had the GST promise which set this in motion but can we
take them at their word? So far we have not seen any action on the
GST. The GST that the government will be placing on reading
material in Atlantic Canada will double once this new agreement
comes into place.
What did the Prime Minister promise? What did the finance
minister promise when he was in opposition? There will be no tax
4381
on reading material. Next month it will be 15 per cent on reading
material. It is no wonder people are cynical.
The Senate in the example we are trying to deal with today is
numero uno on many people's books of why they feel so cynical
about Parliament and the way it is run. There is no accountability. I
believe the government wants us to put up a fuss over this item.
That is why this particular item on the main estimates has been
challenged by Reform. We think that Canadians deserve an
accounting for the money that is being spent on their behalf.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will entertain one other
question if there should be one to the hon. member. I would ask the
co-operation of the House. If members from each party
participating in this debate would indicate to the Chair by way of a
message to the side later as to whether they are going to be
speaking for 20 minutes or will be splitting their time allocation
with a colleague it would be appreciated.
I interrupted the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. I believed
that they were splitting their time. It was not the case in this
instance so I allowed more time for questions or comments. There
would be approximately four minutes remaining in that block of
time.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to comment and to reply to the member for Fraser Valley East. I
was so enthralled with his speech that I ran here from my office just
to ask this question. It is good to see the hon. member has not lost
his step or his form since June. I congratulate him on his elevation
to whip for his party.
The GST seems to be an issue that comes back time and time
again. The hon. member may not be aware of this but in the
province of Ontario the premier, the day before he was elected,
made a very solemn commitment to the people of the province of
Ontario in the same way that we made the same commitment
toward replacing the GST.
The hon. member talks about words and I tend to perhaps fall
into the category of those cynical voters who want to make sure
they see something in writing and what they saw was replace the
GST.
(1855 )
What a lot of people forget, and perhaps this is one of the reasons
the Reform Party has yet to make any inroads in Ontario, which
may not happen for some time, is the recognition that the province
of Ontario and its premier is committed and on record to harmonize
which is exactly what the government has committed to do.
I spent some time over the summer dealing with a number of
constituents. We had four public forums. I was amazed and
overtaken by the amount of goodwill, by the number of plaudits
and by the amount of concern and support for the last budget
presented by the Minister of Finance. People from all across the
political spectrum, people from all backgrounds and all incomes
were very supportive of the budget in a way that I have not seen
before.
How would the hon. member suggest we can at one time bring
down the deficit, we can address the financial problems this
country currently faces and yet at the same time somehow throw
away or cast fate into the wind with respect to raising revenues, in
particular the GST? Perhaps the hon. member can refresh my
memory since he seems to have so much to offer as to whether we
actually got into the question of the elimination of the GST or does
he remember reading, as most of my constituents did, replace the
GST.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Ontario
wants to hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I
am going to give it to him.
I know what the red book said. It said replace the GST.
Canadians all know why the member from Hamilton had to resign.
It was going to be scrapped, turfed, abolished, done away with, or
whatever phrase was used. The Prime Minister said: ``This thing
will be gone, eliminated, trashed''. I know it was in print but I also
know it was on television and that is why the member had to resign.
For ourselves, from the Reform Party's perspective, our words
during the last election were consistent with our printed material
and our public pronouncements. What we said was that it was at
that time not feasible to eliminate the GST but what we had at that
time was our zero in three plan to eliminate the deficit and then
reduce and eliminate the GST.
We realized during the election campaign that we could not
promise to eliminate the GST at that time. We were upfront about
that. I know in my own case in my riding the Liberal candidate said
he would lie down on the railroad tracks and he was going to fall on
his sword and commit hara-kiri and what all he would not have
done because ``you can count on me, that GST is gone''. It was a
little embarrassing for me to stand up and say: ``The Reform Party
can't make that promise because it is not the truth'' and so we did
not promise that.
I ran on it and probably lost votes because it is easy to say:
``Let's get rid of it''. On campaign issues I like to try to tell the
truth. I am sure the member for Ontario did as well during the
campaign. Not every politician does. However, on Senate reform
and on accountability, I am only reading back to him the words of
his leader. Those words said that Senate should be elected, it should
be accountable, it should be effective, it should represent the west
and the Atlantic region and to follow up with the auditor general's
comments, it should be in whatever form it is efficient and
accountable for the taxpayers' dollars.
4382
I stand by those words and I will campaign on those words.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in this debate on the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
The session has just begun once again and I must tell you at the
outset that, as the member of Parliament for Brome-Missisquoi,
and like many other members in the House, I took advantage of the
summer months to travel a little around my riding and its
municipalities to meet people and discuss with them the problems
that concern them.
(1900)
I think it is somewhat the role of a member of Parliament to
come to the House and to show the colours of the people he
represents, that is, to relate their concerns and to ensure the
government responds to these concerns, and that is what the
government is doing.
I will say first of all that the main concern of people is
employment. We hear about ``job creation'' everywhere.
Employment is the main concern of people. I would say the second
one is taxes. People have had it, they are sick and tired of taxes.
The third concern is paperwork, bureaucracy. The next one is
duplication. I will come back, in relation to the main estimates, to
what we are doing as a government to deal with these issues.
The public also wants public administration, at the federal as
well as the provincial level, to be closer to the people. I am listing
these concerns in the order in which they were submitted to me.
Another concern is the need for Quebec's distinctiveness to be
recognized.
Before dealing specifically with the main estimates, it may be
useful to look back at what the finance minister said when he tabled
his budget on March 6, 1996. He stated, on behalf of his
government, the principles for securing the future.
First principle for securing the future: governments created the
deficit problem; now, governments must resolve it. I will come
back to this later and try to demonstrate that the deficit problem is
in the process of being resolved.
Second principle for securing the future, according to the
estimates tabled last March for the fiscal year ending next March:
we must provide hope for jobs and for growth. This is important,
and it is precisely what we have heard and what elected
representatives travelling around to meet their constituents have
heard.
Third principle: we must be frugal in everything we do. This
means spending less money. Simply put, waste is simply not
tolerable.
Fourth: no new spending. We must avoid additional spending
and reallocate instead. Fifth: we must always be fair and
compassionate.
Those are the principles on which the finance minister's last
budget was based. In terms of the goals and objectives pursued
through this budget, we were told that the government should to be
more responsive and that certain government activities should be
more focused and affordable.
Let us look at some examples, starting with a problem I
mentioned earlier, namely duplication. Here are two areas where
we should try to eliminate duplication through legislation. First,
agriculture. Just for food inspection, you have the Ministry of
Agriculture and marketing board involved at the provincial level,
in Quebec, as well as Health Canada and Agriculture Canada at the
federal level. For a restaurant operating in Montreal, the City of
Montreal's department in charge of monitoring restaurants in terms
of public health is also involved.
As we can see, a single place can easily be visited by four or five
different inspectors for the same purpose or for similar purposes.
The government has introduced a bill respecting the national food
protection agency. We must look for ways to do better, to improve
coordination by avoiding duplication. That is what the people want
and how they expect us to run the country.
(1905)
Here is another example. We can talk about revenues. As you
know, taxes are collected at about every level. At the federal level,
there are all kinds of taxes, including customs duties. At the federal
level, taxes are collected in several areas.
It is the same thing at the provincial level. That is why the
government proposed the Canada revenue commission. I think the
vast majority of Quebec citizens, who are part of Canada, would
prefer not having to fill out two income tax returns. So it would be
nice if both levels of government could come to some sort of
agreement and establish a common, efficient mechanism for
collecting taxes without resorting to a war of flags.
If they could agree, for example, that the federal Deputy
Minister of Revenue and his Quebec counterpart would sit on this
or that commission, people could send their money to one place
and part of this money would go to the federal government while
another part would go to Quebec. What we want is something
simple and effective. I think this is important.
We said earlier that we must also keep a sense of fairness and
compassion in all this. In this regard, I would remind the House
that, as far as social programs are concerned, the Minister of
Finance has given the provinces guarantees that cash transfers
would never fall below a certain level in the next few years. So,
under the new Canada social transfer for health and social
programs, the federal government has made a commitment until
the year 2003. For example, in 1999-2000, it will give the
4383
provinces $25.1 billion, which should rise to $27.4 billion by
2002-2003.
This is important, because there are poor people in our society,
as we recently saw on the news, especially in Quebec, where the
cuts hurt. It is hard to understand-and the federal government's
generosity is not in question-but it is hard to understand how
some people do not have access to basic health care.
I mentioned earlier the importance of these transfers, whether it
is money or tax points, in the health, education and welfare sectors.
The federal government will continue to fulfill its obligations, as it
undertook to do in the last budget speech.
Another issue which I want to discuss and which people have
raised is that of job creation. If I refer to the main estimates in
relation to job creation, it is because of the student summer
employment program. You will recall that such a program was
announced and the monies earmarked for young Canadians were
increased from $60 million to $120 million.
I should tell you that, for the young people whom I met this
summer, not just in Brome-Missisquoi but in other ridings too,
this initiative worked perfectly well. Let me give you an example.
Thanks to this program, and every member in this House can do the
same, I arranged for a group of some 30 young students from
Brome-Missisquoi to work in other Canadian cities. Five were
from Cowansville and went to work in Victoria, B.-C. Similarly,
five students from Victoria came to work in Brome-Missisquoi.
The same arrangement was made for students from other cities in
my riding, who went to work in Edmonton, Prince Edward Island
and three ridings in Ontario.
(1910)
These young people found this to be an extraordinary
experience. It was a learning experience, and I will get back to this
later on, to learn or become more proficient in the other official
language. It was an experience to live with a family and to develop
a better understanding the other Canadian culture. This is
important. Then there was the work experience.
It is a fact that students have difficulty making ends meet. They
struggle with increasing tuition fees and maintenance expenses.
The program's first goal is perhaps to make sure that they get a
summer job. This is for our generation of tomorrow.
Employment, as this example shows, is very important. With
regard to job creation, I would like to deal with another small issue,
that of research and development. In Canada, the government is
currently spending, one way or another, some $7 billion on
research and development, $2 billion in tax credits for corporations
doing research and development and $5 billion in federal programs
or federal agencies, whether in agriculture, in research centres or
the National Research Centre, and so on.
There again, in order to do better, the government announced
early in the summer the creation of a committee that will report on
how to better commercialize the findings of research and
development. That too generates employment.
All along, however, we must keep in mind the need to restore
fiscal order. That is being done. When the Liberal government
came to power, the federal deficit stood at $42 billion for 1993-94.
A year later, it had gone down to $37,5 billion, and down to $32,7
billion the year after. In 1996-97, according to the Minister of
Finance's budget speech, the deficit will have been reduced to
$24,3 billion, and will get down to $17 billion in 1997-98. Thus,
the deficit will have gone down from $42 to $17 billion. Over the
last few years, we will have seen the annual deficit decrease by at
least $7 billion every year.
As you can see, at that rate, we should get very quickly to a zero
deficit situation and see what we can do when we have a zero
deficit.
Another tool that is very useful to the members of this House is
the public accounts committee. This is an important House
committee that reviews the operations of various departments and
hears from senior civil servants and deputy ministers who have to
explain how they manage public funds.
Let me give you two examples where the committee, made up of
a majority of government members, but chaired by an opposition
member and with representatives from every party of this House,
reviewed last year's budget, based on the auditor general's report.
At one point, we realized that in the maritimes, about a hundred
million dollars were spent on transportation. We were told quite
plainly that subsidies under the program amounted to about 50 per
cent of all transportation costs. Some people told us that they found
out the bills were ``boosted'' or ``inflated'', that is how they put it,
but the civil servants who manage the program said: ``Checking the
bills is not part of our job description. It is not part of our duties.
We only issue cheques for 50 per cent of the total amount''.
I think elected members of Parliament have to ensure that such
things do not happen again. Let me give you another example.
When we looked at the moving expenditures for civil servants,
we realized that the total amount for all departments put together
exceeded something like $100 million dollars a year. That is how
much the federal government has to pay to move civil servants
from one end of the country to the other, from one province to
another, from one city to another, and so on.
4384
(1915)
When I talk about moving civil servants, I mean moving their
furniture, their dining room sets, their bedroom sets, etc. It is a lot
of money. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts has
examined these matters so that these things do not happen again.
All that under the guidance of the auditor general. This is the role
members of this House have to play.
I could give other examples, but I just added the concept of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts to the concept of sound
management exercised by the present government. Sound
management in terms of deficit reduction and in terms of
expenditure review.
I realized something a few weeks ago. There was a meeting of
public accounts committee representatives. The federal
government is not the only one that has a public accounts
committee. Every province is supposed to have a public accounts
committee chaired by an opposition member to examine
expenditures and management in a somewhat independent fashion.
Do you know there is one province in Canada that does not have
such a committee with the same characteristics as the ones that
exist at the federal level and in the other provinces? That province
is Quebec. Quebec does not have a public accounts committee.
I take this opportunity to salute the courage and the
open-mindedness of the two Quebec representatives at that national
meeting, Mr. Baril, MNA for Arthabasca, and Mr. Chagnon, MNA
for Westmount-Saint-Louis, who both said in front of their
colleagues from the rest of the country that it would be important
for Quebec to have a public accounts committee, particularly
today.
There is an important example in all this. I will take the example
of the heritage department. When we talk about the Main
Estimates, yes there is a large budget for the heritage department,
and part of that budget is set aside for official languages. This is
important.
After visiting the students in Brome-Missisquoi, who travelled
to various parts of the country this summer, I saw how important it
was for students, families, everyone, that children, this future
generation in the making, be able, if they wish, to learn our
country's second language.
In this regard, the official languages program that provides
assistance for French as a second language in the other provinces,
and for English as a second language in Quebec, is a very good
thing. It is important to ensure that our francophone communities
outside Quebec, the one million francophones outside Quebec, can
count on the federal government as they do.
And does Quebec get its fair share in all this? Yes, it does. The
federal system is much more than a large book of account. In
addition to a mathematical fair share, it must be remembered that
Quebec benefits from a fair share that is difficult to quantify.
NAFTA, the G-7, Canadian influence within the G-7, and the
Commonwealth are also important and cannot be assigned a dollar
value.
Mr. Landry claimed that the Quebec economy did not represent
20 per cent of the Canadian economy. In fact, Quebec's gross
domestic product constitutes 22.4 per cent of Canada's gross
domestic product.
I would like to add that Quebec receives much more than its fair
share. Quebec was responsible for 21.4 per cent of federal
government revenues, but was the beneficiary, in 1994, of 24.5 per
cent of federal government spending.
(1920)
In all this, there is a good place for Quebec. In all this, the
government must go ahead and pass the main estimates, and I can
tell you that I will be voting in favour.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to most of my colleague's speech. He talked
about jobs. I would like him to give us his views about the surplus
in the unemployment insurance fund. At the present time, in the
financial statements, in the government's allocations, there is a
surplus in the unemployment insurance fund that compensates for
the deficit, but basically, this fund is 100 per cent financed by
employers and employees and they have no control on its use.
I do not know if he is aware that a vast segment of the population
is presently without a job and is often composed of people who do
not have specialized training, who need jobs that require their skills
but that are not necessarily jobs created by the new economy.
It is all fine and well to talk about the new economy. It is true
that people who have adequate training get jobs more easily, but
there are also all the people who are to some extent the victims of
these technological changes. Does the hon. member feel that there
is some willingness on the part of the government? Will anything
be said somewhere and fast so we can put these people back to
work?
I have another question for him. As a member of Parliament
from Quebec, as someone who has to travel in his riding in Quebec,
does he find that his constituents want the Senate to continue as
before, to continue to spend about $40 million year after year,
without its members being elected, with them being appointed
almost for life, or at least until the age of 75, without being
accountable, and being able, for example, to kill bills like the one
on Pearson airport-a move that was a slap in the face to the
government, because that bill had been passed by the government
and was killed by a House that was not elected by the government?
4385
Does he intend to do something so that, in controlling spending,
we deal with this symbol, the Senate, and find a way to avoid
funding such an outdated organization?
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the first
point had to do with the UI fund surplus, the need for jobs, and the
new economy. Those are the words my colleague used earlier.
As for the Quebec economy, we are having a hard time these
days. Let me give you an example. The other day, I was walking on
Rue de la Montagne in downtown Montreal, between Maisonneuve
and Sherbrooke Streets. You should try it. Every second door was a
boarded-up shop or restaurant. The economy is dying. But, as Mr.
Dumont said, there is something really simple that could be done.
Economic prosperity cannot be founded on uncertainty.
The former leader of the Bloc Quebecois, who is now in Quebec
City, is holding a sword of Damocles above our heads. Will a
referendum be held in one, two or three years? How reassuring can
it be for an investor to be told: ``We do not know what will happen
in one, two or three years''? This makes no sense. What we need is
a truce. Mr. Dumont is absolutely right. We need a truce that would
last at least 10 years. As members of the Bloc Quebecois, you
should speak to your former leader and ask him to call a truce so
that the Quebec economy can pick up again.
(1925)
If Mr. Bouchard had seen former U.S. President Harry Truman's
desk, he would have read the sign saying, ``The buck stops here''.
My colleague's second question concerns the Senate. It is a
totally legitimate question on cost effectiveness, but we must keep
in mind that we are debating the main estimates. If we wanted to do
something else like abolishing the Senate, we would need a
constitutional amendment. The Senate is in the Constitution. I am
asked if people in Brome-Missisquoi and in other ridings would
like-Indeed, some would, but we would still need a constitutional
amendment. This is not something that can be done through the
main estimates, because our institutions must be able to operate.
Mr. Plamondon: Stop appointing them.
Mr. Paradis: Not only the people of Brome-Missisquoi- The
hon. member for Bellechasse was on the same committee as I was
the other day and we had a chance to discuss this.
But we should get rid of this mental block. As you know, Mr.
Bouchard attended the first ministers' conference. The first thing
he said was: ``No discussion whatsoever on constitutional
amendments''. In the meantime, our friends here, our colleagues,
are saying the Senate should perhaps be abolished, but this would
require a constitutional amendment. Mr. Bouchard does not even
want to broach the subject, so I have trouble understanding whether
or not he continues to issue orders from Quebec City. This is
something I have trouble understanding.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as usual we
heard a very positive speech from the member on the government
side about how things are coming up roses right across the country.
He told us about the problems on Sherbrooke Street in Montreal. I
think I am quoting him properly when he said that at every second
door a restaurant or a retail store was closed down.
Do members remember the old slogan jobs, jobs, jobs? Yet every
second business on that street in Montreal, which is a major
shopping street if I am correct, is closed down and one family in
four in Montreal is on government assistance.
This government is supposed to be the federal government that
governs the people on Sherbrooke Street in Montreal, on Jasper
Avenue in Edmonton, and on Perron Street in St. Albert, which is
my constituency. The member said that in order for the government
to do its job it wants a truce from the Bloc Quebecois and the
separatists in Quebec. Its job is to govern.
I would like to know from the hon. member from
Brome-Missisquoi when the Liberal government will start
governing and representing the people on Sherbrooke Street in
Montreal, Quebec. When will it start delivering on the old cliché of
jobs, jobs, jobs that it promised to the people of Quebec, to the
people of Edmonton, and to the people in my riding of St. Albert?
The government said it would deliver. It did not say give us a
truce from the separatist and we will see if we can deliver. We are
still waiting. When will it deliver?
[Translation]
Mr. Paradis: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is true-and I cited
Montreal, and the stretch of de la Montagne street between
Maisonneuve and Sherbrooke in particular, as an example-that
every second business is closed down, but let me tell you about
Brome-Missisquoi.
In terms of jobs, there are two main areas around the two largest
cities of the riding, the first one being the Cowansville-Bromont
area, which is doing well, with its IBM plant, General Electric,
research and development facilities and so forth.
(1930)
At the other end of my riding is Magog, with its textile industry
and plans for a 20,000-foot expansion in that industry and another
20,000-foot expansion in the plastics industry. That is the situation
in Brome-Missisquoi in a nutshell. That is what is going on in this
riding where, must I remind the hon. member for St. Albert, the
population is made up of 20 per cent anglophones and 80 per cent
4386
francophones and we are all living in perfect harmony, somewhat
shielded from the winds of separation.
I have the honour of representing the riding of
Brome-Missisquoi in this Parliament, while Pierre Paradis, a
relative of mine, represents the same riding at the Quebec National
Assembly.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for St. Albert will surely have the opportunity to
speak after the member for Richelieu, with whom I will share my
time.
The issue of a second House in Canada is not something new; it
goes back to 1774. That year, the pyramid was started from the top,
in the sense that institutions were established for the British North
America of the time. In 1774, only institutions approved by a
legislative council were set up. Our structures were rather simple,
with a governor representing the Crown and a legislative council
appointed by the governor.
This was a bit of a family compact. There was little discussion
when laws were passed and budgets approved. When democratic
movements called for an elected house to represent the population
and have a say in the government of the colony of the time, many
voiced their opposition to the idea.
In the end, rather significant support from the United Empire
Loyalists led to our country's having elected houses. But do you
know what happened at the same time? Canada was divided in two:
Upper Canada and Lower Canada, to make sure that French
Canadians would never succeed in passing their laws and in
imposing them on the rest of the country.
Today, as we try to get our powers back and to govern ourselves,
we meet with strong objections and are told that we cannot do that.
Two hundred years ago, they would not let the majority govern in
this country. The pendulum has swung back.
So, in 1791, the Constitutional Act amended the Quebec Act to
create the Houses of Assembly. We still did not have a responsible
government. However, we had an elected House of Assembly, with
an extremely restricted role to play, and the legislative council was
maintained in both Upper Canada and Lower Canada. While the
Constitutional Act of 1791 was in force, this legislative council,
whose members were appointed by the governor, systematically
opposed every decision made by the House of Assembly. The
elected representatives had little success in imposing their final
decisions during the period from 1791 to 1838, at which time the
Special Act was passed to suspend the Constitutional Act of 1791,
following the Patriots' Rebellion in 1837.
The Union Act of 1840 maintained the legislative council and an
elected House, of course, but the legislative council could oppose,
under any circumstances, all the decisions made by the elected
representatives of the population. For 16 years, the members of
this legislative council would be appointed by the governor and
could do everything they pleased to oppose the decisions of the
elected representatives.
In 1858, a timid but still significant reform was initiated, with
the election of the members of the legislative council, although
vested rights were maintained. Those who had been appointed
before the 1856 act, which provided for the election of the
legislative council members, were able to keep their seats, but had
to sit next to members who were elected on a rotational basis.
(1935)
It must have been strange to have an elected member and a
member appointed for life sitting side by side in the same House. It
is as if my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford, was there for
life and I had to go back to the voters every four years, I would not
be too amused.
Change had begun, and with it government instability and the
decision of the elite, not the public, to change the form of
government. These were the people known as the Fathers of
Confederation, the grand term used to describe those who decided
that there would be a federal government in Canada's future. There
was never any desire to consult the public about this.
A great Liberal, Antoine-Aimé Dorion, proposed in the House of
Assembly in Parliament, here in Ottawa, that a referendum be held
on the change in Canada's constitutional status in 1867. This highly
democratic proposal to let the public decide on the future status of
Canada was defeated. The changes proposed by a small elite were
adopted. In Quebec, numerous county and municipal councils
opposed the constitutional change, sensing the trap into which we
were heading. By letting go of our equal representation in the
Parliament of the United Canada, that is, from an institutional point
of view, we were saddled with a lame duck. At the beginning we
had a third of the seats in the Senate and the House of Commons,
but today we no longer even guaranteed a quarter of the seats.
In the next election, Quebec will have only 75 members out of
301, which is below the critical threshold of 25 per cent
representation which has always been one of Quebec's traditional
demands.
Perhaps I may, oh irony of ironies, quote Senator Jean-Claude
Rivest, who represents the district of Stadacona. Speaking before
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, he said
that 25 per cent was the minimum, was the critical mass Quebec
needed in the House of Commons. This 25 per cent will be lost in
the next election.
In 1867, they talked about what they would do with these
institutions. When I say: ``they'', I am referring to the Fathers of
Confederation. There were other constitutions in the past. There
4387
was the Constitution of Great Britain and there was a tendency to
refer to the Constitution of Great Britain, the United Kingdom.
The first preamble to the British North America Act, 1867,
forms the basis of all provisions dealing with the Senate in our
institutions. I will read it to you:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have
expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion under the Crown of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in
principle to that of the United Kingdom.
A constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom
provides for two Houses of Parliament. In the United Kingdom, as
in this country, there is a House of Commons, but also an upper
House, the House of Lords. We wanted to establish one as well. I
am not an agriculture critic but we have our own little lords.
So we established another House, the Senate. This House has the
same powers the House of Lords had at the time: the power to fully
obstruct decisions of the House of Commons. This was in 1867,
when the House of Lords systematically opposed all bills that
would give back to Ireland its institutions, which had been
suspended for many years.
In any case, one would have to be totally lacking in political
vision to be oblivious to the fact that someday, the other House, the
Canadian Senate, which was not elected and was not accountable to
any one would obstruct major legislation. We saw it happen during
this Parliament.
Earlier, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup
referred to the bill concerning Pearson Airport. The bill was
defeated in the Senate. An important bill on electoral boundaries
readjustment, Bill C-69, on which the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs worked for weeks on end, was never
passed and died on the Order Paper in the Senate.
(1940)
There is something odd about an unelected house coming to tell
us how to get ourselves elected.
We cannot, of course, as Bloc members and sovereignists,
subscribe to the Reform proposals, which will perhaps be useful to
a Canada in which Quebec is not represented, but we certainly
cannot subscribe to a Senate which would be elected, effective and
equal. If there were any equality, it would have to be between the
two nations, the two founding peoples, not one between provinces.
And what would an elected Senate mean? It would mean another
House with popular legitimacy which would act as a buffer
between the provincial and federal governments. If there is one
thing we do not need right now, it is that.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has just said that a
constitutional amendment is needed to abolish the Senate. Of
course we need a constitutional amendment; it is the 7-50 rule
which applies: 7 provinces representing 50 per cent of the Canadian
population. Let the other provinces reach agreement among
themselves to abolish the Senate and we will probably be rid of it.
I would like to close with an acknowledgment that, of course,
there are some good people sitting in the other House. It is not my
intention to discredit those who are there, but rather to state that, in
1996, the existence of a House of this nature is no longer justified.
The best way to see it abolished quickly is to hit it where it hurts the
most, in the pocket book, by choking off its operating funds, and
then there is a good chance that it will fall on its own sword.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the comments of the Bloc Quebecois member. I found
it very interesting to hear the hon. member, as well as those who
preceded him, talk about the future and about his plan for the
Senate, that is, not to have another House.
I found it rather interesting to see that, perhaps for the first time,
the Bloc Quebecois is in full agreement with the third party, the
Reform Party.
I know well the fate of francophones outside Quebec, because
when I was younger, in high school, we studied two or three
historians, Guy Frégault, Séguin and Brunet, who were always
talking about the underrepresentation of Quebecers in the House of
Commons when it came to seat allocation and distribution.
I find what the hon. member just said very interesting, and
perhaps he can easily answer this fundamental question for me: if
we let the Senate go or abolish it, what good will come of it for
Quebecers who have to deal with demographic pressures for which
Canada is not to blame, but which your province, our neighbour,
has to bear?
As your former leader explained it well, the issue of not having
enough children could have an impact on the strength of your
population. Is the rest of the country to blame for a decrease in the
population of Quebec? If that is the case, as it was said, would
abolishing the Senate not boil down to affecting or decreasing the
importance of Quebec in this House and in this Parliament?
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in the Upper House, the Senate,
Quebec has a constitutional guarantee of 24 seats. Unlike any other
province, Quebec counts 24 senate ridings.
(1945)
In 1867, Quebec was divided into 24 ridings. A thing to
remember, a small anomaly of which I will remind my colleague,
the member for Ontario: in 1912, Quebec borders were altered by
4388
adding to it the Ungava area. Quebec borders were changed, but the
Senate map was not. All of northern Quebec is not represented in
the Senate. Today we are asked if Quebec would be less
represented? Probably over a third of it is not represented at the
moment. I cannot see where the problem is.
As far as the problem of demographics is concerned, I have
trouble putting it in context. With regard to procreation, I would be
more inclined to trust the members of this House, especially my
colleague from Témiscamingue, who recently had a little Félix,
than the members in the other House. I fail to see the connection.
Mr. McTeague: Congratulations!
Mr. Langlois: I am wondering too. The member for Ontario,
who is also very vigourous and represents around 250,000 people,
must feel very frustrated these days knowing that he will have to
face the electorate and justify his policies and the fact that the
promise to abolish the GST has not been fulfilled; he might have a
hard time.
There are people roughly his age in the other place, they are
there until they turn 75, without being held accountable to anyone.
It is incredible. There is something wrong somewhere. We all will
have to go home. In your riding of Stormont-Dundas, maybe it
will not be so difficult, Mr. Speaker, but in Bellechasse it might be
harder, we will see.
In any case, we will return, we will all take the plunge without
any guarantee whatsoever to see what seat will be occupied. The
206 members who were replaced in this House all know what it
means to have no job security.
I went to the other House earlier. What a nice sunset I saw. It was
the darkness in that room that struck me the most; sometimes the
darkness is in the minds. They speak about a House of sober second
thought, but it looked more like a dormitory.
We will be sitting until ten this evening. Over there, they are not
sitting at all. Evening debates are rare enough because the number
of days are limited.
Section 31 of the British North America Act of 1867 states that a
senator loses his seat do you know when? When he or she is absent
from sittings during two consecutive sessions. That means a
senator who was a member of the Senate in 1993, at the beginning
of the 35th Parliament, and who has not yet been present in that
House, still has two more years to attend at least one sitting in order
to keep his seat.
If we did that here, if we were absent from this House, our
constituents would quickly boot us out. We would be subject to
procedures much harsher than impeachment, the newspapers would
demand our resignation, would require that we either sit or quit and
return our salaries. In the other place they can do that, but not here.
It is time to abolish that institution.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
happy to participate in this debate. Since I was elected in 1984, two
political parties in this House have come out in favour of
abolishing the Senate. Among the Tories who were elected in
Quebec, at a famous meeting in Laval, 92 per cent of 800 delegates,
including at least 10 from every riding in Quebec, voted in favour
of abolishing the Senate. But the Liberals, even those elected in
Quebec, never had the courage to make this decision.
Of course, as my colleague pointed out, our saying that the
Senate should be abolished does not mean we do not respect its
members. On the contrary, I know some eminent senators. I am
surprised, however, that these people have accepted this job, if it
can be called a job, or this political reward.
But I am not here to judge them. I want to talk about the
institution itself, what Senator Prud'homme called a relic of
colonialism, before he himself was appointed to the Senate by
former Prime Minister Mulroney for services rendered. Since he is
sitting in the gallery, he could even confirm what I am saying with
a nod of his head.
One of my colleagues who is now in the Senate was talking
about the great dormitory and the hon. sleepyheads. Ms.
Chaput-Rolland was also appointed to the Senate and she suddenly
discovered the virtues of its appropriations, I suppose.
We may look at it from every angle, but no one can justify the
existence of such an undemocratic institution.
(1950)
This is the most undemocratic institution in the western world. It
is incredible. There is no other such senate in the whole world.
Appointments to the Senate are made by the Prime Minister as
political rewards. My colleague, the Liberal member for
Brome-Missisquoi, indicated earlier that the Senate could be
abolished but that a constitutional amendment is required to do so.
There is simple way around this. Just stop making appointments; in
time, there will be no one left. It is that simple, no big deal.
But no, in the past year, the Prime Minister has been appointing
his friends: Sharon Carstairs, who worked with him to make the
Meech Lake accord fail; Mr. Whelan, the former Minister of
Agriculture and a good friend of the Prime Minister in the Trudeau
government; Céline Hervieux-Payette, the candidate from
Montreal who was defeated three times in Laval. They did not
know what to do with her, so they appointed her the Senate to get
rid of her. And the list of patronage appointments goes on.
4389
At least the Conservatives had the decency to consult the
provincial premiers. In those days, Bourassa was the one getting
rid of his dead wood by shipping it to Ottawa.
Thinking back on Senate appointments, it is appalling to be
spending approximately $60 million on this relic of colonialism,
as Mr. Prud'homme called it, without even considering eliminating
it when cuts are being made everywhere else.
You know, as early as 1920, Mackenzie King was talking about
Senate reform, but nothing came of it. The only reform the Senate
ever underwent took place in 1975, when Mr. Pearson decided,
with great courage, that senators were to retire at age 75. Those
who were appointed before 1975 are still in the Senate. I believe
that Senator Olson is 94 years old now, and he is still there. He still
gets his salary. But let us not make a judgment on age either.
Elderly people can serve their country very well. The problem is
not the people sitting in the Senate, but the institution itself.
Let me also point out that, originally, as the hon. member
explained earlier, this institution was meant to act as a brake to the
zeal of the elected members. Since this was the first responsible
government, there was a danger that its elected members might try
to change everything. So, the Senate was established. Later, the
existence of this Senate was justified by saying it would act as the
defender of the interests of the various regions. Since Canada had
become a large country with its ten provinces, the Senate was to
offset the House of Commons, where the central provinces could
wield much power.
Such were the historical justifications. However, our political
customs have since changed, our democracy is now extremely well
structured, and we have other ways and means to put pressure on
elected representatives. For example, would my constituents go to
the Senate to complain about something? Never. People are now
extremely well organized, whether it is seniors or union members,
and they have a platform to voice their claims and to reach their
objectives.
This is not to mention the federal-provincial conferences, which
the provinces use to impede the centralizing power of the federal
government or to have a say in its decisions. And then we also now
have a very aggressive press, which is quick to react if the
government somehow exaggerates in terms of its legislation or
behaviour. We also have the royal commissions we set up regularly.
So, as you see, nowadays, the power of the regions and of
individuals is taking a new form and does not involve the Senate,
which is supposed to offset the House of Commons, should it
become too strong.
So, the Senate only exists on a structural basis. In reality, it
serves absolutely no purpose. Who, among our constituents, would
say: ``I will complain to my senator''? Less than 0.1 per cent of the
people of Canada know the name of their own senator.
(1955)
What is the purpose of the Senate? Individuals and interest
groups do not consider the Senate as an appropriate body to receive
their claims and offset a piece of legislation. They are not
structured that way.
Think of all the energy spent every year to question the very
existence of the Senate and it never gets us anywhere. Reform
would not change anything. It would only create another kind of
problem. For instance, if the Senate were elected, we would have
24 senators from Quebec who would claim to speak on behalf of
Quebecers, while 75 members of Parliament would say the same.
What would the provincial government think of an elected
Senate existing alongside elected members of Parliament, and how
would it negotiate with the federal government? Would it have to
go through the elected Senate or would it have to deal with both the
federal government and the Senate? What would happen if the
Senate and the government were of different political stripes? Can
you imagine the mess we would have with an elected Senate?
The solution is to abolish the Senate. Three or four provinces had
a Senate, which they abolished. By abolishing its Senate in 1968,
did Quebec lose ground in terms of meeting the expectations of the
people is concerned? Did it lose ground with regard to its
institutions? Not at all. Were the regions affected by the abolition
of the Quebec Senate. Not at all. Is new legislation any worse
because there is no Senate to improve upon it? Not at all. So, we
have every right to demand a stop to this utter waste of money.
Given the current economic situation, there is no reason to spend
between 50 and 60 million dollars on an outdated Senate. It does
not make any sense. We could also talk about the position of
governor general, or the positions of lieutenant governors, which
are another shameful waste of money.
We are asked to renew the Senate appropriation, so why not
make the proper decision once and for all and cut off its budget. We
will then have the chance to see if the senators will be zealous
enough to keep coming here to sit or sleep in the Senate.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in sitting hear listening to the debate tonight, there is such
a contrast in opinions about the Senate in this House that I think the
average person is wondering what is going on here.
It is absolutely amazing that members of the separatist party are
in this House talking about the future of the Parliament of Canada
and the Senate when on a daily basis they talk about leaving the
country. I fail to see what their interest is in the future of how this
institution is set up. It is a conflict in philosophy.
4390
At the same time, the Liberals on the other side defend the
Senate institution which everyone in Canada knows is
unaccountable, ineffective and unelected. It is basically a rubber
stamp for the government of the day, if it happens to be the
majority in the Senate. The Liberals of course seized that
opportunity as vacancies became available and appointed their
people to Senate positions. I was going to call it a wonderland, and
perhaps it is, but it is probably one of the plushest patronage
appointments the Liberals and Tories could ever dream up in this
institution.
It is very timely that the Reform Party is sitting in this
Parliament. Down at the other end of the hall we have an institution
that basically serves little or no purpose in this country except to
rubber stamp the government's bills.
The Reformers came to this Parliament, beginning with the
member for Beaver River, and began talking about a triple E
Senate: equal, elected and effective. That rings a fairly common
sense idea to most Canadians. Why should someone represent the
people who is not elected by the people, they ask? Why should
someone be in a position of senator without really having much to
do, being basically ineffective? Why is the Senate so
unaccountable? It comes to Parliament and asks for $40 million to
run its operations. We ask what it is for and the Senate says that we
do not really need to know, that it would just like the $40 million.
(2000)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I hate to interrupt but there
are only five minutes of questions and comments. Perhaps the
member has a succinct question to put to his colleague. Otherwise I
will give the floor to the next member.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we can make
comments and ask questions. I have a question for the hon. member
from the separatist party who just spoke.
He is a parliamentarian. If his party is so bound and determined
to leave this country, why is there such a tremendous interest in
abolishing part of the institution of Canada? Why do those
members have this interest if they simply want to leave anyway?
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. The answer is very simple: we pay 25 per cent. We
represent 25 per cent of the population and we pay for this
dormitory, this nursery, this utterly useless place. As long as we
stay within the federation, we will pay our $30 billion in taxes
every year and we do have a say in the way that money is spent.
I am surprised every time somebody here, in the House of
Commons, questions the legitimacy of this party and of its
members who were democratically elected. I received 70 per cent
of the votes in my riding, which means that 70 per cent of those
who voted shared our party's position.
What is my party's position? It is different from that of other
parties, obviously, because we are advocating a new kind of
relationship with the rest of Canada based on two founding peoples
with two strong governments bound by economic ties only.
The Liberals are advocating the 1982 Constitution, the
Conservative Party is advocating constitutional amendments for
the distinct society clause based on the principles contained in the
Meech Lake accord, and the Reform Party has a different vision of
the future of the two peoples because it is looking at issues such as
official languages. Each party in the House has different ideas and
has the right to express them.
Each time we rise in this House to talk about financial issues that
concerns Quebecers as well as Canadians, we are asked why we,
who want to destroy Canada, should have the right to express our
views. We do not want to destroy Canada, we want to build
Quebec. We want to build a country and we want to have friendly
relations with the rest of Canada, we want to have economic ties as
would any majority in the world. That is the goal of the Bloc
Quebecois.
When we call for the abolition of the Senate, we defend
Quebec's higher interests. That is why we were elected. We were
sent here to promote Quebec's sovereignty and we are doing it
democratically. We have the right to do it and I am sick and tired of
hearing people question the sacred right of a people to choose its
own destiny every time we rise in this House.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate.
[English]
With reference to the motion brought forward in opposition to
the funding of the other place, I should remind colleagues that we
have a longstanding tradition that both Houses of Parliament work
independently to fulfil the important work entrusted to both
Houses. Both Houses actively review important legislation and
policies in their work as parliamentarians. Both have processes in
place for the approval of expenditures of funds.
I would argue that hon. members of the third party had an
excellent opportunity to participate in the reform of the other
House but chose to oppose the Charlottetown accord.
I would vehemently argue that the motion of the third party
simply tinkers at the fringes, tinkers at the edges. Those members
have chosen to attack the other place in such a manner that they are
4391
unable to defend themselves. I would therefore argue that this is
yet another example of the third party's opportunistic approach.
(2005)
[Translation]
It is quite simply meanspirited.
[English]
Rather than deal in a meaningful rational kind of way with
change, rather than look at the reasons why one might go about
changing an institution and bring forward hard data and rational
arguments, they play politics. Cut a bit here, cut a bit there. That is
the approach of Reformers. They do not know where they are
going, so why in the world would they know what to do with the
other House?
The parliamentary system needs a chamber of second thought to
pass good legislation. Perhaps it needs to be changed. Yes, I would
agree and so would they, but what is being proposed is not change.
What is being proposed is to use another House as a target to try to
enhance their imminent electoral defeat. That is what they are
trying to do. They are trying to deflect. They do not know what they
are doing so they are thrashing about trying to find an issue. That is
what is happening.
Parliamentarians in the other House come from all backgrounds.
We know many of them. They have much experience and a great
deal of knowledge in many fields. Some of them would embarrass
members of the third party in terms of what it is that they know
about Parliament, about democracy, and about the Houses in which
we sit and serve. They bring a great deal of wisdom and a wealth of
information to various committees and discussions held throughout
the dominion.
[Translation]
But they want to grandstand. That is what they want to do
because they have no plan. They spoke about the deficit and the
debt. That did not work, because Canadians did not believe them.
They spoke about violence in society and proposed extreme
measures that would have solved absolutely nothing. So what do
they do? They try to find a target, something to bring them back to
life. We cannot revive a political party that is so feeble.
[English]
I am surprised members of the third party did not congratulate
and commend the government for its performance and fiscal
management. They know the government took a hard line on
deficit reduction. They know the government is meeting and
exceeding its targets. It is keeping its promises in the red book.
They know interest rates have declined. They know inflation is at
the lowest sustained level in 30 years. They know that as a result of
job creation efforts on the part of government and the private sector
close to 700,000 new jobs have been created since November 1993.
They know Canada is projected to have the highest employment
growth of any G-7 country, but they refuse to accept it.
[Translation]
They know very well that the government has made enormous
progress in a number of areas. I have mentioned them: interest
rates, inflation, reducing the deficit, the debt, job creation. They
know that the vast majority of Canadians feel that the government
has been very successful. They know it, but they do not want to
admit it.
[English]
They know we have a great deal to be proud of as Canadians.
They know we should be applauding what we have as a nation,
what we have as citizens.
I will spend some time discussing some of the many changes we
in government have implemented. The main estimates for 1996-97
represent the results of a number of initiatives by the government
designed to reduce the budget deficit while providing the services
Canadians need. It is a challenge to reduce what is spent and
provide equal or better services.
[Translation]
The federal government's goal was to clarify its role and its
responsibilities in order to make the federation more effective. It
wanted to follow up on the public's call for better and more
accessible government.
This means modernizing federal programs and services so that
they better meet the needs of Canadians as citizens and as clients,
today and in the future.
(2010 )
[English]
As pointed out by the President of the Treasury Board, this
year's main estimates show $157 billion in planned budgetary
expenditures compared with $164 billion last year, a difference of
$7 billion.
The government has set clear priorities to guide the process of
deficit and therefore debt reduction. It has articulated the roles of
the national government thereby identifying areas where it is
uniquely positioned to best serve Canadians.
This improves on the traditional techniques of modernizing
public administration practices through doing more with less or
through across the board cuts. These approaches have been
replaced by more strategic choices about what programs and
services should be treated as priorities and how best to deliver
them.
The House will recall that the federal government launched
program review and sector specific policy reviews to assess all
policies and programs. It will also recall that the chief achievement
or program review will be structural changes to the business of
government, for example withdrawing from programs providing
direct financial support to industry and not renewing resource
sector regional development agreements when they expire while
4392
maintaining a presence in areas such as international trade, science
and technology.
It will address overlap and duplication by consolidating
activities to make program delivery more efficient and effective,
for example merging the Canadian Coast Guard fleet with that of
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Federal spending has been refocused to meet changing priorities.
Departmental spending devoted to economic programs will decline
significantly between 1994-95 and 1998-99, reflecting the shift in
the government's role from providing direct support to business to
setting framework policies.
Therefore it should be completely and totally evident from these
initiatives that the government is acting responsibly. It is reducing
spending while putting priority on programs which are the real
business of the federal government and are delivered in a cost
effective manner.
For this reason members of the House should concur with the
government's request for full supply.
[Translation]
By the way, I am absolutely astonished, I would even say
appalled, by the motion of the Bloc Quebecois member for
Richmond-Wolfe who proposes to cancel the grants and
contributions under Heritage Canada. Do you realize this means the
hon. member is actually proposing to cancel subsidies to
francophone communities outside Quebec? Yes, to cancel subsidies
to francophone communities outside Quebec.
I would have expected this kind of gesture or initiative from the
Reform Party, perhaps, but not from the Bloc. Someone must have
failed to consider the consequences.
The hon. member also wants the government to stop subsidizing
programs for native communities, which are included in this
budget. Imagine. That is what he suggested. I think it is appalling.
He wants to do away with bursaries for athletes in amateur sport,
with exchange programs for students and all multicultural
programs. This motion hits at francophones outside Quebec, native
people and participants in multicultural programs. Unlike the Bloc
Quebecois, which seems to have no compunction about abandoning
these programs, we will never abandon the multicultural aspect of
our country. We will never abandon Canada's francophone and
Acadian communities. Never.
An hon. member: There will not be any 25 years from now.
Mr. Duhamel: I just heard someone say there will not be any 25
years from now. Well, 20 years ago someone came and told us we
were dead ducks, and one of those dead ducks is speaking here in
the House of Commons. He has children who speak French and
will have grandchildren who speak it as well.
(2015)
Now, would you please stop saying we are going to disappear?
We will never disappear, never.
[English]
Finally, I want to talk about a project that is particularly
important to me entitled ``Improved Reporting to Parliament''. The
government made a commitment to restore public confidence in
government institutions and specifically the role played by
Parliament. Without the right information at the right time,
Parliament cannot perform its proper function. Furthermore, in
order to get government right, we must engage Parliament in a
meaningful dialogue of government plans, priorities and
performance. In order to have an informed dialogue,
parliamentarians need good information.
We are improving the information. We are in the process of
piloting new documents. Later this fall we will table 16 pilot
performance reports. These reports, supported by the members of
my committee, which is an all-party committee and not the people
who are yelling in this House tonight. They are being co-operative.
They recognize the importance of this project.
These reports will provide Parliament with succinct, meaningful,
results oriented information. They will allow parliamentarians to
focus on the results expected from government programs and the
results those programs actually achieve.
Furthermore in the spring complementary departmental
expenditure planning documents will be tabled as part of the
estimates process.
Overall improvements to reporting will allow committees to
improve the processes by which estimates are considered and
disposed of. I am confident that improved information will make
parliamentary debate more meaningful and make an important
contribution to overall government accountability.
I am delighted to chair this all-party interparliamentary
committee. I have received a great deal of co-operation from all of
the members who are part of it and I am most appreciative.
[Translation]
In concluding, I want to say that I support this proposal by the
government and am rather shocked by the proposals made by the
opposition. If the two political parties on the other side of the
House continue to react the way they did this evening, they will
stay where they are for a long time.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with some interest to what our Liberal colleague over there had to
4393
say on this subject. I find it curious that this evening we are
discussing the money to be allocated to the Senate, yet this hon.
member refuses, not surprisingly, to speak of the Senate.
It is in the culture of the two old parties in Canada, the Liberals
and the Conservatives, to hope that one day, if they are really good
and have worked hard-and we know what that means if a person is
in a large national political body, that they have served their party
well-they can hope to fulfil their dream of finishing out their days
in the Senate.
What does that involve? Finishing out one's days in the Senate
means that one has all the benefits. Let me explain some of those
benefits to you. I have had the opportunity of travelling in Canada
and elsewhere with a joint committee. A joint committee is a
committee made up of MPs and senators. I have seen how that
works here in Canada.
First of all, senators have the title of ``honourable'', becoming
honourable when they are appointed, and thus a rung above the
members of the House of Commons. Travelling with them, I have
heard a Canadian colonel on one occasion announce ``senators
first''. People who have not been elected, who were appointed by
the Prime Minister, who are there until the age of 75. They can be
35 when they are appointed, or 40, and will sit as senators until they
reach 75.. And whom do they represent? No one.
(2020)
Last summer, I was in England at a symposium where 25 nations
were represented. You know, when we speak of Canada while
abroad, we describe ourselves as a great country, an
ultrademocratic country, the most democratic in the world. When
we tell people that we have a second House, made up of unelected
members who are there to the age of 75, they are amazed. They just
do not understand. Appointed? For what reason? For various
reasons.
The Liberal caucus, which meets weekly, is made up of MPs and
senators. When they are preparing fund raising campaigns for this
party, who are the ones with the time and the contacts for rounding
up all the money this party needs to operate? The senators
primarily. They have nothing else to do, so they become the
bagmen for the two old parties.
This is a vicious circle. You will note that the Liberals are talking
about all manner of things this evening except the Senate, because
in their heart of hearts they hope, one day, to be appointed to it, if
their leader so decides. Imagine the advantage of not having to run
in elections. No longer any need to be present in the riding.
Imagine all the advantages of being in the Senate.
We in the Bloc Quebecois say, and I think my colleague has said
it clearly: ``No taxation without representation''. As long as the
Bloc Quebecois remains in Ottawa, we are entitled to our opinions.
What we are calling for is abolition, pure and simple. Why?
Because we cannot agree. We have not for 35 years.
When I was a student at the University of Ottawa and the Senate
was being discussed, there was a chapter this long in our book on
the Canadian Senate. I remember that the Senate was described as a
kind of British hybrid in Canada. Why was it called a senate?
Because we are in North America, and there is a senate in the
United States.
You know, when we are travelling we find that no one knows the
Senate is appointed. People just do not know. And that is the
question I would like to ask my colleague.
We are still in a federal system, with two levels of government.
To lighten the federal structure, not to mention the tax burden on
Canadians and Quebecers, would now not be the time to abolish the
Senate?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's
comments.
He started by saying: ``I listened with some interest to what my
colleague had to say''. I would have rather that he had listened with
great interest.
He seems to believe that I want to become a senator. Frankly, I
have not spent much time dreaming about it. Certainly not. I do not
think so. While I was listening to him, and I did carefully, I seemed
to detect a trace of jealousy. When someone says ``senators first'', I
do not have a problem. If someone was to tell my colleagues ``you
first'', I would not have a problem with that. I will not feel put
down if I go through the door behind others, in the middle of the
pack or anywhere else, I have no problem with that. Frankly, some
people have quite a complex.
Personally, I like to see senators go first in front of me. I have no
problem with that.
Another thing, you know, what I find really shocking, and I am
not kidding any more, I said in my speech that I was ready to talk
about Senate reform, and this is why I have been following the
debate with a certain interest. But this is not a reform. They are
playing politics to try to attract some attention. This is not serious,
cutting.
Why not say: This is what I propose?
Mr. Plamondon: We propose to abolish it.
Mr. Duhamel: Yes. Come up with a clear proposal.
Mr. Plamondon: Will abolition do, yes or no?
Mr. Duhamel: Abolition, abolition.
(2025)
Dear friends, come up with a proposal in due form. I am asking
you to come up with a proposal in due form abolishing the Senate.
Do it tomorrow morning, I am looking forward to it.
4394
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, how much time do I have?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Three minutes.
Mr. Harris: Let me make a comment and ask a question. ``I
think my gold plated pension is okay'', says the hon. member for
St. Boniface. The member talked about performance reports. Let
me give him a performance report and then I will get to my
question.
Here is a Liberal performance report. Early next month the
national debt is going to reach $600 billion. Performance: The
Liberals contributed fully two-thirds to that debt. The Liberals
contributed about two-thirds to raising the interest payment on that
debt to an astounding $48 billion. Performance: The Liberal
government has driven the national debt up by $100 billion since it
took over in 1993. Soon the Prime Minister will be known all
across this country as the $600 billion man.
Does the member for St. Boniface really believe that this
Parliament should give the Senate $40 million with no question
asked? Does he believe that is the proper and accountable thing to
do?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that my colleague
should rise and make a few comments. They are as profound as
they normally are. We contributed supposedly two-thirds to the
debt. Frankly, he is very poor in mathematics or he is really trying
to be very misleading because that is totally inaccurate.
I received on my desk today an analysis of some of the statistics
that Reform uses when trying to scare the Canadian population
about violence in society. It was deplorable. I will give an example.
Reformers took a crime rate that was used at one time by Statistics
Canada before Ontario was involved. Ontario then became
involved and they took that first figure and compared it to the
whole of Canada proving that there had been 1,000 and some-per
cent increase. They would be great in finance. These kinds of
statements are deplorable.
Reformers are down to 7 per cent or 8 per cent in the polls
because Canadians do not believe them any more. They make
outlandish statements that one cannot even add up. They make
absolutely misleading statements that people no longer believe.
They were at 20 per cent, went down to 14 per cent, now at 7 per
cent and I suspect they will be at 2 per cent pretty soon. I do not
know how one can get below 0 per cent, but if it is possible for a
political party to get below 0 per cent I am betting it is going to be
the Reform Party. I believe this party will be the first party to attain
that noble goal. That is what Reformers deserve with that kind of
rhetoric, those kinds of misleading statements, the poor research,
the exaggeration and the bluster.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I was not sure exactly what
it was I missed about this place over the last several months but I
am giving a new definition to wonderful Wednesday.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you are
right, there are some things about this House that we can miss over
the summer. I certainly enjoyed the peace and quiet of the country
back in Morinville, Alberta. It was just wonderful. We are now
back into the fray and debating the estimates.
I have a couple of points. The previous speaker, the member for
St. Boniface, takes pride in his accomplishments. It is a real
accomplishment that he has been able, through the chairmanship of
his committee, to provide a pilot project that would give new
information to Parliament. We hope it is going to provide better
and more useful information to this House.
(2030 )
The point unfortunately is that once we have this new and
improved information and once we are able to see how the
government intends to spend the money and we make
recommendations to reduce that amount, we are absolutely and
totally stonewalled by the members of the government because
they say: ``Confidence is the order of the day. There is nothing that
we can do. Whatever they say they want has to be voted through''.
That is the shame about this House, not the other one, this
House: the fact that the democratic will of this House is thwarted
because the Prime Minister says that confidence applies to the
estimates. Therefore any backbencher in the government who
wishes to oppose, challenge, reduce or change any figure in these
estimates had better think twice. They would not want to be back
out in the hustings trying to get re-elected because the government
might fall because of one backbencher. They are not prepared to
stand up to the Prime Minister.
As a result, the estimates as tabled by the President of the
Treasury Board are rammed through this House without any change
of any kind being tolerated, regardless of whether or not we get
new and improved information courtesy of the member for St.
Boniface. It is not to detract from his work which is real and serious
work. It is to say that in this House the democratic principle of
representation of the people who sent us here to talk about these
estimates and to act upon these estimates only allows us to talk
about these estimates. That is most important.
Of course, there is the other house. I was quite surprised at the
two members of the Bloc Quebecois. The member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley talked about challenging their legitimacy
to sit in this House. I thought they would blow a gasket. Their
blood pressure went up. The rhetoric got hot and I thought they
would stomp right out. Very sensitive they were to the challenges to
their legitimacy.
4395
The other House is well and truly entrenched in our Constitution
as a legitimate part of this Parliament, albeit unelected, yes.
Nonetheless it is part of our Constitution; it is entrenched and has
a place in this Parliament. Does the Bloc have a place in this
Parliament? That is a serious question and that is why when one
questions their legitimacy to sit in this House, Bloc members get
so hot under the collar that we have to stand back. Members know
how it is.
Anyway, there is the other House. We heard the member for St.
Boniface. If they make us an offer, we are prepared to debate the
issue.
There was an article in the August 5, 1996 Edmonton Sun. The
headline is ``PM's sad slide on the Senate''. I will read from it:
Back in October 1990, the then opposition leader had a vision for the Senate, one
he promised to enact. At the time of this momentous disclosure the Prime Minister
was addressing 400 delegates at the annual general meeting of the Alberta branch of
the federal Liberal Party.
He was speaking to his own converted people. Going on, he said:
Saying it was only the presence of Liberal senators that made the chamber of
second thought effective at all, he went on to vow that ``The Liberal government in
two years will make it elected''.
It is now nearly six years later, and the Senate is more a palace of patronage than
ever. And as far as we know, the Prime Minister has never uttered the words
``elected'' and ``Senate'' in the same sentence since he was elected in 1993.
Talk about promises, talk about the red book. They enact the
promises. The Prime Minister stood up in 1990 and said: ``I want to
see an elected Senate because they have almost stopped the GST
from being rammed through against Canadians' will''. That is why
we need a House of sober second thought. It is to ensure that
Canadians are represented. What they want is what they get. When
they do not want the GST, they do not want the GST.
(2035 )
The Senate had its finest day in years. The senators were on
television every night as they stomped out of the chamber. Of
course the Liberal majority frustrated the will of the Tory
government in this chamber until the Prime Minister of the day
said: ``I will fix that. I will appoint a bunch of my cronies to
outnumber your cronies and then we will get what I want through
that chamber because it is not elected''. That is hardly democracy.
I asked the Library of Parliament for some background on the
other place and they were kind enough to give me a paper that they
had prepared for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
30th Canadian regional conference in New Brunswick in August
1990. I will quote from that paper.
On page 2 on the powers of the Senate it states: ``The powers of
the Senate, which have not been amended since 1867 except with
regard to the amendment of the Constitution, are impressive on
paper. In formal terms the Senate comes immediately after the
Queen and before the House of Commons in the list of components
of the Canadian Parliament. For a law to pass it must be agreed to
by the Senate. If a bill passed by the House of Commons is
amended in the Senate the amendment must in turn be approved by
the Commons failing which the entire text will die on the Order
Paper.
``Supremacy was conceded to the Commons only in the terms of
financial initiatives. Money bills have been subject to dispute since
Confederation. In the United Kingdom under the Parliament Act of
1911 it is up to the Speaker of the Commons to certify bills as
money bills but no such procedure exists in Canada. It is generally
accepted that tax bills, bills of supply and bills of appropriation fall
into this category and that such bills may only be introduced in the
House but must pass both chambers''.
It continues on page 3, where the paper prepared quotes from a
book by Mr. Robert A. Mackay, The Unreformed Senate of Canada
revised edition 1963, pages 94 and 95 and it states: ``The Senate
cannot be said to have abused its powers over money bills. It must
be recognized that whatever its legal powers, it has not the same
political authority as the Commons and that accordingly on money
matters the commons has a clear priority and that the Senate's
responsibility and rights are secondary''. They are secondary.
I read those quotes because a committee of this House asked the
Senate to appear before the House of Commons committee, which
has supremacy on money matters clearly and obviously, to tell this
House why we should give the Senate $43 million to carry on its
business and it refused.
This House has supremacy, clearly, obviously and distinctly. We
are elected by Canadians. We represent Canadians from coast to
coast. We, the House of Commons, are the ones who have the
power to tax Canadians and we are the ones who have the authority
to decide how that money is to be spent. The other place, which is
secondary and subordinate to this House on money matters, has
refused to appear before us to explain why it needs it. Yet the Prime
Minister, his government and his backbenchers later on tonight, I
can guarantee it, will vote the Senate every nickel that it has asked
for without one question being answered as to why it needs the
money and how it is going to spend it.
That is an affront to the people who sit in this House. It is an
affront to Canadians who have to pay taxes that we will give the
other place $43 million even though it says: ``Put it in your face.
We are not going to show up and answer your questions as to why
we need the money''. It is an affront.
4396
Let me say no more about the other place until it is reformed.
(2040 )
On a broader scale, members have heard me talk about the fact
that the Prime Minister asks and the Prime Minister gets as far as
the estimates are concerned. Whatever we say in this House is of no
matter.
Last year the Reform Party put up quite a fight on the estimates.
As a result of that fight the government said that it would create a
subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee on the
business of supply to see what could be done to reform this process.
I did not think it would be a long, drawn out and complicated affair
but unfortunately I have to advise that the subcommittee is still in
existence. It has still to file its final report, and here we are 15
months from the time the committee was created.
We have heard the witnesses. We have listened to the people who
put the current procedures in place as to why they put them in place
and how they feel it is not delivering what they had anticipated. I
hoped we would have reported back to the House before now, that
we would be discussing these estimates under an amended
procedure based on the work of the subcommittee on the business
of supply, but it is not to be.
As the Reform Party critic for the Treasury Board, as a gesture of
goodwill, we allowed the old process to prevail today. However, we
feel this government has no desire to move and to amend the
business of supply. We have been absolutely stonewalled about
changing and reducing these estimates regardless of how legitimate
our arguments are. Be assured that next year when the estimates are
presented to the House the Reform Party will vigorously defend to
the best of its ability its right to challenge the government to ensure
that Canadians become fully aware of the charade that goes on here
once every year, and also when we have the supplementary
estimates.
It is just a done deal before we even vote because confidence is
called by the Prime Minister and they on the other side all fall into
line and say: ``What the Prime Minister wants, the Prime Minister
gets''. This is regardless of what the people think, the people who
sent them here. Regardless of what they think, what the Prime
Minister wants, the Prime Minister gets.
We have heard the stories of responsible management,
downsizing, efficiency and so on. What is the government doing? I
am sure Canadians are not really aware what it is doing.
Look at some of the numbers: Enterprise Cape Breton
Corporation has an increase in budget of 69 per cent. Its budget is
going from $10 million last year to $17 million this year, an
increase of 69.3 per cent. We have heard the speeches. They have
been wonderful and glorious speeches about how the Liberals are
cutting the budget and about how the deficit is coming down
through their hard work.
Here is something else: The Canadian Museum of Civilization. I
am sure we create a lot of jobs down there. It has an increase in its
budget of 21 per cent from $38 million to $46 million.
The Canadian Museum of Nature has a 37 per cent increase in
budget, from $18 million to $24 million. They must create a lot of
jobs in museums these days.
The National Gallery of Canada has a budgetary increase of 20
per cent, from $27 million to $33 million. More museums: The
National Museum of Science and Technology has an increase of 33
per cent, from $15 million to $20 million. There is no end.
Remember how critical the Reform Party has been of the
minister of heritage and her flagrant and spendthrift waste, waving
flags courtesy of the taxpayer. Everyone knows the story.
Status of Women, Office of the Co-ordinator has an increase of
222 per cent, from $4 million to $15 million. All these areas are
under the control of the Deputy Prime Minister, that newly elected,
wonderful member from Hamilton East who is also the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. I am sure she is doing her bit to cut the size of
government. Right?
(2045)
Mr. Epp: Oh yes.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Let us talk about the Minister of Finance. He is the one who is
prudent and tight with the dollars. He says he is wrestling the
deficit down. There was increase in the Department of Finance of
19.1 per cent from $49 billion to $59 billion, largely because the
debt is going up and up. It will be $100 billion more during the life
of this government using an 8 per cent rate. That is another $8
billion each and every year out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
The largest transfer program in the history of Canada is the
transfer from the poor taxpayers, the downtrodden, hardworking
Canadian taxpayer and it is going to the moneylenders, the bankers,
the investors, the overseas people who are buying our bonds. The
largest transfer program in the history of Canada is the $50 billion
to the rich financiers around the world.
Is that fiscal management? Is that prudent management? Is that
sound management? Is that what the Liberals tell the people at
election time? No, they say jobs, jobs, jobs and the unemployment
rate is stuck at 10 per cent. The next time around it will be jobs,
jobs, jobs and the unemployment rate will be stuck at 10 per cent.
Not a single word will be said about the fact that the interest costs
on the debt has gone up 10, 20, 30 and 40 per cent. It is now $50
billion and by the turn of the century that will be $60 billion.
4397
We heard the member for St. Boniface talk about how the coast
guard and the department of fisheries were working closely to
reduce costs. At fisheries and oceans the increase is 15.7 per cent
from $775 million to $896 million.
At Indian affairs, that wonderful department that creates all these
jobs, has an increase of 6.2 per cent from $4.9 billion to $5.2
billion. The Federal Court of Canada has an increase of 60 per cent
from $19 million to $31 million. It is all here.
Is that fiscal management? No. Is there prudent management?
No. Help themselves to the taxpayers money? Absolutely yes.
Absolutely yes because every nickel has come down on the deficit
as being from increased tax revenues. There has been no reduction
in unemployment to speak of. They have helped themselves to the
money from the working people by refusing to reduce the
unemployment insurance premiums. Now the government has a $6
billion slush fund that the Minister of Finance is using to say: ``I
have met my deficit target''.
High unemployment insurance premiums kill jobs. We know the
Minister of Finance is sitting on top of a slush fund so he can say he
has met his target. He is putting people out of work because UI
premiums are too high. Let that message be put out. Let the
message go out to Canadians that this is irresponsible management.
The government refuses to allow the a legitimate expression of all
members as to what they think of these estimates. That has to
change in this House and the way they are appointed and elected
down the hall. That House has to change too.
There is no end to the improvements that the Reform Party could
and will make.
(2050)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to what the hon. member from the Reform Party had
to say and, while he was speaking, I was thinking how lucky
Quebec voters are to have members of the Bloc Quebecois
representing them here in this House. How lucky they are and how
lucky we in the Bloc are to be able to come to this House to defend
Quebec's interests and share our views with members of the other
parties. Our views are often different from theirs because we are
linguistically and culturally different.
In 1968, the Government of Quebec was led by Daniel Johnson
Senior. There is a big difference between the father and the son. I
can tell you that the father was a great premier. So the then Premier
of Quebec, Daniel Johnson, abolished the legislative assembly,
which was equivalent to the federal Senate. Believe it or not,
Quebec has continued to function since then. We realized that we
did not need two Houses in Quebec. If this works for every
province, why would it not work for the central government? This
would resolve an enduring situation that has been deteriorating for
a long time. We have talked about reforming the Senate for a long
time. We now see that it is impossible to reform because we cannot
agree on anything.
The Reform Party favours an elected Senate. It would not be so
bad, at least, if senators were elected. But what is the advantage of
having two Houses of Parliament?
We are a middle power with a population of 27 or 28 million.
Every Canadian province has its own government. There are
governments in all 10 provinces and in the territories. We have a
central government, municipal governments and school boards.
Why not do away with the Senate?
In my school days, we were told that the Senate was a Canadian
creation modelled on the House of Lords. It was decided at the time
to copy the British parliamentary system. The title of lord is
hereditary. In the Canadian system, it was decided to appoint
senators. It may have been a good thing at the time, not knowing
how educated the members of the Lower House would be, to have
slightly more educated people sitting for a longer period in the
Upper House. But what good is it today?
One thing matters: those who represent the people must be
elected. This prompts me to ask this question: Would Canada not
do better with just one House instead of reforming a Senate that is
beyond reform?
There was talk about reform in 1970 and again in 1975 and 1978.
When I was in school, we kept hearing about all these plans to
reform the Senate, but no agreement was ever reached. As a result,
the Senate remains the same and carries on.
I think that not to abolish the Senate at this time is to show lack
of respect for Canadian voters, who work hard to send people to
represent them in this place. These representatives work hard, very
hard. We all know how expensive it is to run a Parliament. The
Senate alone costs $43 million per year at the lowest estimate and
$65 million, when everything is taken into account. What a saving
this would be: $65 million. With this money, we could afford to
build one or two hospitals per year in Canada, and these would be
much more useful than a Senate.
Nowadays money must be invested where it will be profitable. A
Senate is not a profitable investment. All a Senate does is give the
Prime Minister in office an excuse to appoint his friends, to reward
those who have served the party well. So, instead of wasting our
time stubbornly insisting on reforming an archaic institution, why
not just abolish the Senate?
4398
(2055)
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, one notes that when the members
from the Bloc talk about legitimacy they get very sensitive about
the issue. I think it is because they feel quite sensitive themselves
about being here and wondering about the legitimacy of why they
are here in the first place or how they can stay here.
I believe I talked about this earlier on this evening. There is a
need sometimes for the house of sober second thought, as the other
Chamber is currently considered at this point in time. I have
reasons for saying that. Let us take a look at a couple of situations.
A couple of years ago the GST created a furore in this House.
The prime minister of the day used his majority to ram that
legislation through this House before sending it down the hall to
the other House for the sober second thought. The opposition party
had the majority down there at that time. There was tremendous
animosity around the country and this hated tax was not to be
introduced.
The prime minister of the day used a very small quirk of the
Constitution which had never been used before to change the
majority down the hall to guarantee passage of his hated
legislation. If that had been an elected Chamber, a Chamber where
all the regions were properly represented and could not be
tampered with by the prime minister of the day then or today, we
would not have to tell Canadians that we would scrap the GST. The
Deputy Prime Minister would not have had to put her seat on the
line because she would not have had to make an election promise
that she would scrap the GST. There is a very real reason for that
House.
The other reason, as I said, is that sometimes we get a little
headstrong in here and sometimes we get carried away. No better
example is down the road in the province of Quebec, in the city of
Quebec and the legislature of Quebec where the premier of the day
says: ``I don't care about the rule of law. I don't care what the court
says about whether my actions are legal or illegal or whether they
are legitimate or illegitimate. I get what I want''. We need a second
House to ensure that democracy is protected in this country. Even if
it only pops up every so many years it is very important.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just have a few words. I want to share my time with the
hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester.
First, as far as the Bloc is concerned, it was not very long ago
when its members stood in this House and praised the Senate. It
was not very long ago when they were suggesting that perhaps the
Senate was the only place that could protect the people from the
legislation of the Tories, for example, the old age pension cuts and
the GST.
What was the last piece of legislation that the Bloc stood in the
House and supported that involved massive tax changes? What was
it? Was it a bill from the government? Was it a bill from this
Chamber? No, it was not. It started with the letter S. The letter S
denotes the Senate. The Bloc stood in this Chamber and fell over
backward. They tripped over one another to praise the Senate and
all the work it had done on this massive tax change that was called
S-9. They praised the committee system of the Senate. It was a
massive, sweeping tax change. It was probably the biggest tax
change we have had in about 20 years.
(2100 )
Why? Because the Bloc said: ``This is a wonderful bill coming
from the Senate. What it does is reduce taxes as it relates to the
United States. We represent the people of Quebec who like the
United States. Therefore, we are all in favour of what the Senate is
doing''.
They fell over backwards. In fact, they were kissing cousins with
the Reform Party. They were hugging one another. They stood up,
both of them, praising this legislation, a bill with an s on the front.
It did not have a c, which means Commons; it had an s, which
stands for the Senate. It came from the Senate. It originated from
the Senate banking committee and they stood as one, the Bloc and
the Reform Party. They praised it and they praised it and they
praised it. Now the Bloc stands today and says that they are asleep
in the Senate.
An hon. member: They are.
Mr. Baker: The Reform Party of course says that it is a waste of
money. The Reform Party says everything is a waste of money. I
was looking at their alternative to these estimates. I was looking a
moment ago at what they regarded as being a waste of money in
health care, page 24.
What do Reformers say about health care in Canada being a
waste of money? They say: ``Medicare in which everyone receives
everything health care professionals wanted to deliver is not only
intolerably expensive, it is undesirable for other reasons.
Consumers should be allowed to stay outside the publicly funded
system completely if that is their wish, or to supplement publicly
funded care with additional privately funded care if that is their
wish''. A waste of money.
Then the Reformers went on to say that roads and bridges were a
waste of money. Let us see. They say on page 14 of their budget:
``Typically, physical infrastructure refers to traditional features like
highways, ports, railways and airports. Given our current fiscal
climate however, governments are ill equipped to spend money on
such improvements. In Canada this saving can be done by
privatizing aviation, privatizing airports''. Then number two,
``allowing private sector companies to build and maintain roads
and bridges''.
4399
Imagine the cost of driving the Alaska highway if that were the
case with the Reform Party in power.
Then the Reformers went on to say on page 46 that
unemployment insurance was a waste of money. They suggested an
incredible thing. They suggested that the premiums not be reduced.
Mr. Harvard: Not reduced.
Mr. Baker: No. ``Don't reduce the premiums'', they said, ``until
all the deficit is taken care of, until a new fund has been built up''.
In other words, sock it to the employers, sock it to the employees.
They said that after all this has been done, then they could pass on
some savings to the employees and the employers. With the
Reform Party everything is a waste of money.
What are we debating here today? We are debating to concur in
the main estimates for the year ending March 31, 1997. For what
country? To listen to the Bloc and the Reform, boy, what country do
members think they are thinking about?
An hon. member: Burundi.
Mr. Baker: Let us take the G-7. Could it be Italy? Its growth rate
is 1.2 per cent minus, no, not Italy. Is it France? Let us come up a
little further now at 2 per cent, no. Is it the U.K. at 1.5 per cent?
That is not what we are debating. Is it Germany at .8 per cent? No.
Is it the great country of Japan? No. We are not even close to the
top in economic performance. Oh no, it is not Japan. Is it the United
States at 3.4 per cent? No, it is not. What country is it that we are
doing the estimates on? Could it be that it is the country that has
been judged by the OECD as being the richest country today in
economic growth of all of the G-7 countries, the country of
Canada? Is that what we are talking about today?
(2105)
These figures are not from an organization in downtown Toronto
or downtown Montreal. Where do these figures come from? Hon.
members from the Reform and the Bloc should visit the
parliamentary library and pick up the OECD Economic Outlook.
Twenty-seven countries in the world whose job is to do what? They
are representatives of 27 governments of the industrialized
democracies of the world who discuss and attempt to co-ordinate
their economic and social policies. What do they say? They say that
Canada since the fall of 1993-what happened then? Wow, is that
not a coincidence? Since the fall of 1993 to the beginning of 1996,
for those three years Canada had the strongest employment growth
of all of the G-7 countries. They did not stop there. Then they said
for the year 1997 in terms of economic growth, Canada is projected
to rank first among the G-7 countries.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: Say that again.
Mr. Baker: That deserves repeating. We have to repeat it, Mr.
Speaker, because we are dealing with estimates of that country
called Canada. Who has been the leader of that country, judged to
be the most progressive nation in the world today, that the Bloc and
Reform are saying here today is an absolute disaster? We are led by
the most successful Prime Minister, the greatest Prime Minister
this country has ever had and he will lead us into 1998 and beyond.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
somewhat embarrassed by comments made in this House. The
member who just spoke said that Canada is the richest country and
that it enjoys a very high rate of economic growth. However, the
member seems to overlook another Canadian reality.
There is no reason to brag when one looks at all the shameful
cuts made to social assistance and to unemployment insurance, and
when one considers that one out of five children does not have
enough to eat. I am somewhat embarrassed by such comments,
because I think the economic reality is not that pretty.
I feel like we are in a school yard during recess and that we are
discussing whether we could cut $40 million and give this very
amount to sectors that have suffered these shameful cuts.
I wish to call to order the member who boasts about playing a
role in a flourishing Canadian economy.
I wonder about that. Canada is no longer the country it used to
be. The federal government keeps making cuts in transfer
payments to the provinces. It gives the provinces the responsibility
of maintaining a social safety net, while it no longer has the means
to send-Quebecers pay $30 billion in taxes and they receive less
and less.
To use a popular expression, this is nothing to write home about.
[English]
Mr. Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is why I mentioned right at
the very beginning of my comments how incredible it was that the
Bloc turned around and heaped such praise on the Senate and the
banking committee for all of those changes that gave the big tax
cuts to the big multinationals in the United States and in Canada.
Some people agree with that. It is a legitimate way of looking at
things, the way the world is going with globalization and so on.
(2110)
I was shocked that the Bloc members would stand in this
Chamber on behalf of those poor people they purport to represent
and approve en masse the biggest tax cut to the wealthiest people in
North America that we have seen in this century. And they are
supposed to be the official opposition. There was no examination at
all by the official opposition except for some members on this side
4400
of the House. No, we did not vote against the legislation but we
used our privilege and our positions in this great democratic party
that we represent to question the actions of the Bloc and the Reform
Party who welcomed those cuts for the rich so much.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls earlier in
his presentation quoted from the document that is known in these
circles as the ``Taxpayers Budget'' released by the Reform Party a
couple of years ago, it reminded me of the day I brought home a
shiny brochure of a nice new car. I put it down on the kitchen table
and my wife went ballistic. I asked: ``What is the matter, dear?''
She said: ``I know it is only a brochure on the table today, but it is
going to be in the driveway tomorrow''.
That is exactly what we will see with the taxpayers budget. It is
on his desk today and it is going to be in their red book tomorrow,
because it is a pathfinder. It is where the Liberals get their
direction.
Where did we get the $600 billion debt? We all acknowledge the
fact that we have a wonderful country. But we have a sacred trust to
pass this wonderful country on to our children and their children
and their children in at least as good a shape as we got it. How can
we do that if we give them a legacy of $600 billion of debt, if 40 per
cent of every dollar taken in by the federal government goes to pay
interest on the debt, money that we have already spent? Our
generation has enjoyed the benefit. If we do not make the tough
decisions that the Liberals will make because they are forced to by
the Reform Party, we will never get our House in order. If we had
not kept the Liberals' feet to the fire there would not even be a sniff
of a chance that we would be as far down the road as we are today.
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, it still has not sunk in to the Reformers
that since the fall of 1993 Canada has become the fastest growing
economy of all of the G-7 countries. We have done that and will
maintain that. But we will also maintain our commitment to senior
citizens and we will maintain our health care system.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a hard act to follow.
These days it is fashionable to talk about fiscal responsibility
and the need to reduce spending at all levels of government. While
it is not difficult simply to cut spending without regard for the
consequences, it requires great care to meet necessary fiscal targets
while ensuring that the government policies support the priorities
of Canadian society.
In asking the House to concur with the appropriation bill, I
would like to remind members that the estimates we have
considered effecting today are taken to reduce program spending
and at the same time to target spending on what is most important
to the Canadian public.
For example, we have reduced direct support to industry in
favour of policies that will stimulate growth and jobs. We have
reduced costs by transferring the air navigation system and airports
to not for profit corporations. We have taken steps to reduce
subsidies to Canada Post and to VIA Rail. We have reduced
defence spending by $200 million in 1997-98 and another $600
million in 1998-99. These are just a few examples of the actions we
have taken to meet our fiscal responsibilities.
(2115 )
Under program reduction, many costs in services have been cut
to the Canadian people. But one program brought in over the last
three years was the infrastructure program. In Quebec alone, there
were more than 2,400 projects. That brought in a total of more than
$2 billion to the Quebec economy, resulting in more than 29,000
jobs.
In my province of Nova Scotia, there were more than 316
projects, which brought more than $200 million to the economy
and more than 4,000 direct jobs. This is significant and it is
particularly significant in the east, not only in Quebec but in Nova
Scotia where the infrastructure is antiquated and much in need of a
boost.
I would remind the House that this year's estimates are a vital
component of that program spending regardless of the program
cuts, and this year's estimates alone call for $157 billion in planned
budgetary spending compared with $164 billion last year. This is a
significant reduction while at the same time serving the Canadian
people in programs they desire.
That intent and the reality has been that we wish to secure our
nation's financial future, and that has been done that through
serious, very methodical but very fair cuts, and through very
serious methodical consideration of what the Canadian people
want, while at the same time investing in the future which is the
future of our youth.
When we went to the Canadian people looking for a mandate to
govern the country, we set targets as a government and we set
goals. The first goal was to reduce the deficit. When we took power
in 1993, members will know that the deficit was around $42 billion
a year. That is nearly 6 per cent of gross domestic product which
had a very negative impact on the economy.
It was mandatory that we set responsible, credible financial
targets that we could meet. For the first time in many years, the
government has been credible. It has written the plan and it has
followed through. There is confidence from the Canadian people.
4401
The goal is that by the end of the fiscal year 1996-97, we will
be at that real target of 3 per cent of GDP in deficit reduction and
be around an annual deficit of $24 billion.
This is extremely important as we vote tonight on estimates that
will pay for program spending over the next few months. What it
has done is send a message to the Canadian people and to the world
markets that the Canadian government is a very credible, very
realistic government.
What it has done is bring inflation under control and interest
rates down. Short term interest rates have declined by more than 3
percentage points since March 1995, which has brought the debt
charges down. We are paying less money out on debt servicing as
well.
We have also provided cost competitiveness in this country. This
is the best it has been for the Canadian public for more than 45
years. That is a significant component of the Canadian economy.
We also have the largest trade surplus that we have had in
decades. It is this trade surplus that sets Canadians in the front on
the world stage. We can manufacture, we can market and deliver
those goods competitively throughout the world. This is a very
vital and a very important component of the overall economy.
As well, by reducing the deficit we have reduced our foreign
dependency on dollars to simply manage the economy on a day to
day basis. That alone is a significant part of the stability in our
financial segment and of presenting ourself as a great leader among
the G-7 nations.
The economy has generated more than 650,000 jobs over the
past three years. That is also important because it is not the
government that is creating the jobs, but it is government policies
that are allowing the private sector to create the jobs.
(2120 )
It seems to me that the government has focused on the goals it
set. It has delivered on what was offered to the Canadian public.
The job is not all done but it will continue.
It seems to me that the reason the Reform Party put this motion
to abolish the other place is because the government has set the
goals financially and has been responsible fiscally and it has no
argument on the financial front and so we now have to take a new
debate and put it in place. The government has spoiled Reform's
platform because it has delivered and provided a credible, fiscally
responsible and socially responsible government.
I say to the members of this House that the opposition parties
had plenty of opportunity through the Meech Lake accord, through
the Charlottetown accord, for which both parties expressed their
distaste and their opposition. However, they had the opposition at
that time to deal with the other place. It would have provided an
opportunity for restructuring and for looking at some of these
issues that we are looking at here in the government. The
government has been about restructuring for three years, about
program cuts, program spending and it is dealing with it in a
realistic manner. It will have the opportunity again to deal with the
other place.
It is my belief that every member in the other place probably
would look for restructuring as well because as this century closes
and we move into the 21st century time is moving so rapidly with
so many changes that it is imperative that every institution in all
parts of society must come forward and look at restructuring in
order to keep pace with the rapid changes.
Over the summer months I did a survey in my constituency and
throughout Nova Scotia. I made the statement that the government
had set a strategy at the outset of reducing the deficit, keeping
inflation at a manageable level and lowering interest rates to
generate a fiscally responsible climate so that the private sector
might come forward and the entrepreneurs flourish in creating jobs
and developing that very competitive economy. That strategy was
set by this government in 1993. I asked my constituents: ``Are you
in favour of the government strategy''.
I would like to tell the House tonight that in those questionnaires
that came back to me through the summer months more than 97 per
cent of respondents indicated they were in favour of the
government's financial strategy and their policies and that we
should proceed in that direction.
The public is in favour of this fiscal strategy, of the program cuts
that the government has made. They are not all perfect but they are
done fairly and equitably across the country. I have suffered them
as many members have in their ridings, but the public is aware of
how difficult it is.
I believe that this is why we are debating the other place tonight.
It is because the government has followed through on its financial
commitments and delivered a responsible government. It is my
belief that in fiscal year 1997-98 the size of the debt in relation to
Canada's economy will decline. It will be the first time in many
years that the economy will grow faster than the debt and deficit.
I believe we have answered the challenge from the opposition
parties as the Government of Canada. We have fulfilled our
promises. We have set the stage and have been responsible
financially. The passing of the estimates tonight will support what
Canadians believe, that what we are doing is appropriate for them.
Because we have become responsible fiscally, we have stolen the
platform from the opposition. That is why they would rather
debate the other House. The time has come to restructure the other
House as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with a great deal of interest to my Liberal colleague's speech.
However, I would still like to say that I find the Liberals have
drifted away from what liberalism and the philosophy of liberalism
are advocating in this government. I will explain.
4402
(2125)
This government has made cuts, it had to, everyone agrees.
Everyone elected to this House realizes and understands that the
size of government has to be reduced. We have an accumulated
deficit of $600 billion. It is so large that it is difficult to calculate.
In the past, the philosophy of the Liberal Party was always to
redistribute the wealth. This was where its strength lay and what in
fact made the difference between our society and that of the United
States. Here in Canada, we believed that the wealth should be
redistributed.
Let us look at what this government has done since it came to
power. What has it done? First of all, it has reformed
unemployment insurance, now known as employment insurance,
but this is really just semantics. It has reformed unemployment
insurance to the detriment of the unemployed and of workers, who
will now receive much less. They will now have to work many
more hours to qualify for the insurance they are paying for, despite
the fact there are surpluses in the fund. That is one thing the
government has done.
Second, they have cut provincial government subsidies. The
Minister of Finance has very cleverly offloaded the deficit on the
provinces. That is what he has done. The provinces cannot do this
because they are another level of government. The minister was
clever, but he must be denounced. Less money for welfare, less
money for families.
Finally, who pays? Low wage earners, the middle class, and the
most defenceless are the ones who will pay and who always pay.
We know that the philosophy of this big party which governs the
country was to redistribute wealth. At the moment they have
forgotten about that. It is far easier for them to tax the poor than to
go looking for the money where it really is, so that is what they do.
The government lacks courage. I see them looking into their
book and not saying much. They know I am telling the truth. It is a
government lacking in courage. They have made cuts, and
everyone agrees that cuts had to be made, but they have not cut
where they ought to have. They have cut back on the budgets for
the poor, the low wage earners. I find that a great pity.
A program was announced in the red book-remember the red
book?-about creating daycare centres. They have forgotten about
that.
Before asking my question, I would like to speak of the
infrastructure program. That was a good program, one of the few
good ones, maybe the only one, they brought in. You will recall that
this is a joint program with the provincial and municipal
governments, so there are three levels working together, each one
contributing a third.
In my riding, there is no money left. The question I am asking
the hon. member is whether we ought not to bring back this
program, as soon as possible, in order to create short term
employment?
[English]
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks where is our
liberalism and are we not defenders of liberalism. I would say that
yes, indeed we are and part of the restructuring that we have done is
to secure Canada's financial future and the future for our youth.
When we talk about infrastructure and the past, the program
costs over the past two and a half years totalled $6 billion:
one-third for municipal, one-third for provincial and one-third for
federal. Ladies and gentlemen, do you know that $2 billion-
(2130)
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to address
her comments to the Chair, not to ladies and gentlemen.
Unfortunately that term cannot be used in the House.
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of this House, I
would like each one of you to be aware that $2 billion-
The Deputy Speaker: I am going to stop the hon. member each
time she does not address her remarks to the Chair and if she
continues to do it I am going to recognize someone else.
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, $2 billion of the $6 billion went to
the province of Quebec. That is the point. We have shared in that
liberalism. It is my hope that the infrastucture program will be part
of the next platform of the government. The hon. member believes
it is very valuable in the province of Quebec. I know that province
quite well myself. I have many friends there.
It is important because of the antiquated infrastructure that
exists. It is the same in the province of Nova Scotia and the eastern
region. There is much need to build basic infrastructure, sewage
treatment plants, water systems for industry, preventing sewage
from going into the Bay of Fundy and into our oceans. We have
advocated this for many years but it has never been done. It is
extremely important as we move into the 21st century that we have
another infrastructure program.
4403
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure as a parliamentarian to take part in this vigorous debate
this evening in order to reject a proposal to renew a $40 million
budget for the Senate and demand its abolition.
My colleague pointed out earlier that the Bloc Quebecois is
intervening specifically on the motion to renew a $40 million
budget for the Senate and not on other budgets allocated to various
programs. We could have intervened just as well on the amount of
$25 million set aside for social housing, which is clearly
inadequate, or on the amount of $15 million to be extended for the
status of women, which is also clearly inadequate. However, when
$40 million is spent like that, $40 million to produce duplication
and overlap, and you know that duplication and overlap have
always signalled the call to arms for the Bloc Quebecois.
It is no secret that the people of Quebec are fed up with the
Senate and have been for a long time. It is a fact that a broad
consensus existed in Quebec on the abolition of the Senate when
the Charlottetown talks were being held, but this consensus was
reached well before that time, as early as 1980.
During the referendum year of 1980, federalist politicians,
without sovereignist leanings, I may add, were already demanding,
as expressed by Claude Ryan in his beige paper, the abolition of the
upper House. My point is that this is not just a quirk of the big, bad
separatists.
The position of Quebecers on the subject has not changed since
1980, on the contrary. Barely two weeks ago, a petition was
circulated in my riding and all other ridings in Quebec in support of
the motion of my colleague from Rivière-du-Loup, which will
demand the abolition of the Senate, no less.
The text of the petition is quite clear, and the reasons introduced
to support abolition of the Senate are as follows: Whereas the
Senate consists of non-elected members who are not accountable
for their actions; whereas the Senate refuses to be accountable for
its expenditures to committees of the House of Commons; whereas
the Senate does not fulfil its representational mandate; whereas the
Senate duplicates the work done by members of the House of
Commons; whereas the Senate-and finally, it is necessary to
ensure there are parliamentary institutions.
Four hundred senators who are not elected share a budget of
about $40 million, at a time when cuts are being made everywhere.
That is why today the Bloc intervenes specifically on the
appropriations allocated to the Senate. Although the petition has
not been publicized in any way, it has already attracted hundreds of
signatures in my riding that will be added to thousands more from
other ridings and tabled by the hon. member for Rivière-du-Loup
here in this House.
(2135)
I sincerely believe that, in Quebec, my fellow citizens strongly
desire the Senate's disappearance. More than two years ago my
colleague from Richelieu gave us a very interesting historical
background on that institution. I think it deserves to be quickly
restated.
My colleague said that the other House is a leftover from
colonial times, that it was created to protect the wealthy
landowners against the more populist endeavours of the elected
members, our predecessors. The proof is that, at the time, senators
had to be worth at least $15,000. Do we realize how much that was
at the time? Obviously only rich people had that much money.
They were protecting the interests of their wealthy citizens, a
practice which has not yet disappeared, far from it, although it is
now under a new guise.
Of course the role of senators has changed, but nevertheless they
are no longer needed. As with many other institutions, the
theoretical role and reality are very far apart. The wealthy
landowners have been replaced by faithful political lackeys. All
sorts of abuses have been noted and publicized. There is no need to
come back on that. The work done by members of that House has a
lot more to do with the political agenda of the major parties than
with fundamental research. The Senate has become the tool used by
the government to avoid contradicting itself publicly and
preserving its reputation when it realizes that it has made a
mistake. It is now a very discrete and reliable tool, used by elected
members of the main parties.
A very good example of this is the process used for the bill on
electoral boundaries, where the party in office benefitted greatly
from this redistribution of representation. It was so blatant that
several members condemned this practice in the House.
Recently we were also able to see how undemocratic was the
Senate. Last June, we could read in all the newspapers that the
Senate had refused to pass the bill on the Pearson airport. There is
no better example of what the Senate is and what power it has. How
can we accept that people who are not elected, who are not
accountable to the people, can decide on their own authority to
reject a bill that was seriously examined and debated for several
hours here in the House?
Even though I was opposed to the bill in question, the fact
remains that I am shocked to see people who were appointed for
political services rendered either to the Conservatives or to the
Liberals-it often boils down to the same thing-people who are
not accountable to anyone, giving themselves the rights to decide
the future of the biggest airport in Canada.
How do the members of the party in office, the members of the
same party that made sure to get a majority in the Senate, feel
today, knowing that even some of the people they appointed to be
their standard bearers in the other House helped defeat a bill that a
vast majority of them in this House were in favour of? How do they
feel knowing that, instead of proposing amendments, the other
House rejected the bill outright? That is not very flattering for the
Liberal deputation. This is ridiculous. Some elected representatives
4404
bring in a bill, which is later rejected by a group of non-elected
representatives called senators. This is the best example of what is
so absurd about the Senate and the best reason to call immediately
for its abolition.
Whether they like it or not, Quebecers are paying for an
institution that they do not support any more. The costs are very
high, at $43 million, and there might also be some other expenses
related to the senators' functions. In 1995-96, the budget is set at
$42 million.
(2140)
In the supply motion debated today, the amount shown is $40
million. Unemployment benefits were reduced to allow the
government to save on the backs of the unemployed. Single
mothers living under the poverty line could see their welfare
benefits reduced because provinces are receiving less from the
federal government.
Young people, looking for a first job are suffering from the
absence of a job creation policy. The elderly could see their
pensions cut.
Can you imagine the frustration felt by all these people who
know that huge amounts, to the tune of $40 million, are spent year
after year on an institution that lives off the fat of the land, an
institution that does not serve any more its initial vocation and that
these people have not wanted any more for a long time now. Since
1980, the people of Quebec have pronounced themselves in favour
of the abolition of the Senate. That being, some wonder why our
fellow citizens drop out, why that have become so bitter with
regard to the politicians.
Far from approving these supplies of $40 million for the Senate,
the Bloc Quebecois is asking for its abolition pure and simple
because the Senate has lost its raison d'être. We have to modernize
our institutions, but the Senate is an outdated institution. Its raison
d'être is no more justifiable with people suffering cut after cut in
social assistance, in unemployment insurance, in youth programs,
women's programs, day care centres and so on. These $40 million
are used to make duplication and overlapping.
When will this government have the courage to abolish that
institution serving only partisan purposes? Today in this House, I
am calling for its abolition pure and simple. Let us allocate money
to programs aimed at helping women, at creating more day care
places. I am waiting for this government to take the right decision
at last.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
evening in dealing with the main estimates I have had an
opportunity to listen to a number of members discuss the Senate.
The Reform Party has spent a lot of time outlining its policy of an
elected Senate and each and every speaker from the Bloc
Quebecois has used this aspect of the estimate to say that the
Senate should be abolished because it has outlived its time.
As all members know, there has been a lot of work done over the
years on reforming the Senate. Even as this place has to reform
itself from time to time, there are things that can be done to
improve it.
The member indicated that the Senate killed the Pearson bill and
was it not awful that this unelected, unaccountable body can kill a
bill. The bill was stopped but the government can still bring back a
further bill if it wishes to pursue it further.
I want to ask the member a question about accountability.
Notwithstanding that she has suggested that the Senate should be
abolished, she mentioned that it is an unaccountable body. She
knows that there are 104 Senators which is about one-third the
number of members of Parliament. That means that each senator
effectively represents somewhere in the neighbourhood of about
300,000 people. It also means that if they were elected and were
accountable the way the member suggested they should be, then
they would have to run in ridings three times larger than the
member's own riding. In addition, they would have to have some
kind of constituency facility and a bureaucracy within the
constituency to be able to serve their electors.
Then there is the problem of how we rationalize the
responsibilities of an elected senator and an elected member of
Parliament. Who do the constituents go to?
It is very easy to reach conclusions to abolish, reform or elect the
Senate. But none of the impacts of making bodies such as the
Senate accountable have been thought through. What would be the
implications to the whole system?
(2145)
The Canadian Parliament has three parts: this Chamber of the
House; the Senate; and Her Majesty the Queen as represented by
the Governor General. The Senate is an integral part of Canada. It
is very clear that the position of the Bloc-and I hope the member
will comment on this-has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility
but very much to do with the need to break up Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I never said in my comments that
senators should be accountable to the electorate. When I say that
they are accountable, I do not mean they are accountable to the
public, because they are not elected representatives. I never meant
to say senators should be elected by the people.
What we are demanding is actually the abolition of the Senate,
pure and simple. I cannot figure out how the member could draw
these conclusions. The abolition of the Senate is what we want. I do
not want an elected Senate.
I think these $40 million for the Senate is just money thrown out
the window. What the Senate does is nothing but duplication and
overlap. After bills are discussed here, there are debated once
4405
more, which delays the passage of some of them. An appointment
to the Senate is a kind of old age security for deserving friends of
the Liberals or the Conservatives. In these days of fiscal restraint,
when we cut different programs for the young, for women and for
the destitute, it may be a good idea to consider areas where there is
some fat to pare.
Senators are not accountable to the people and they are not
elected by the population, but I repeat for the sake of the hon.
member that I do not want senators to be elected by the population.
What I want is the abolition of the Senate in order to get these $40
million back and use them in areas where they are badly needed.
Quebec is not the only province subjected to federal cuts. That is
why we should turn to areas where cuts can be made.
What do we need the senators for, nowadays? To pass bills that
have already been passed by this House? I do not see the rationale. I
am pretty sure many people in Quebec and Canada are in full
agreement with the Bloc Quebecois position, which is the abolition
of the Senate, pure and simple.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you have the
pleasure of hearing me as the last speaker tonight. I will try to be
interesting for you, Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues and also for all
those who are watching us on television.
I believe it would be worth recalling the motion on which will
have to vote in a few minutes. It reads as follows: ``The President
of the Treasury Board requests that the House concur in Vote 1, in
the amount of $40,713,000 under Parliament-Senate-Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1997.''
Forty million dollars, and we should add to that a few more
millions provided for services offered by different departments and
other federal agencies to maintain that honourable and noble
institution. In fact, the exact amount of the funds granted to the
Senate will be close to $55 or $60 million at the end of the year.
Before granting such an amount of money to an institution like
the Senate, we must ask ourselves what purpose it serves. We must
ask ourselves what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind in
1867 when they created a Parliament with two Houses. During
those 22 years, the senators had to debate 18 bills from the House
of Commons, which did not received royal assent either.
(2150 )
More than 125 years ago, the Fathers of Confederation thought it
was a good idea to have these two assemblies, one of which is non
elective, namely the Senate. But it would be interesting to look at
the Senate's record since the birth of our federation. I examined the
list of interventions made by the Senate from 1867 to 1996, the last
year for which statistics are available.
Let us round the numbers off and take the period from 1867 to
1900. In the first 33 years, the Senate proposed amendments to
House of Commons bills which never received royal assent. There
were 105 bills during the Senate's first 33 years of existence.
During the next 25 years, from 1900 to 1925, there was a slight
decrease. The Senate proposed amendments to 93 bills which never
received royal assent. That gives us a cumulative total of 198.
From 1926 to 1963, that is during the next 37 years, the work of
senators decreased even more. They proposed amendments to 49
House of Commons bills which, after having been passed in the
Senate, did not receive royal assent. So from 1867 to 1963, a period
of 96 years, the Senate made a grand total of 247 interventions with
regard to bills presented in the House of Commons.
Starting in 1963 there was a period of lethargy that lasted 11
years during which the Senate did not propose any amendments to
House of Commons bills. It is probably during this 11 year period
that senators fell into a deep coma that they are still having great
difficulty getting out of.
Then suddenly, from 1975 to 1996, that is during the past 22
years, the work started again. During those 22 years, the senators
had to debate 18 bills from the House of Commons, which did not
received royal assent either.
Overall, during its 129 years of existence, the Senate had to
examine 265 bills from the House of Commons that never received
royal assent, which means these bills were discussed in the Senate
but never became law. So, with 265 bills in 129 years, for an
average of 2 bills a year, I can understand that the senators fall
asleep and can not stay awake even in front of television cameras.
Now, lets look at the bills that were introduced in the House of
Commons, amended in the Senate and received royal assent. I went
back to 1960 only. In the 22 years from 1960 to 1982, 35 bills were
amended in the Senate, sent back to the House of Commons and
received royal assent.
In the following 14 years, from 1982 to 1996, the Senate
recommended amendments to 30 bills that were later adopted by
the House of Commons.
(2155)
In all, from 1960 to 1996, for the 36 years of statistics that I
noted down there were 65 bills. This is just short of 1.8 bills a year
or less than two bills annually. At such a pace, one can hardly stay
awake and justify a salary. This is why those people do not feel the
need to go before the public and account for what they do.
It would be embarrassing to show such a record to their
employer, the taxpayers who pay the salaries of the senators. It
4406
would really be embarrassing to face taxpayers and say: ``My
friends, this is the work we have done in 129 years on bills
introduced in the House of Commons which did not receive the
royal assent and other bills introduced in the Commons which we
managed to amend and which were then passed by the House of
Commons''.
No wonder there is a temptation to reform the other place. Since
1960 only, 52 bills on the Senate have been introduced in this
House to modify its role or its functioning or even to abolish it.
Those 52 bills aimed at abolishing the Senate. Stanley Knowles,
an honorary member of this House, alone has attempted 18
times-between 1964 and 1981-through motions presented in
this House and through private bills, to have the Senate abolished.
Despite all these attempts, it has never been possible to make
any significant changes to the operations of the Senate or to its very
existence.
Its role was understandable at the time of the creation of the
federation, in 1867 and in 1900. The Senate was seen as a sort of
chamber of sober second thought. Its members calmly considered
the legislation, free from public pressure. This was understandable
in 1867, but the role of the Senate today is far different because of
the practical limits on its powers.
Is what is called in English ``double checking'' or in Quebecois
``double vérification'' still necessary nowadays? The primary role
of the Senate was to double check the laws passed by the House to
ensure that the first chamber had not made any mistake, had not
made serious mistakes for the taxpayers, and it was the role of the
Senate to correct any mistake or to propose amendments to bills.
But nowadays, given the modern means of communication,
television, the Internet, it is no longer possible to pass laws
expeditiously without arousing among people increasing interest,
which leads the lobbying groups to come and tell the government it
is making a mistake or is being unfair towards a certain segment of
society. This is why we no longer need this double checking
institution.
In the five provinces that used to have a Senate, this type of
political institution has been abolished. That was the case in
Quebec in 1968. Quebec was the last province to abolish the
Senate, and it did so because this institution was no longer needed.
The same thing could be true for the Canadian Senate.
When, in 1968, the legislative council was abolished in Quebec,
if it had not been commented in the media, we would still not know
that it was done away with, because we went on passing laws, and
the same thing is true in the four other provinces where the
legislative council was abolished.
Nobody complained that laws had become unfair or less
equitable for the people. We now have a public that is better
informed and members of Parliament that are better prepared.
Nowadays, with the political and legislative systems we have,
members are able to get all the information they need.
I do not believe it to be necessary to spend between $50 and $60
million a year to keep an institution that does not double check, to
all intents and purposes, but mostly acts as a place where some
friends of the party in power are sent as a reward for services
rendered-and when their senator's earnings are not enough, they
are appointed as lieutenant governor. Fortunately, there are only ten
positions of lieutenant governor. Otherwise, there would not have
been enough of them for all the senators interested in a new job.
For these reasons, we think it would be improper to support
appropriation for an institution which does not have our confidence
and which we would like to see not only changed, but abolished
outright.
[English]
The Speaker: We have about 60 seconds. That means a
30-second question and a 30-second answer.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Senate, as the member knows, also provides an important
opportunity for women to be represented in the Parliament of
Canada. One member I can recall very specifically, whom the hon.
member may want to comment on, is the Senator from Etobicoke,
Joan Neiman. Although no longer a senator, while in the other
place she chaired a wonderful committee dealing with euthanasia.
I wonder if the member would comment on the value that
women in the Senate contribute to the Parliament of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, it is not the presence of the Senate that
allowed women to sit in the House of Commons because, for
decades, the Senate, in its wisdom, never introduced legislation
suggesting to the House of Commons that it give women the right
to vote and to sit in the House.
If there are women in the House today, in increasing numbers, it
is because women took matters into their own hands, because
women are better informed and they have made their case. No
Senate allowed women to reach the status they have nowadays.
[English]
The Speaker: It being 10 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose
of the business of supply. The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
4407
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 120)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-141
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-86
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Barnes
Canuel
Chan
Collenette
Cullen
Dhaliwal
Jacob
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
(2230 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
4408
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that on vote 10 under Canadian
Heritage, vote 1 under Treasury Board, vote 5 under Treasury
Board and vote 15 under Treasury Board and the concurrence to
the main estimates, that a question be deemed to have been put,
that a recorded division be deemed to have been requested, with
the result of the vote taken on vote 1 being applied to the motions
I just read.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $404,461,000 under Canadian Heritage-Grants
and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 120.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The next question is
on Motion No. 3.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $69,989,000 under Treasury
Board-Secretariat-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1997 (less the mount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 120.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The next question is
on Motion No. 4.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $450,000,000 under Treasury
Board-Secretariat-Government contingencies, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1997 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 120.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The next question is
on Motion No. 5.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $10,000,000 under Treasury
Board-Secretariat-Training assistance, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1997 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
4409
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 120.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, except any
vote disposed of earlier today and less the amount voted in Interim Supply, be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 120.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-56, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada
for the financial year ending March 31, 1997, be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-56, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada
for the financial year ending March 31, 1997, be read the second
time and referred to committee of the whole.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply the result of the main
estimates vote 1 taken earlier this day to the motion now before the
House.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 120.]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went
into committee thereon, Mr. Kilgour in the chair.)
The Chairman: Order. House in committee to consider Bill
C-56, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for
the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March
31, 1997.
(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.)
On Clause 6:
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Chairman, did you read clause 2? I would like to ask the President
of the Treasury Board if the bill is consistent with those from
previous years?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
the bill is indeed consistent with those from previous years.
(2235 )
[English]
The Chairman: Shall Clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause 6 agreed to.)
(Schedule agreed to.)
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
(Preamble agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
Mr. Massé moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
4410
The Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just
taken to the motion now before the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 120.]
(Motion agreed to.)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave,
now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-56 be read a third time and passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on
the previous motion to the motion now before the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 120.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.
_____________________________________________
4410
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 17 consideration of Bill
C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole
ineligibility) and another act, as reported (without amendment)
from the committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division at the report stage of Bill C-45.
The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on Motion No. 1 applies
to Motions Nos. 3 and 5. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1
obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motions Nos. 2, 4
and 6. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 necessitates the question
being put on Motion No. 2.
(2240 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that the members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House with Liberal members voting nay on this motion.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting for
Motion No. 1.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid there is no unanimous
consent on this. We are going to have to vote on this one.
The Speaker: We will be voting on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 121)
YEAS
Members
Allmand
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Finestone
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Milliken
Nunez
Paré
Plamondon
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont) -49
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
4411
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Young
Zed-175
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Barnes
Canuel
Chan
Collenette
Cullen
Dhaliwal
Jacob
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
(2245 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. I therefore declare
Motions Nos. 3 and 5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also
applies to Motions Nos. 4 and 6.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 122)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caccia
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Finestone
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Milliken
Nunez
Paré
Plamondon
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont) -53
4412
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Young
Zed-172
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Barnes
Canuel
Chan
Collenette
Cullen
Dhaliwal
Jacob
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
(2255 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost. I therefore declare
Motions Nos. 4 and 6 lost.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 123)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
4413
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-138
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-87
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Barnes
Canuel
Chan
Collenette
Cullen
Dhaliwal
Jacob
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Marchand
Mercier
O'Reilly
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being 11.05 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.)