CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 6, 1996
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 356
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 356
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 357
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 357
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 357
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 358
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 358
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 359
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 359
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 359
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 359
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 360
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 360
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 361
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 361
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 362
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 362
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 363
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 363
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 364
Bill C-7. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted
365
Bill deemed read the second time, considered in committee,reported
with amendments and concurred in. 365
Bill C-8. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted
365
(Motion deemed adopted and bill passed.) 365
Bill C-9. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted
365
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the second time,deemed to have
been considered by a committee,and reported with amendments.) 365
Bill C-223. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 366
Bill C-224. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 366
Bill C-225. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 366
Bill C-226. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 366
Motion for concurrence in third report 367
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 368
Bill C-2. Motion for second reading 370
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a
committee.) 371
Reference to committee of the whole 371
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 371
(Clause 2 agreed to.) 371
(Bill reported, concurred in, and by unanimous consent,read the
third time and passed.) 371
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.51 p.m.) 371
The House resumed at 4.30 p.m. 371
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 371
Bill C-10. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 383
On motion by Mr. Loubier, debate adjourned. 383
353
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 6, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our custom, we will now sing O Canada
which will be led by the hon. member for Kootenay East.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Janko
Peric
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with good news for
businesses in my riding of Cambridge, and congratulations for the
Royal Bank and the Business Development Bank of Canada. These
organizations recognized the needs of businesses in the industrial
heartland of southern Ontario. They announced on March 1 that
they are forming a strategic alliance to provide financing for small
and medium size businesses.
The program will provide loans in the range of $50,000 to
$500,000, filling a recognized gap that exists in traditional lending
patterns. This financing program is targeted to businesses in the
expansion phase, especially those in information technology,
telecommunications, biotechnology, medical devices, plastics
processing, auto parts, advanced manufacturing technology, new
materials and the agribusiness and food processing industries.
I applaud the Royal Bank and the Business Development Bank
of Canada for providing this tangible support for small and medium
size businesses, the backbone of the Canadian economy.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage has suggested the time has come for
a review of the CRTC mandate. The fact that the government has
intervened so many times in the last 18 months, obviously the
review is long overdue.
The minister has suggested this review would be internal, a
review conducted on the CRTC by the CRTC. Surely, this is a joke.
Last year the cabinet had no difficulty intervening in the CRTC
process when satellite licensing became an issue. I suggest that was
because Power DirecTv, also known as Desmarais, also known as
the Prime Minister's son-in-law, was a licence bidder. In spite of
cabinet interference, Power DirecTv still had to walk away from its
licence.
Yesterday the cabinet was asked again to intervene with the
CRTC on the satellite licensing process. It probably will not
intervene this time because the Prime Minister's relatives are not
involved.
This statement is an alert to the news media. Watch for the
heritage minister to slip this cabinet non-decision passed you
during the turmoil generated by today's budget story.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, for two years now, the father of tae kwon do in
Quebec, Tran Trieu Quan, has been unfairly held in Vietnam, even
after the Canadian Prime Minister's visit to that country. The Prime
Minister merely inquired about the situation instead of demanding
that Mr. Tran be released.
On behalf of the people of Quebec, we urge the Canadian
government to realize that the diplomatic representations made to
obtain the release of the Sainte-Foy businessman were
unsuccessful.
We therefore call for the immediate suspension of any economic,
cultural or social assistance to Vietnam until Mr. Tran is reunited
with his family.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the government be aware of
the need to protect Canadian citizens travelling abroad whether as
business people or as tourists.
354
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring
to the attention of this House the deep concerns of many fishermen
across the Scotia-Fundy area. I have been meeting with the
fishermen in this area and on Monday I attended the round table in
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia with the fishermen and officials from
DFO.
For decades the fishing industry has been the backbone of many
local communities in Atlantic Canada. The new fishing policies
such as licence fee increases, a new professional core fishery,
ITQs, and Bills C-98 and C-115 have threatened the very survival
of the hand-line fishery. Serious flaws in the Oceans Act as well as
the Fisheries Act must be addressed.
I call on this government before it proceeds any further to allow
the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to travel from
coast to coast so that fishermen can be heard and changes
implemented before a way of life is destroyed.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the NDP caucus, I would like to say today that we deplore
the intimidating tactics being employed by China off the coast of
Taiwan. Why is it that superpowers cannot resist the urge to act the
bully when it comes to small islands in their so-called sphere of
influence.
The People's Republic of China should give up the notion that
Taiwan is somehow part of China. Let China be China and let
Taiwan be Taiwan. The Taiwanese people, including its aboriginal
population, have a history and identity that is independent and
distinct from the mainland. Any dispute of this fact must be
resolved peacefully and with utmost respect for the democratically
expressed wishes of the Taiwanese people.
It is time for China to put the political residue of the civil war
behind it and realize that Taiwan, especially now that it is a
democracy, is a country of its own and should no longer be seen as
a refuge for the losers of a bygone battle.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today's
major dailies report that child prostitution is on the rise in some
parts of the country.
This situation is totally unacceptable and we must vehemently
condemn this undermining of Canadian children's basic rights. All
those working with children must be made aware of this plague and
co-ordinate their efforts to put an end to the activities of these
exploitative and depraved individuals.
Current legislation must be vigorously enforced so that those
who commit these repugnant crimes will be punished as they
should be. If we need to take additional measures or to adopt
amendments in order to make the fight against child prostitution
and sexual abuse more effective, we should do so without delay.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out the contribution of some 30
Canadian businesses, which are contemplating setting up an
in-house training program for high school, college and university
graduates.
(1405)
According to program officials, this program will create 50,000
entry level jobs for young people and help restore hope to a
generation that would be only too pleased to play an active role in
our society.
Also noteworthy is the fact that all funding for this program will
be provided by the companies, to the tune of $12,000 per trainee
per year. Only administrative expenses will have to be covered by
the Canadian government.
This is a good move worth mentioning, especially after our
Prime Minister recently called for greater co-operation between the
private sector and government to promote job creation.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
International Women's Week, a week to mark progress on women's
equality here in Canada and around the world.
Canada is respected as a world leader in advancing women's
equality. One of our priorities is the recognition of human rights as
the foundation of women's equality. Human rights are universal,
inalienable and indivisible.
The International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic
Development has chosen International Women's Day, March 8, to
present the first Florence Bird award. It is an honour that
recognizes efforts to promote women's rights as human rights in
the media. It is a fitting tribute to the remarkable Canadian
journalist and activist who headed the Royal Commission on the
Status of Women almost 30 years ago.
355
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last week, Stéphane Dion, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, travelled to British Columbia, where he
tried to sell the distinct society concept to the people of this region,
who are bitterly opposed to it.
In an attempt to reassure them, he stated that recognizing
Quebec as a distinct society confers no additional powers on
Quebec and, therefore, does not take anything away from other
Canadians. What is the use of talking about distinct society if it is a
meaningless concept? Will Mr. Dion keep talking about a worthless
clause? Some other weekend, will he try to convince Quebecers
that a distinct society clause could bring about the changes
promised by the no side in the days leading up to the October 30
referendum?
Frankly, Mr. Dion should stop using the phrase ``distinct
society'', which has become trite and has lost any meaning when he
uses it. For the moment, he should focus on how the federal
government could change how the powers are shared.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
talk about slash and burn. Some disabled Canadians, through no
fault of their own, have found themselves indebted to the federal
government.
Revenue Canada changed the forms for claiming the federal
disability tax credit. These disabled Canadians, after submitting the
new forms, were deemed ineligible for the credit as they were no
longer considered to be disabled. Figure that one out. They were
also told to refund to the government the credit they had received
from previous years, with interest.
One constituent whose husband is severely disabled wrote to me
saying:
Revenue Canada wrote us February 2, 1996. They stated that our disability
deduction had been disallowed for 1994 and we owed them $1,200 including
$100 interest. The amount had to be paid by February 20, 1996 or more interest
would be added-$1,200 is an entire month's paycheque for us.
Will the Minister of Revenue show compassion and review this
unfair tax policy? So who is slashing and burning? The Liberals are
the experts.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the concept of gender equality is at the very heart of the values in
which Canadians firmly believe.
We recognize that women face particular problems which must
be eliminated in order to ensure equality. Since women are
confronted to situations that differ from those that men face, the
federal government pledged to take these differences into account
in the development, review and implementation of federal
initiatives.
The guide to policy development, which is based on a
comparative analysis between the two sexes and which was
released earlier this week, will be a key component in the
fulfilment of our commitment.
I ask all members to join me in stressing the vital contribution of
women to our society's success. Together, let us make sure that
women and men can co-operate as equals in the building of a better
world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the honour of millions of women and
men who are working toward gender equality around the globe.
During International Women's Week we are invited to reflect on
women's progress in all fields of achievement.
In keeping with our lead role in talks at the Beijing conference
on women last year, Canada must continue to fight for women's
equality in the face of dramatic social change. It is up to all of us to
ensure that the commitments made at the Beijing conference are
honoured.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the next few
days I will be reintroducing in the House my private member's bill
to create a federal intervenor funding act for Canada.
Intervenor funding as I have proposed it allows all Canadians to
have an opportunity to have a direct voice in government decision
making. Too often, hearings in front of federal boards and agencies
have been dominated by those wealthy enough to hire expert
witnesses. What of the other Canadians who are left in the cold by a
lack of funds to represent their legitimate concerns? They often go
unheard.
356
Every voice that is left silent is a voice that is being excluded.
If we really mean that we want to give our constituents a voice
to allow them to be heard in the public interest, then I ask all
members on both sides of the House to support a federal
intervenor funding program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Canada and the United States are currently involved in a dispute,
under NAFTA, concerning eggs, milk and poultry. The U.S. is
invoking chapter 20 of NAFTA to challenge the tariff equivalents
obtained by Canada as a replacement to the supply management
system in these sectors.
We recently learned that, should Canada's position be rejected
by NAFTA's dispute settlement panel, some 138,000 jobs in
Canada and Quebec will have disappeared by the year 2000 in
Canadian agricultural sectors. In Quebec alone, there are 45,000
jobs at risk.
Given what is at stake, we cannot afford to lose. The Bloc
Quebecois will continue to keep a close eye on the government's
handling of this important issue.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
new minister of fisheries announced that lobster traps will have a
new rectangular escape mechanism. This is the Liberal way of
providing early release to incarcerated lobsters.
Holy mackerel. Early release for prisoners and now lobsters.
There is something fishy here. Murderers who get life can get early
release in 15 years and now lobsters getting early release right
away. Let us put some mussels behind incarceration and clam up on
early release.
The issue of early release for criminals is not a red herring; it is
not for the halibut; it is for real. As this government sits on its perch
and contemplates the process of early release, I invite the smaller
Liberal fish over here to come out from under the rock and stop
porpoisely trying to skate around the issue.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House the important
work being done by a group of young people in my riding of
Saskatoon-Humboldt. The Humboldt branch of Students Against
Drunk Driving, known as SADD, ably led by Jeremy Elder is
planning a march to be held in Humboldt on Friday, March 15,
1996.
The purpose of the march is to draw attention to the social and
economic costs of impaired driving. Stated like that, the
consequences of drunk driving do not seem that consequential,
much less horrific than when expressed in human terms. Consider
instead the grief of a parent who loses a child to a drunk driver, or
the fear of a small child waiting alone in the dark in a car outside
the local beer parlour wondering if Dad will be able to make his
way home, this time.
I know my colleagues in the House will join me in saluting the
efforts of Jeremy Elder, the other members of SADD Humboldt,
parent volunteers, Mayor Doug Still and principal Ron Ford.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Friday is International Women's Day. I would like to wish a happy
day to all Canadian women and to congratulate them on the
progress made on promoting women's rights.
But women are vulnerable. For example, 52,000 North
American women die of breast cancer each year. In the ten years of
the Vietnam war, 48,000 women died on the battlefield. Over the
same period, more than 300,000 American women died of breast
cancer. This terrible disease is usually hereditary, but no one is
safe.
Last year, in Vancouver, more than 3,000 people showed that
they care about other people's lives by taking part in the walk
against breast cancer. We must remind everyone, and particularly
women, to be on the lookout and to learn to recognize the
symptoms of this disease, which can be beaten if detected early
enough.
(1415)
[English]
A word of warning for all but especially to women that life is
often up to us. Congratulations to the BC Breast Cancer Foundation
for its work in this area.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as part of the pink ribbon campaign to support breast
cancer research, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage
all Canadians to increase their awareness of this insidious disease.
According to statistics provided by the National Cancer Institute
of Canada, an estimated 17,700 women in Canada will develop
357
breast cancer in 1996, while more than 5,000 Canadian women
will die from breast cancer this year.
All women are at risk for breast cancer. In fact, one in nine
Canadian women will be diagnosed with this disease in their
lifetime.
While women cannot do much about certain links to breast
cancer, such as a genetic predisposition, research has indicated that
there are a number of factors linked to the risk of developing this
complex disease.
Let us show our support for breast cancer research.
_____________________________________________
357
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
conflict between the U.S. and Cuba is heating up. Canada is now
caught up in it, as the target of the virulent attack by Senator Jesse
Helms. The crisis now developing between Canada and the U.S. is
liable to have very serious economic repercussions.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he agree that the
American reaction affects Canada first and foremost, because
Canada is Cuba's principal trade partner, according to recent
figures?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss this problem with the
President of the United States last week. I informed him that it was
unacceptable to Canada that legislation passed by the U.S.
Congress could apply outside that country.
On Monday and Tuesday, I had an opportunity to discuss the
same problem with 13 Caribbean heads of government. In the joint
press release issued at the conference, it was stated unanimously
that laws with extraterritorial jurisdiction are unacceptable under
international law.
Obviously, Mr. Helms' statement speaks for itself. My
conversations with the president indicate that he is aware of
Canada's objections, and that the bill is currently before Congress.
We hope that people will become aware of the long term
consequences if, at the international level, all countries took the
same kind of initiative as the U.S. has.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
the current protectionist atmosphere in the U.S., does the Prime
Minister not feel that, over and above the conflict with Cuba, we
are dealing here with a challenge to the very terms of the Free
Trade Agreement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that this bill reflects the atmosphere in the
aftermath of the Cuba-U.S. incident. As the House is aware, we
have clearly expressed our disapproval to the Government of Cuba
concerning their attack on civilian aircraft flying outside Cuban
territory. At any rate, the International Civil Aviation Organization
is addressing the problem today in Montreal.
I have learned from experience that U.S. pre-election fever often
leads to statements that are more heated than they would be at other
times. After the election, perhaps Senator Helms or others will be
more approachable.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister for International Trade made a statement
here in this House in which he expressed a hope that the president
will use the discretion available to him to reduce the impact of the
bill. Should that hope not be fulfilled, however, what action plan
does Canada have in mind to protect the thousands of jobs that
would be affected?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after a law is passed in the United States there is always
room for the administration to take some precise action. I discussed
that possibility with the president and he will look into it. We do
not think this law will be in operation for many months to come,
not before the end of the summer.
(1420 )
Therefore we will see how the administration deals with this
piece of legislation and we will advise.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
commission of inquiry on Somalia is just as muddled as the events
it is investigating.
On February 29, the Minister of Justice said in this House that, in
order to avoid a conflict of interest, and I repeat, in order to avoid a
conflict of interest, he had asked certain individuals to be
represented by counsel of their choice rather than counsel from the
Department of Justice.
How does the Minister of Finance explain the fact that the
highest ranking officers currently under investigation, that is,
Lieutenant-General Gordon Reay, General James Gervais, General
John de Chastelain and Admiral John Anderson along with the
former deputy minister, Robert Fowler, continue to be represented
by counsel from his department?
358
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should be remembered that the
commission itself, when it undertook its work, said it would focus
the inquiry on the senior members of the forces.
In recent months it has interviewed some of the more junior
ranking officers and enlisted personnel. This matter came up in the
House last week and I take this occasion to repeat what I said then.
The fundamental principle on which we have operated is that where
interests conflict separate representation will be afforded.
In 13 cases so far we have arranged to have separate lawyers
retained and paid for by the Government of Canada so that
individual interest can be represented.
Whenever in the course of an interview or in the course of
testimony it becomes clear that there is a difference between the
interest of that person and the institutional interest of the
government, we ask that the proceedings stop and we advise the
person of the right to separate counsel. If the person makes that
choice, we arrange for them to get a separate lawyer.
As I said last week, if the hon. member is aware of any case in
which justice is not being served because that process is not being
followed, I encourage them to tell me about it so that we can
redress it immediately.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
Minister of Justice does not consider this a flagrant conflict of
interest, what does he think of the fact that lawyers from his
department are concocting both the prosecution and the defence of
the senior ranking officers and that, moreover, they are sitting at
the same table during the hearings and regularly consulting each
other about the course the hearing is taking?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not understand the
point the hon. member is trying to make. I hear words being used
but they do not add up, at least in my mind, to an effective criticism
of the process.
The commission is represented by separate counsel, not
government counsel, paid for by the people. The government and
the Department of National Defence are represented by justice
lawyers.
As I have said, if others appear who happen to be present or
former employees of government who have a different interest they
will be separately represented.
The lawyers acting for the commission are not government
lawyers, not justice lawyers. If the hon. member has a specific
concern in mind I invite her to write me about it. I will look into it
and I will respond to it directly. However, at the moment I am not
able to see in anything she said today grounds for complaint.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of Canadians and constituents of Reform
members particularly I again state our condemnation of the
shooting down of two private U.S. planes by Cuba. I also state our
equally strong condemnation of the American anti-Cuba trade bill
that encroaches on our sovereignty and the anti-Canadian
statements by Senator Jesse Helms.
Surely it is time for the government to do more than wring its
hands and do something decisive to protect Canadian interests from
these disturbing American actions.
Can the Prime Minister explain why his personal appeal to the
U.S. president and the personal intervention of his trade minister
have failed to produce any support for the Canadian position in
Washington, thereby placing Canadian interests, jobs and trade at
risk?
(1425 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to see the hon. leader of the third party
supporting our position. We have made all the representations we
think are appropriate at this time.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs will talk with Mr. Christopher
later this week. As Mr. Helms is good a friend of Mr. Gingrich,
perhaps the leader of the third party could call Mr. Gingrich and ask
the Republicans not to vote for that bill.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the protectionist speeches given in the American
Congress are a carbon copy of those made by Mr. Turner and others
in this country in 1988. Perhaps the Prime Minister could arrange
for those speeches to be burned-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Manning: The actions the Prime Minister has mentioned
here today, phone calls to the president, media releases,
negotiations at the highest levels, are essentially political actions to
deal with this problem.
When the government has taken the political route to dealing
with trade disputes the U.S. has usually been the winner, as with the
grain imports case. When Canada has used the practical and
business like dispute settlement mechanism in NAFTA Canada has
tended to be the winner.
Has the Prime Minister instructed his trade minister to launch an
immediate challenge to the Helms-Burton bill under the dispute
settlement mechanism of the NAFTA?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the bill has not been passed. We should let the bill pass,
see what the president will do with the bill and how it will be
applied.
359
In terms of trade relations with the United States, we have done
very well. At this moment we have the biggest surplus we have
ever had with the United States.
The biggest trade relations in the world are between Canada and
the United States and so there are always problems of this nature.
We have been reasonably successful at resolving them. Sometimes
we refer disputes to panels under the NAFTA. We might use this
route if needed once the bill is passed. Then we will see the effects.
However, we have done what we can to this point. I am delighted
that the leader of the Reform Party is supporting this government. I
will send a copy of Hansard to Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite evident why Canada's trade interests are not
being properly represented. If the Prime Minister would go back to
the NAFTA and read the dispute settlement mechanism he would
see what it says: ``The dispute settlement provisions of this chapter
shall apply whenever a party considers that an actual or proposed
measure of another party would be inconsistent with this
agreement''.
It is quite clear that the Helms-Burton bill in the American
Congress is a proposed measure in violation of the NAFTA.
Why does the Prime Minister not direct his trade minister to file
an application to the dispute settlement mechanism with respect to
this bill?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the bill not been passed yet.
When we formed the government there were 130 grievances
between the two governments. The number is down to below 10 at
this moment because we have done it in the proper fashion. We
believe that if we have a civilized discussion with the Americans
we will probably have a better result. Then it will be time to move
if we feel we are going nowhere.
However, I do not think Canada will gain a lot in losing its cool.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
1990, the voice of Radio-Canada was silenced in the regions, and in
1996, if the government decides to eliminate advertising, as
recommended by the Juneau report, the voice of Radio-Canada
affiliates in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, eastern Quebec, the
Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean, the Mauricie and the Eastern Townships
will be silenced.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage. Since the recommendations of the Juneau
report will likely result in the closure of Radio-Canada affiliates,
will the Minister of Canadian Heritage categorically reject these
proposals?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to the request of
the Bloc, we will not reject all the recommendations of the Juneau
report, because there are good things in them. I would like the
member opposite to get involved in a good debate to find ways to
provide long term funding for Radio-Canada instead of dumping on
the Juneau report.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the three recommendations in the Juneau report are even identified
by the report's author as the weakest ones.
Given that Radio-Canada's contract with its affiliates ends
March 31, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to calm
the fears of the people in the affiliate stations by declaring a
moratorium on the recommendations that affect them?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's
proposal is unreasonable. He is asking us to reject the
recommendations of the Juneau report, when one of them was long
term funding for Radio-Canada. Clearly I am not going to reject the
recommendations of the report. I am in fact working to have it in
effect shortly.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the
Prime Minister has learned to keep his cool.
It is an election year in the U.S. and it has decided Canada is an
easy target for its bravado and bullying. Not only have Canadians
had to put up with the Jesse Helms anti-Canadian rhetoric, but
today on CBC a U.S. congressman said Canada had violated
international law by imposing fees on the inside passage, which
puts us in the same category as Cuba.
When will the Minister of Foreign Affairs stop allowing Canada
to be a patsy to the bravado and bullying of foreign politicians and
forcefully defend Canadian sovereignty on trade and on our
territory?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thought the hon. member had now spent sufficient time
in politics to not get overly disturbed when the odd congressman,
senator or other representatives find their way into the Canadian
360
media. They do not reflect the policy of the U.S. government or its
administration.
Furthermore, we have made it very clear, as we have been doing
for the past many years, that the inside waters are our waters and
that there will be no payment to the United States of any
compensation. Those waters are ours to determine what will
happen within them.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government
has caved in on softwood lumber. It has failed to stop the
Helms-Burton bill and when the Americans unilaterally declared
the B.C. inside passage to be international waters, the Liberal
government, as we heard yesterday, simply sent a message. This is
some defence of our sovereignty.
The Liberal red book said: ``A Liberal government will end the
Conservative's junior partnership relationship with the United
States and reassert our proud tradition of independent foreign
policy''.
What happened between the writing of the red book and what we
are observing now?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what seems to have happened is that the reform party was
down holding hands and making sweet talk with the Republicans in
the U.S. Congress and perhaps got the false impression that the
entire Canadian public reflects the position of the Reform Party
that there is no sovereignty in Canada.
The reality is that the Prime Minister has taken the lead in
mobilizing Caribbean and Latin American countries. We have the
European Union on our side. The Russians are on our side and
countries around the world are on our side. We are leading the
charge against the extraterritoriality of that bill. We just wish
Reform would get on side.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of defence.
Two days ago, the defence minister stated in this House that the
suicide rate in the Canadian Forces is, and I quote: ``about half the
rate of Canadian society as a whole''.
The reality is as follows: in the last four years on record, the
Canadian average was 13.2 per 100,000 people, compared to more
than 20 for the same number of people in the armed forces.
In light of these facts, does the minister still stand by the
statement he made two days ago in this House denying any
problem in the armed forces?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, knowing the
hon. member, he has been quite selective with the information he
has presented to the House. I stand by what I said.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to tell the minister that the information I have comes from
Lieutenant-General Paul Addy and was published by Le Devoir in
April 1995.
The minister is still trying to play down this scourge. Will he
finally give this problem the importance, the attention it requires?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the
incidence of suicide in the Canadian Armed Forces is about half
that of the population as a whole. I would like to see the hon.
member's data because I am sure they have not been correctly
presented to the House.
What concerns me is the motive behind the hon. member's
playing on the whole question of suicides in the armed forces as
they play against the general population. I can only suspect this is
another measure with which the Bloc Quebecois wants to
destabilize Canada's military.
The Speaker: Neither in the questions nor in the answers should
we attribute motives. I ask members to keep that in mind.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1985 an
American coast guard icebreaker transited Canadian arctic waters
without our permission.
In response, the current Prime Minister said the government had
been humiliated and that the whole nation had been humiliated by
this challenge to our sovereignty.
What will the Prime Minister do now that once again the U.S. is
threatening to, in his words, humiliate us by challenging our
sovereignty?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I strongly recommend to the hon. member that before he
uses that kind inflammatory language he look specifically at the
so-called U.S. legislation, the fishermen's protective act. It does
not authorize the United States to use the coast guard against
Canadian fishing boats. That is called a finding. It has no legal
impact or legal authorization.
361
I suggest to the hon. member that before he begins to beat the
drums and raise the temperature he read the legislation and realize
that Canada has full rights, which we have exercised and continue
to exercise, and full sovereignty over our inside waters.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the language is
the same as in 1985. Yesterday the transport minister said: ``You
cannot win with the Americans with rash and foolish behaviour''.
He should have given that advice to Brian Tobin before he slapped
a transit fee on the Americans.
Negotiations over salmon with the U.S. broke down yesterday.
There is no sign of an agreement. Now the U.S. has turned a fish
dispute into a sovereignty showdown.
When will the government wake up to the needs of the west coast
and figure out some way to undo the damage done by Brian Tobin,
damage that could result in a violation of Canadian sovereignty?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the former minister
of fisheries, now the distinguished premier of Newfoundland, is
one of the most ardent and effective representative this country has
had in defending Canadian interests. We know full well that the
present minister of fisheries from Newfoundland will follow in that
tradition.
(1440)
I want to point out a fundamental error in the hon. member's
comments. Negotiations have not broken down. Both the United
States and ourselves issued statements yesterday stating that
negotiations will continue. We will continue to talk about a new
fishing regime for this year's fishing season. We will continue to
work out the criteria and the formula for a long term solution.
We believe in finding effective solutions to these problems, not
engaging in wild rhetoric.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
On February 12, the Bloc Quebecois demanded that the
Canadian government suspend all deportations of refugee
claimants to Algeria, a country on the brink of civil war. Yet, as
recently as yesterday, immigration officials were still deporting
people to that country.
Does the minister agree that it is unacceptable to continue
deporting people to Algeria and essential to review the cases of all
Algerian nationals in light of the explosive situation prevailing in
that country?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is an
advisory committee that examines conditions in countries to which
people are to be deported. Whenever this committee meets, it
reviews the situation as a whole, what is happening inside the
country, how past deportations went, whether the situation changes
from day to day, and whether or not deportations should be
temporarily suspended. In summary, every time someone is
deported from Canada after having exhausted all avenues of appeal
provided for in Canadian legislation, we assess the potential risks
of sending this person back to his or her country. If we do send
someone back, it is with the assurance that this person will be able
to go home without facing persecution.
At this time-which does not mean that the situation will not
change in a few days, next week or next month-we are still
deporting people to Algeria.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
the climate of violence prevailing in Algeria, does the minister
recognize that Algerian nationals should benefit from a suspension
of deportation measures just like the citizens of Rwanda, Burundi
and Afghanistan?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each situation is assessed on its
own merits. Again, the situation is reviewed on a periodic basis.
Even in the case of Burundi or Rwanda, the situation will be
assessed regularly week after week. All deportation suspensions
are temporary. In this case, there is no temporary suspension for the
time being.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State responsible for
the Federal Office of Regional Development.
Now that the firm Aéroports de Montréal has indicated what its
plans are for the two airports, could the government tell us whether
it is prepared to grant free zone status to Mirabel to promote and
ensure its long term economic development?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
hon. colleague for his question.
As you know, last December, we tabled Bill C-102 to enhance
Canada's duty referral program.
This new legislation provides for the creation of so-called free
zones, which are actually free trade zones. Businesses and regions
looking to implement very innovative projects may request the
designation of such zones. Officials of the Federal Office of
Regional Development and of Aéroports de Montréal are currently
362
considering, in collaboration with Revenue Canada, whether or not
a free zone could be created under the new legislation to help the
Mirabel area.
* * *
(1445)
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during
the last election the Liberals quite clearly stated that they would
scrap, kill, abolish the GST.
Yesterday the finance minister waved the red book around,
somewhat like a white flag, and said that the government meant
harmonize, not scrap. In fact it meant augment, not abolish.
Canadians know what they heard from Liberals during the last
election campaign. They simply will not forget it.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When will he live up to
his promise and the promise of members of his caucus, to scrap,
that is kill, that is abolish the GST, unlike what he says on page 22
of the red book?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a book that is quite well known across the country.
On page 22 it said: ``A Liberal government will replace the GST
with a system that generates equivalent revenue, is fair to the
consumers and small business and minimizes disruption to small
business, and promotes federal-provincial co-operation and
harmonization''. That is the promise.
The Speaker: Members can quote directly from whatever books
they like, but I would ask them to please not show them off. We are
going to get into the use of props.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, thank
you. Red is dead, because here are some of the things they said
during the election: ``I would abolish the GST''.
Mrs. Finestone: Take your jacket off, Deb.
Ms. Clancy: Time to be true blue.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beaver River.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to think during
International Women's Week that I was being undressed in the
House of Commons by this government.
During the election-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: One day we are being seduced; the next day we
are being undressed. Before we go much further, would the
member put her question.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign,
regardless of what was in the red book, the finance minister said:
``I will abolish the GST''. ``We hate it and we will kill it,'' said the
Prime Minister. ``Scrap it,'' said the revenue minister. And of
course there are those words that we have all come to love: ``If the
GST is not abolished, I will resign'', said the Deputy Prime
Minister.
Why is the government going to expand and hide the GST in a
secret supertax, instead of just plain killing it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to deal with the bare facts.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We have put in writing that the
GST will not be there and will be replaced by a system that will be
a better one.
(1450 )
As it is the tradition, I can table the red book and the hon.
member can table the red coat and then she would be dressed in
black which will show the future of the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. When the
Châteauguay River overflowed in late January, it caused
approximately $3 million in damage and forced the evacuation of
1,063 residents. All experts agree that the damage would not have
been as substantial had air cushion vehicles been available.
Does the minister agree that this situation could have been
avoided if more Canadian Coast Guard air cushion vehicles had
been available and could he confirm plans to procure two
additional crafts for the Coast Guard?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we regret very much that this took place. The coast
guard has only one air cushion vehicle, a Hovercraft, in the region
and it was in refit at the time. It was January and that was the
normal time to refit these kinds of crafts. I think the hon. member
would agree that it was impossible for any other vessel to get there
because of the depth concerned.
I will take into consideration what the hon. member has said. We
will try to make that craft available as much as possible, given the
contingencies that one would expect under the circumstances.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): As a supplementary,
Mr. Speaker, given that the St. Lawrence region has only one air
cushion vehicle in operation at present, could the minister promise
363
in this House that the St. Lawrrence region will have two such craft
in operation by next fall?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the provision of emergency services in the tributaries
of the St. Lawrence River, as in other rivers in Canada, is the
responsibility of the province. The Canadian Coast Guard provides
ice-breaking services in the tributaries at the request of the Quebec
ministry.
I will take into consideration what he has said and we will do
what we can with the resources that we have.
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canada has a long tradition of meeting its obligations to the
United Nations in full and on time. It was $270 million last year.
Thanks to political manoeuvring in the Security Council, Canada is
going to be stuck with the full cost of sending additional troops to
Haiti for four months, $24 million.
Under those circumstances, will the minister consider
withholding $24 million from our other UN assessments in order to
compensate us for this unjust cost?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I regret very much the attitude demonstrated by the hon.
member.
The initiative taken at the United Nations a week ago to arrange
for an agreement with the security council to continue and extend
the UN presence is one of the most important contributions Canada
has made to the UN for the rebuilding of that country. Haiti is
desperately struggling to rebuild a democracy where there has been
a dictatorship for the last several decades.
For the hon. member of the Reform Party to cast aspersions and
say that we should find some way of denying the value of that
contribution really demonstrates his misunderstanding of the value
that Canada places in the UN, on the building of democracy in our
hemisphere and in ensuring that we have a stable, orderly system in
the world.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hope you award prizes
for irrelevant answers to serious questions because I sure heard one
there.
(1455 )
Since the hon. minister wants to roll over and play dead on my
first suggestion, in 1994-95 Canadian foreign aid to China was
$162 million. Since it was China that blocked the security council's
vote on the funding of the Haiti mission, would the minister at least
consider withholding $24 million of aid from that country, which
by the way has a vibrant economy and is in no way a legitimate
target for our largesse?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are two parts to my reply. First, if the hon. member
took the time he would recognize that China has become in the last
several years one of the most important trading partners for
Canada. We have several billions of dollars engaged with it. Much
of that has been generated by the fact that the foreign aid
development budget has been used to help Canadian business with
startup funds which will lead to much broader contracts at a later
date. It has been one of the best investments we have made.
Second, the other part of that aid has provided major assistance
in the development of institutions to aid women, children and
judicial institutions in China and to help in exchanges for education
and training.
The attitude displayed by the hon. member is the worst kind of
isolationism that I have heard in this House in an awfully long
time.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The largest petition in the history of the Alberta Legislative
Assembly was presented last week. Eighty thousand Albertans
representing 458 towns, cities and villages demonstrated
overwhelming support for the five basic principles of medicare.
They rejected two-tier health care and called for the maintenance of
national standards.
What will the minister do to protect Canada's publicly funded
health care system and to ensure that the principles of the Canada
Health Act are honoured by all provinces, even Alberta?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for her question. The House should extend
congratulations to those 80,000 Albertans who signed petitions in
hockey arenas, shopping malls and homes across that province to
give support to what we know as medicare.
The members of Parliament from that great province realize
fully that 75 per cent of its population support the five basic
principles of the Canada Health Act. They do not support the
two-tier system which is being advocated by the Reform Party of
Canada. They support unquestionably the principles of
universality, access, affordability and free access to all Canadians.
It is high time that the Reform Party got on side with the general
population of the province of Alberta.
364
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
International Development Research Centre, which comes under
the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, apparently
decided, recently, to stop publishing the French edition of its
magazine
Explore, which, for reasons of economy, would only be
available in English, from now on.
How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain the fact that an
agency for which he is responsible is contravening the Official
Languages Act, and does he intend to reverse that decision as soon
as possible? If he does not, it is clear that francophones will once
again be the ones affected by federal cuts.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for drawing that
particular issue to my attention. I do not accept that an official
publication issued by any agency of this government should not be
distributed in both languages. I will look into it immediately and
report back to the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
lousy deal on Churchill Falls probably will cost Labrador $50
billion over the life of the contract.
The ministry yesterday said that the internal trade document was
going to settle the problem but that document is two years old. Last
September it was supposed to have a draft agreement on the energy
sector and that did not happen. Meanwhile $2 billion a day is going
down the tubes and Labrador is being shafted.
(1500)
When will the minister be prepared to move to help Labrador get
what it deserves, which is reliance on its own natural resources?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Let me assure him that as recently as March 5 the federal
government, provincial governments and utilities involved have
met to continue discussions in relation to this issue.
The federal government does not wish to usurp that which is the
rightful authority of the provinces but it will continue to work with
the provinces in a constructive fashion to reduce trade barriers
wherever they exist.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
The minister has said that forestry will be transferred to the
Yukon government on April 1, 1996. I would like to ask the
minister if this is still the department's intention and if so, what
kind of negotiations have been finalized with the Council for
Yukon First Nations and the Yukon government?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows we
had a lot of difficulty with the forestry because the price was 20 or
30 cents per entity which would normally have cost $20 or $30 in
B.C. or Alberta. Over a period of time we increased the stumpage
rates and put some of it into what is called the Elijah Smith
Sustainable Fund which was named for an elder in the Yukon, as
she knows.
The problem is that the First Nations in the Yukon do not feel
that they had been adequately consulted in the process of
devolution, so I have slowed down the process. If I am going to err,
I am going to err on the side of the First Nations in the Yukon.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last year the federal government received $60 million in GST
revenues as a result of the spending of sports anglers on the Great
Lakes. At the same time the exploding population of sea lamprey in
the lakes has the potential to eliminate sports fishing.
Can the minister advise the House whether his department is
proceeding to decrease, maintain or increase Canada's contribution
to the binational Great Lakes Fisheries Commission which controls
sea lamprey programs?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member that the government
is very interested and concerned about the control of sea lampreys
in the Great Lakes.
In this fiscal year we will be contributing $3.8 million which
basically restores the level to that of earlier years. There was an
increase last year but we are going back to earlier levels.
It is the view of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that in
all fisheries the use of public resources, particularly those managed
by public expense, should really command a licence fee. To that
end, we are dealing with the province of Ontario to look for ways
to further assist in the control of predators like the sea lamprey, for
365
more effective control in sports fishing and other kinds of fishing
that are affected by these predators.
The Speaker: This brings question period to a close.
_____________________________________________
365
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1505)
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions
presented during the first session.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the third report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs and associate members of various standing committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this third report later this day.
* * *
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-7, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services, and to amend and repeal certain acts.
She said: Madam Speaker, I wish to state that this bill is in the
same form as Bill C-52 of the first session of the 35th Parliament at
the time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as
provided in the special order adopted on March 4, 1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The Chair is
satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-52 was at the
time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996,
the bill is deemed to have been read the second time, considered by
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, reported with
amendments and concurred in at report stage with further
amendments.
* * *
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-8, an act to amend respecting the control
of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances, and to
amend certain other acts and to repeal the Narcotic Control Act in
consequence thereof.
He said: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders and to
the traditions of the House I wish to state that this bill is in the same
form as Bill C-7 of the first session of the 35th Parliament at the
time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as
provided in the special order adopted by this House on March 4.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
(1510)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The Chair is
satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-7 was at the time
of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996,
the bill is deemed to have been adopted at all stages and to have
been passed by the House.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Justice) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-9, an act respecting the Law Commission
of Canada.
He said: Madam Speaker, I wish to state that this bill is in the
same form as Bill C-106 of the first session of the 35th Parliament
at the time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as
provided in the special order adopted March 4, 1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The Chair is
satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-103 was at the
time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996,
the bill is deemed to have been read the second time, considered by
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and reported
with amendments.
366
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-223, an act to amend the Citizenship
Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, I wish to move this bill to amend the
Citizenship Act with respect to the oath of allegiance.
At present, those persons who present themselves to become
new citizens of Canada must pledge alliance to Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. This is confusing to some
and objectionable to others. Many individuals are ready and willing
to pledge their allegiance to Canada and to the Canadian
Constitution, but not to Queen Elizabeth whom they associate with
the United Kingdom, another independent country.
This bill would replace the present citizenship oath with a new
oath which would read:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada
and the Constitution of Canada and that I will faithfully observe the laws of
Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1515)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest
without warrant).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce this
private member's bill today on behalf of the request of a number of
policemen throughout the country who at various times have
witnessed and seen people on parole willingly and unconditionally
break all conditions of the parole they have been released on.
This bill would authorize these peace officers to arrest without
warrant, which would prevent a number of crimes. They know it
will. There have been a number of incidents where that kind of
intervention would have prevented some very serious things from
happening.
We hope this will receive the full support of the House to give
the police the power to protect those we are obligated to protect.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-225, an act to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act (Indian Act).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce for first
reading my private member's bill, an act to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
The purpose of the bill is to repeal section 67 of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, which reads: ``Nothing in this act affects any
provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or
pursuant to that act''.
Because of this section, a federal court judge in 1994 in his
decision was unable, as he said, to uphold the human rights of a
young Indian student from British Columbia to attend a Catholic
boarding school away from her reserve.
The judge has termed the Indian Act racist and one of the causes
is that the Indian Act is exempt from the Canadian Human Rights
Act. The judge went on to say that if the Indian Act were not
exempt from the Canadian Human Rights Act, human rights
tribunals would be obligated to tear apart the Indian Act in the
name and spirit of equality of human rights in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(self-defence).
She said: Madam Speaker, this is a bill on self-defence. At the
present time, the Criminal Code allows the instigator of a fight to
claim that he acted in self-defence, even if he kills his victim. That
anomaly has resulted in a controversial decision being handed
down by the Supreme Court on February 23, 1995.
According to the chief justice of Canada, the decision gives
illogical and absurd results, since the worse the aggression is, the
more the instigator can use the wider ground of defence. Under my
proposed bill, the instigator of a fight would no longer be able to
use that defence when the victim dies. Only individuals who do not
start the fight would be able to say that they acted in self-defence.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
367
(1520)
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if the House gives its consents, I move that the third report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I table a petition signed by constituents in the riding of
Lambton-Middlesex initiated by George Skinner on behalf of
neighbours in Strathroy, Mount Brydges and Komoka, duly
certified by the clerk of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners state that whereas the Young Offenders Act fails
to act as a deterrent, is abused by young people predisposed to
committing crime and encourages them the manipulation of
children who are too young to be subject to the act, that Parliament
undertake a complete and thorough review of existing legislation
and amend the Young Offenders Act to reflect the concerns of this
petition.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions. The first has to do with the family.
Petitioners from Sarnia, Ontario 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 society. They also state the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill
or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition is from Strathroy, Ontario. The petitioners bring
to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic
beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability.
Specifically, 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 on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Could hon.
members please be brief in their presentations.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will be
brief, since there are many wishing to speak today.
I take pride in joining with several colleagues in presenting a
petition bearing 94,000 names, at least 2,000 of those from the
riding of Gaspé. The petitioners are calling upon the government to
take steps to enable Québec Téléphone to have access to a
broadcasting licence. This is essential for the economic
development of Quebec. Despite its foreign ownership, Québec
Téléphone is managed by Quebecers and the language of work is
French. Québec Téléphone is an needed agent of regional
development.
(1525)
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting a 200-page
petition.
The petitioners are calling for the grandfathering of Québec
Téléphone. Québec Téléphone has always been a key figure in the
economic and technological development of the regions it serves.
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to deposit a petition.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I draw
to the attention of the House a petition provided by 1,000 people in
the Lac du Bonnet-Pinawa area.
They draw to the attention of the House that the Canadian
nuclear industry provides enormous benefits to Canadians for safe
and environmentally sound power and research and development.
Atomic Energy Canada is the government agency responsible for
Whiteshell in Manitoba and Chalk River in Ontario. Whiteshell
makes substantial contributions to the economy in eastern
Manitoba.
368
Therefore the petitioners pray that the Government of Canada
will not close or downsize the Whiteshell facility and make a
public declaration of that support.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
present a petition, duly certified, signed by 39 constituents from
my riding.
The petition has to do with families and children of divorced
parents. The petitioners call on Parliament to pass legislation
incorporating rights of children and principles of equality between
and among parents.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition on behalf of my constituents as well as those from
Assiniboia, Regina Beach, Pilot Butte, Riceton, Fort Qu'Appelle
and Saskatoon, all in Saskatchewan. The petitioners are very
concerned about the price of gas. They are very concerned because
the increases have not been justified.
They are asking the House of Commons and the government to
set up an energy price review commission to keep gasoline pricing
and other energy products in check.
My second petition is also from many constituents in
Regina-Lumsden. It pertains to the tax increases on gasoline.
Fifty-two per cent of the cost of gas is taxes.
The petitioners are asking the House of Commons and the
Government of Canada not to increase the taxes on gasoline in the
upcoming federal budget.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of residents of Peterborough
riding who call to the attention of the House that an innocent
spiritual man, Leonard Peltier, has been wrongfully held a political
prisoner by the United States of America under the guise of a
dangerous criminal. Leonard Peltier has been denied appeals over
and over again.
Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament lobby and
advocate to the United States judicial system on behalf of Leonard
Peltier for a new trial and that justice be done in this case.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to join my colleagues today in tabling a petition with
94,000 names, 24,000 of which are from the riding of Beauce,
asking the government to take action to allow Québec Téléphone to
have a broadcast license.
This is essential to Quebec's economic development and,
although foreign owned, Québec Téléphone is managed by
Quebecers. French is the exclusive language of work, and Québec
Téléphone is a major instrument of regional economic
development in Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I join with my constituents in tabling a petition requesting
the government to take the necessary steps to enable Québec
Téléphone to have a broadcast license, as it is a major instrument of
regional economic development in Quebec. To enable thers to
present their petitions, I will stop there.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have four petitions to present to the House.
(1530 )
The first two petitions state that the availability of a low cost
energy source is a natural advantage Canadians have to oil. Over
the past 10 years, the excise tax on gasoline has risen by 466 per
cent. They request that Parliament not increase the federal sales tax
on gasoline in the next federal budget.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the third and
fourth petitions are on the issue of a potential taxation of health and
dental benefits.
The petitioners state that our dental and health care has
contributed to Canadians enjoying one of the highest standards of
health care in the world. The petitioners call upon Parliament to
refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and
to put on hold any future considerations of such a tax until a
complete review of the tax system and how it impacts on the health
of Canadians has been undertaken.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on
behalf of constituents in my riding I wish to present a petition that
calls upon Parliament to consider the extension of benefits and
compensation for veterans of World War II to the merchant navy
wartime veterans.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Madam Speaker, were you to request it, you would no doubt find
there is unanimous consent to extend the time usually allowed for
petitions by ten minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
369
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to present to the House three petitions duly
certified. The first deals with amendments to the Criminal Code for
certain acts of violence.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition deals with amendments to the
Canadian Human Rights Act.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the third petition deals with Bell Canada rate increases.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition which I am presenting on behalf of the
hon. member for Windsor West.
The petition deals with the issue of corporal punishment of
children and more specifically with section 43 of the Criminal
Code of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I join
my colleagues in tabling a petition bearing 94,000 names, nearly
3,000 of which are from my riding, asking the government to take
the necessary steps to allow Québec Téléphone to be granted a
broadcasting license.
Social and economic logic demands that the grandfathering
Québec Téléphone was previously granted be now broadened to
take into account modern technology. Preventing Québec
Téléphone from keeping up with technology would significantly
hamper Quebec's social and economic development.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker, on
behalf of around 20,000 citizens in my riding and surrounding
areas, I too present a petition asking that Québec Téléphone be
granted a broadcasting license.
In order to give others a chance, I will now sit down.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in tabling a petition
bearing 94,000 names, 4,000 of which come from my riding,
demanding that the government take action to allow Québec
Téléphone to be granted a broadcasting license.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present this petition.
The petitioners rightly ask the government not to increase the
excise tax on gasoline in the upcoming budget.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, on
behalf of my colleague, the member for Champlain, I am pleased to
present a petition signed by hundreds of petitioners praying the
Parliament to recommend that Québec Téléphone be grandfathered
under the Broadcasting Act to allow the company to join the world
of convergence and competition.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
with much pride that I join my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois
and table a petition bearing 94,000 names, including 7,710 from
my riding. The petitioners are asking the government to take
measures in order to grant Québec Téléphone a broadcasting
license.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam
Speaker, 1,828 people have put their names on the 250 sheets that I
table today. These people argue that the grandfathering granted
Québec Téléphone under the Telecommunications Act be extended
to the Broadcasting Act.
(1535)
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by some 50 people from my
riding who pray Parliament to ask the finance minister not to raise
the tax on gasoline. The petitioners consider that they are already
overtaxed since taxes represent about 52 per cent of the cost of a
litre of gas at the pump and that over the last ten years, the tax on
gasoline increased 566 per cent. I am pleased to table this petition.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to
rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of
petitions on behalf of 28 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and
the surrounding area.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to stop the use and sale of
synthetic bovine growth hormone in Canada until the year 2000, or
extend the existing moratorium until health and economic
questions can be answered.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I hold in my
hand the signatures of almost 7,500 people from my riding of Elk
370
Island who are bringing to this House a very sincere request to not
increase taxes. Taxes on gasoline have gone up many times. The
increase was 1.5 cents per litre last time. The petitioners are saying
not to include another 2 cent per litre tax in the budget.
I am pleased to present this petition.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, on behalf of 63 constituents and backed by an
overwhelming feedback from many more, on this the day the
government presents its budget I would like to present a petition
which requests that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax
on gasoline. I trust the government will heed the petitioners'
sincere request.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I too have a petition concerning the price and the taxes on
gasoline. Given that 52 per cent of the price of gasoline is
composed of taxes and that taxes have increased by 566 per cent
over the past decade, the petitioners request that Parliament not
increase the federal excise tax on gas and that the government
strongly consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate
Canada's crumbling highway system.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to add another 4,000
names to the larger petition presented by myself and others asking
the government not to further increase the excise tax on gasoline.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on budget day
on behalf of my constituents. They want to remind the finance
minister that he still has time to change the text of his budget. The
petitioners are upset that 52 per cent of the price of gasoline is
composed of taxes and that the federal excise tax on gasoline has
already increased by 566 per cent in the past decade.
The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline and that the government strongly consider
reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's national
highways.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
370
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (for Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-2, an act to amend the
Judges Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
(1540 )
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am very pleased to be able to speak to the House on Bill C-2, an
act to amend the Judges Act.
I wish to express my very sincere thanks to the member for
Saint-Hubert and the member for Crowfoot for their approval of
the amendment to the act and their facilitation in assuring its
passage through the House.
As members of the House are aware, under the Constitution of
Canada it is the duty of Parliament to fix and provide salaries,
allowances and pensions of federally appointed judges. To assist
Parliament in exercising that responsibility a process was
established under the Judges Act in 1981 for the review of salaries,
pensions and other benefits payable to these judges.
Every three years a commission is appointed by the Minister of
Justice to enquire into the adequacy of judicial remuneration.
These triennial commissions are currently under statutory
obligation to report to the minister within six months of
appointment. The Minister of Justice in turn is under a statutory
obligation to table a report in Parliament within 10 sitting days
after receiving the report.
The rationale of having such commissions is obvious. Triennial
commissions provide the government on a regular basis with
non-binding advice which is objective and independent in nature
with respect to determining fair compensation for federal judges.
The process respects and enhances the independence of the
judiciary according to our constitutional traditions. The Supreme
Court of Canada has affirmed that this independence of the
judiciary is grounded on both security of tenure and financial
security.
The six-month reporting period has proven to be a very short
time for the triennial commission members, who serve part time, to
complete their onerous responsibilities. They need to invite and
receive briefs on behalf of the public from judges' groups and
others. They need to publish notices in the press. They need to
acquire and study highly technical information. They need to await
and study written submissions. They need to conduct public
hearings. They need to prepare and translate the report. All of this
is within six months of appointment. This puts undue pressure on
the commissioners and barely allows them the time necessary to
approach the job methodically and produce a well considered
report on compensation issues.
371
The judges' organizations, the Canadian Bar Association and
others making submissions to the commission have generally
found the present six-month reporting period to be insufficient. The
chair of the commission which is currently under way, Mr. David
Scott, Q.C., as well as the main judicial organizations and the
Canadian Bar Association are in favour of extending the reporting
period by six months.
Bill C-2 would do just that and nothing more. It would merely
extend the reporting period for the triennial commissions from six
months to twelve. The cost of this amendment would be nil. The
bill would have no bearing on judges' salaries, which continue to
be frozen like those of everyone else in the federal public sector.
I urge honourable members to approve the quick passage of this
minor amendment to the Judges Act. I once again wish to extend
my sincere thanks to the member for Saint-Hubert and the member
for Crowfoot.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
will be brief, since we have already given our consent for this bill
to be pushed through the various stages as quickly as possible and
since there is no disagreement. I think the House has other
meaningful things to do, which is why we should focus on really
significant and debatable issues.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, on behalf
of the Reform Party caucus and its justice critic, I too see no
opposition whatsoever to this minor amendment to the Judges Act.
To expedite the process of the House, I have nothing further to add.
(1545 )
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, the indication from the Chair
was that the bill was referred to the standing committee. I had been
led to believe that there was some agreement to doing all stages of
the bill in the House by unanimous consent this afternoon as
opposed to the reference to the committee. Perhaps the Chair could
clarify the matter for us.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent for the bill to go to committee of the whole?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(House in committee of the whole on Bill C-2, an act to amend
the Judges Act-Madam Ringuette-Maltais in the chair.)
[Translation]
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Order. House in committee
of the whole on Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Judges Act.
Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Chairman,
can the parliamentary secretary tell us if this extension from six to
twelve months would increase the expenditures and emoluments of
the members of the triennial commission. And if so, by how much?
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it is my understanding that there will be no increase in costs in
regard to this extension.
[Translation]
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Are there any other questions
on clause 1?
Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
(Clause 2 agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
[English]
(Bill reported, concurred in, and by unanimous consent, read the
third time and passed.)
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to
suspend the sitting of the House until 4.20 p.m., at which time hon.
members will be called in for the budget speech. We will not
proceed to the consideration of the next bill on the orders of the
day.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed to
suspend the sitting until 4.20 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.51 p.m.)
[English]
_______________
The House resumed at 4.30 p.m.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved:
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
372
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the budget documents,
including notices of ways and means motions. The details of the
measures are contained in the documents.
[Translation]
Pursuant to an order of this House, I will introduce today a bill
seeking borrowing authority for the 1996-97 fiscal year. I am
asking that an order of the day be designated for consideration of
these motions.
[English]
It is as clear today as it ever has been that Canadians do not want
rhetoric from their government. What they want is action, real
progress. These are the standards that Canadians have set, and
these are the standards by which this government wants to be
judged.
(1635 )
Seldom in our history have so many experienced such anxiety.
Canadians feel our very way of life is at risk. They look at medicare
and feel it is threatened. They look at the pension system and
wonder if it will be there for them in the years to come. They
consider the economy and they worry that the gale force winds of
competition and change will carry away their jobs. Canadians think
about their children, our youth, and ask what kind of opportunities
will be left for them.
If there is one obligation before government today, it is to do its
part to address these deep concerns. It is to do what we must so that
confidence can overcome anxiety and hope can replace despair. In
short, we must act now to help Canadians secure their future.
[Translation]
In short, we must act now to help Canadians secure their future.
We all have our part to play in this undertaking.
It will require the concerted efforts of individual citizens, their
governments, business and others for our country to tackle these
challenges effectively.
What Canadians want from their government is for it to set the
goals, to have a plan and then to work as hard as it can and as long
as it must to help get the job done.
[English]
This budget is our third in a comprehensive and determined
drive to restore fiscal health to this country. In this budget we are
keeping on course. We are maintaining our pace. We are not letting
up. Indeed, this government will never let up. The attack on the
deficit is irrevocable and irreversible. Let there be no doubt about
that. We will balance the books. Furthermore, we will put the debt
to GDP ratio, what we owe as a percentage of what we produce, on
a constant downward track year after year after year. Nothing, I
repeat nothing, will cause this government's conviction to change.
[Translation]
We announced in November that we had bettered our deficit
target for 1994-95. It is now clear that our target for 1995-96 will
be achieved or bettered and that we are on track for our 3 per cent
target for 1996-97. This is proof of the profound impact of the
actions set in motion in our first two budgets.
Moreover, today, we will make it clear that our deficit target for
1997-98, $17 billion or 2 per cent of GDP, is also secure.
[English]
We will hit the 3 per cent deficit target. We will hit the 2 per cent
target announced last November. Indeed, we are announcing the
actions today which will enable us to go beyond these targets to
keep us moving toward budget balance.
To that end, we are cutting our own departmental spending by
almost $2 billion to take effect in 1988-89, I mean 1998-99. I am
going backward; I sound like the Reform Party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1640)
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): This is over and above the
substantial savings secured in our first two budgets. Most
departments will have their budgets cut by at least a further 3.5 per
cent in 1998-99; some are cut much more.
Spending on defence and international assistance will be further
reduced. The growth of spending on Inuit and Indian programming
will be restrained. The dairy subsidy will be phased out over five
years and the postal subsidy program reduced.
This budget, together with our last two, will contribute $26.1
billion in savings to secure our 2 per cent target for 1997-98 and a
further $28.9 billion of savings for the following year 1998-99 to
continue the downward deficit track and to give the debt to GDP
ratio the downward thrust it needs.
In 1993-94 government spending on programs, that is to say
spending on everything but interest on the debt, stood at $120
billion. By 1998-99 we will have reduced that to $105.5 billion.
This will mean six consecutive years of absolute decline in
program spending.
Measured relative to the size of the economy, the decline is even
more dramatic. By 1998-99 program spending will have been
reduced to 12 per cent of GDP. This is down from close to 20 per
cent just over a decade ago. In fact, it will be at its lowest level in
over 50 years.
Because we are focusing on spending cuts, not tax increases,
over the three budgets taken together, we will have cut seven
dollars in spending for every one dollar in new revenues. Let me
say that in this budget we are not raising excise taxes. We are not
373
raising corporate taxes. We are not raising personal taxes. In fact,
we are not raising taxes.
[Translation]
We are pleased to announce that, in this budget, we are not
raising taxes. In fact, this government has never relied on tax
increases to hit its deficit targets. Nor has it relied on rosy
forecasts. We are maintaining the prudent approach we have
adopted from the very beginning.
Our economic assumptions are once again deliberately more
cautious than those of most private sector forecasters. As in both
previous budgets, we are backing up our economic assumptions
with substantial contingency reserves. These reserves do not exist
to be spent on new initiatives, or new programs. They are there to
handle unforeseen changes in the economy. If we do not need them,
they will not be spent. They will go to reducing the deficit even
further.
As we have always said and as we have now proven, meeting our
targets is the least we can do. It is not the best we will do.
[English]
One of the payoffs in hitting our deficit targets is the dramatic
decline in the amount of new money the government must borrow
on financial markets each year. This indicator, financial
requirements, is the way most other major economies, the United
States, the United Kingdom, Italy, France and Germany, calculate
their deficits.
(1645)
In the year 1993-94, the year we came to office, Canada's
financial requirement stood at 4.2 per cent of gross domestic
product, or $30 billion. By 1997-98 our financial requirements will
drop to only 0.7 per cent of GDP, or $6 billion. Relative to the size
of the economy, our new borrowing requirements will be at their
lowest level in almost 30 years. Measured on this basis, Canada
will have the lowest fiscal shortfall projected of any G-7 central
government.
[Translation]
Today's fiscal progresses do not result from a federal effort only,
they are due to a national effort supported by Canadians from
across the country and from all political affiliations.
One of the primary goals of all provinces and territories is to
return to fiscal health. In fact, eight provinces are expected to
report a balanced budget, or even a surplus, for the fiscal year
ending this month.
The results are striking. For instance, in 1993, Canadian
businesses and governments borrowed $29 billion abroad. That
was reduced to $13 billion in 1995, and it will be reduced again
next year and the year after that. In short, Canadian economic
sovereignty is being restored.
[English]
In comparison with most other countries and in the arcane world
of statistics, we are doing quite well. However, that being said, in
the real world where we all live we know that despite gains being
made, Canadians continue to worry very deeply. The reason is not
hard to identify.
Whatever the numbers might say, many do not see evidence of
improvement in their own lives. They see sacrifice. They want to
know whether their sacrifice will bring positive results and when it
will end. Therefore the job before us is clear. It is to build on the
progress we have made, to see it translated into good jobs, into
sustained growth and social programs suited to the millennium that
lies ahead.
This budget is about consolidating the gains we have made. It is
about addressing problems before they arise. It is about managing
ahead, continuing to put in place new building blocks for security
and prosperity. It will show how we will sustain the federal
government's commitment to health care and our social programs
into the 21st century. It will put forward a plan to restore
confidence in the public pension system. It will enhance the
protection of the most vulnerable in our society and it will
reallocate spending to invest in the economic future of the country.
In short, as all budgets must be, this is a budget about the present;
however, it is also a budget for the future.
Canadians want to know that the principles guiding government
are the ones they share. Here are our principles. First, governments
created the deficit burden and so governments must resolve it first
by focusing in their own backyards by getting spending down, not
by getting taxes up.
[Translation]
Second, our fiscal strategy will be worth nothing if at the end of
the day we have not provided hope for jobs. We must focus on
getting growth up at the same time as we strive to get spending
down.
(1650)
Third, we must be frugal in everything we do. Waste in
government is simply not tolerable.
[English]
Fourth, we must forever put aside the old notion that new
government programs require additional spending. They do not.
What they do require is the will to shutdown what does not work
and focus on what can. That is why a central thrust of our effort is
reallocation. Whether on the spending side or on the revenue side,
every initiative in this budget reflects a shift from lower to higher
priority areas.
374
Finally, we must always be fair and compassionate. It is the
most vulnerable whose voices are often the least strong. We must
never let the need to be frugal become an excuse to stop being
fair.
Let me now address the issue of the pace of our efforts. This pace
has been constant from the outset. It was established deliberately.
We will not alter it. It is our view that chronic deficits constitute a
clear and present danger to this country, to our way of life, to our
future. Chronic deficits put the disadvantaged at risk. It is they who
suffer when the financial strength of government is so weak it can
no longer reach out to those in need.
However, this does not mean we share the view of those who
think we should be going to a zero deficit overnight. Draconian
budgets are not difficult to write; the arithmetic is painless but the
human consequences are not.
[Translation]
In our view, durable progress requires adaptation, adjustment
and understanding. A measured strategy lets that happen. A
measured pace ensures that short term savings will become long
term savings -à a downpayment towards restored fiscal health.
Indiscriminate cutting, on the other hand, raises the real risk that
short term savings will become long term costs.
Our goal is clear and firm: to get the deficit down permanently -à
not temporarily. We want to solve the problem once and for all.
This requires considered and careful reform.
[English]
We will balance the books and we will do so in a way that is
measured, deliberate and responsible. That is our plan, that is our
course. This is a question of costs, it is a question of consequences;
but so too it is a question of values. We simply do not believe it is
necessary to toss aside fairness in the quest for fiscal success. That
has not been the hallmark of this country and it will not be the
legacy of this government.
[Translation]
We have always made it clear that while fiscal progress is
crucial, equally important is the redesign of government itself.
What we need is a government that not only spends less money -à
but spends more wisely. If there is one area where we must never
let up, it is the effort to root out waste and inefficiency.
Government should be focused on the needs of citizens -à not the
needs of bureaucracy. Canadians want their governments to
co-operate, not compete. And they want better service delivered at
lower cost. Duplication wastes businesses' time and government
resources. We want to put an end to such waste.
(1655)
Therefore, legislation will be introduced that will allow for the
creation of fewer, more effective government agencies.
[English]
One of the best ways to reduce costs is to reduce overlap and
duplication. This was one of the goals inherent in our program
review exercise led by the current President of the Treasury Board.
Surely we can all agree in the House that it is simply silly for a food
processing company to have a federal meat inspector, a federal
health inspector, a federal fish inspector, not to mention a
provincial health inspector and a provincial food inspector, tripping
over themselves on the same day in the same plant doing
essentially the same things.
What small business has not had the experience of a federal
income tax auditor, followed by a federal sales tax auditor,
followed by a provincial corporate tax auditor, followed by a
provincial retail tax auditor, all asking for the same material
organized in a slightly different way? This is why we are
proposing, for instance, a single food inspection agency that will
consolidate the activities currently spread around several federal
departments. This in turn will allow us to offer a new partnership
with the provinces which would lead to a more efficient joint food
inspection system.
For the same reason, the Minister of National Revenue will also
create a national revenue agency, the Canada revenue commission.
The creation of this commission will facilitate the development of
a closer partnership with the provinces in revenue administration.
Canadians know full well that there is only one taxpayer. A number
of provinces have asked us with justification why should there not
be only one tax collector as well.
In the same vein we are working very hard to replace the federal
sales tax. We believe this is crucial to increase fairness for
consumers and respond to the concerns of small business while
saving taxpayers money through more efficient administration. We
are working with a number of provinces to achieve this end. If
successful in getting provincial agreement, the government will
take such steps as are necessary to implement harmonization. In
addition, a significant package of measures is being readied to
streamline and simplify the federal sales tax.
[Translation]
Fiscal health is not an end. It is a means to an end. It gives us the
strength to move forward on everything else. As we continue to
address the anxiety of Canadians over the fiscal health of their
country, we must also look ahead to address other problems before
they arise.
Clearly, one of these priorities must be to preserve and
strengthen our social programs for the next century.
375
These programs -à support for health care, for post-secondary
education, for assistance to the poor speak to the spirit of our
country.
[English]
In last year's budget the Canadian health and social transfer was
created. It was designed to put federal transfers for these important
areas on a sound footing to allow the provinces more flexibility to
better deliver these programs. In 1997-98 the CHST will be a $25
billion transfer composed roughly equally of tax points and cash.
Since transfers to the provinces and territories represent an
important part of our total spending, we could not put federal
finances on a sustainable basis without addressing them. That is
why in last year's budget we announced funding arrangements for
the new Canada health and social transfer covering the fiscal years
1996-97 and 1997-98. Those arrangements will remain unchanged.
(1700)
With the framework of the CHST in place, our challenge and
commitment is clear. It is to provide, as the Prime Minister
promised, a long term funding arrangement with a CHST transfer
that is stable, predictable and sustainable.
To this end, we are announcing today a firm funding
commitment for the CHST to cover the five-year period from fiscal
year 1998-99 through to 2002-03. For the first two years of that
period we will maintain the overall CHST entitlement, that is the
value of the tax points and cash combined, constant at its 1997-98
level of $25.1 billion. For the remaining three years of the
framework, total transfer entitlements will grow each and every
year at an increasing pace.
[Translation]
In addition, we will provide a legislated guarantee that the cash
component of the transfer will never be lower than $11 billion at
any time during this period. This will put an end to the decline of
cash that occurs automatically as the value of the tax component
grows. The provinces will benefit, not only from the growing value
of the tax component, but from the cash guarantee as well.
Based on an evolving formula tied to economic growth, overall
CHST entitlements will increase over this period from $25.1
billion in 1999-2000 to approximately $27.4 billion in 2002-03.
[English]
As a result of these assurances, Canadians can have confidence
that as we enter the next century the commitment of their national
government in support of health care, post-secondary education
and assistance to the poor will be intact and will be strong. As part
of that, we will remain opposed to the imposition of residency
requirements on social assistance recipients who move from one
province to another, and we will be steadfast in upholding the
principles of medicare.
This budget also addresses our commitment to provide a new
approach to allocating the CHST among provinces, one that
addresses the funding disparities resulting from the limits on
Canada assistance plan transfers imposed on certain provinces by
the previous government.
The new allocation will be phased in during the course of the
new five-year transfer arrangement. As a result, current disparities
and per capita funding levels among provinces will be reduced by
half. We are willing to examine with the provinces further
refinements to the allocation that may be appropriate beyond this
framework.
Finally, on the issue of health care, this budget takes additional
action. The Minister of Health will be announcing the
establishment of a health services research fund under the auspices
of the Medical Research Council of Canada. The federal
government will provide an unconditional $65 million over five
years. The goal is to bring together governments, health institutions
and the private sector to fund research identifying what works best
in our medical system, what does not and what possibilities might
exist to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of our health
care system.
(1705)
[Translation]
One of the greatest pride and achievements of this country is to
have provided a decent level of retirement support for our seniors.
As a result of our public pension system, millions of seniors today
enjoy a standard of living that is substantially higher than was the
case for their parents. Our obligation today is to take the action
necessary to safeguard that achievement for our children.
[English]
There is widespread anxiety, particularly among the young, that
the public pension system will not be there for them when they
retire. Confidence in the pension system must be restored. The
party that put pensions in place for this country must now act to
preserve them. The challenge is clear: It is one of sustainability.
First, the Canada pension plan must be put on a sound financial
footing and done so in a way that is sustainable, affordable and fair.
This government does not share the view of those who believe the
CPP cannot be fixed, that it should be abandoned. We believe that
the right to a secure retirement should be available to all and not
become the preserve of only those who are well off.
However, the findings of the chief actuary make it clear that
changes are needed to restore the CPP to health. Clearly,
governments should have acted some time ago to address this
problem. We believe the role of government that is responsible is to
act to
376
prevent problems rather than letting them become crises. And so,
together with the provinces and the territories, we are acting.
[Translation]
The second pillar of the pension system à- old age security and
the GIS -à is funded out of general government revenues. Here too,
rising costs have led to concerns that these public pensions are at
risk. Our obligation is to put those concerns to rest.
In our last budget, we set out the principles of reform. Today, we
are proposing a new seniors benefit to take effect in the year 2001.
This benefit will be a central element of fulfilling our commitment
to Canadians to ensure they have a secure and sustainable pension
system now and into the future. Such was our commitment to
Canadians.
As the Prime Minister said many times, today's seniors have the
right to know that their retirement is secure. They have the right to
know that they will always get at a minimum what they receive in
pension payments today. Our proposal guarantees that. In fact,
many seniors will get more.
Furthermore, younger Canadians have the right to know that, in
the future, government pensions will be there for them. Our reform
guarantees that as well.
[English]
This reform will make the pension system sustainable. We will
do so by targeting help to those who need it most. By slowing the
rate of growth of public pensions, the danger of crowding out other
essential programs and services is being addressed.
The new seniors benefit will be fully tax free. It will be
completely separated from the tax system. It will incorporate the
OAS, GIS, pension income credit and age credit.
Furthermore, under the new system, the benefit and the threshold
levels will be fully indexed to inflation. This is an important
improvement for all seniors who worry about eroding benefits.
Thus, the partial indexing of the clawback threshold will cease to
be an issue.
The new seniors benefit will be paid monthly. In the case of
couples it will be divided equally between each spouse. Each will
receive a separate cheque.
(1710 )
This will be a fairer system. It will be based on total income, as
the GIS always has been. We believe that since the incomes of low
income couples are currently combined to determine eligibility for
additional help, it is also appropriate to combine the incomes of
higher income couples to determine their level of government
support.
The new benefit will be designed to fully protect low and modest
income Canadians. Almost all of them will receive slightly more.
In fact, all those who currently receive the GIS will receive $120
more per year.
[Translation]
Overall, our reform will ensure that 75 per cent of seniors will be
at least as well, if not better off than they are today.
[English]
Under the new seniors benefit, 75 per cent of seniors will be as
well or better off; in fact most will be better off. For instance,
nearly nine out of ten single senior women will be better off under
the new system. High income seniors will receive somewhat less.
The more income they have from other sources, the less they will
receive. The very highest income seniors will no longer receive
government benefits.
In this House the Prime Minister has promised Canadians that no
current seniors will have their OAS and GIS payments reduced as a
result of this reform. In fact, our proposal goes one step further. Not
only will the pension benefits of every senior over age 65 today be
protected, but so too will the pension benefits of every Canadian
who reached age 60 before January 1 of this year and their spouses
no matter what their age. The government will give these
Canadians a choice of whichever system is more advantageous to
them: moving to the new seniors benefit five years from now, or
maintaining their existing OAS-GIS pensions.
The purpose of this reform is to assure Canadians that the
pension system will be there for them in the future as it has been in
the past. Fairness, sustainability and security: that is what
Canadians seek and that is the hallmark of this new public pension
system.
The next issue concerns children. There are many more single
parent households today than ever before. Canadians know that too
often the needs and the rights of children following family
breakdown are not being protected. The fact is there is too much
hardship, tension and distress resulting from the current child
support system. It has added to the uncertainty and anxiety that
many Canadians feel.
Our view is that children should be first in line. Child support is
the first obligation of parents. It is not discretionary.
[Translation]
The government promised to improve the child support system.
Today, that action is being taken. The Minister of Justice will be
elaborating on these measures in the days ahead. The first change
we are making in this regard concerns the tax treatment of child
support payments.
Currently, child support payments are taxable for the recipient
and tax deductible for the person paying. In our view, this is
377
wrong. We believe these payments are there to provide support for
children. They are not income for parents.
(1715)
Therefore, for all new child support awards and all existing
awards that are varied on or after May 1, 1997, support payments
will not be included in the income of the custodial parent for tax
purposes nor be tax deductible for the payer. This approach will
ensure that the children who need support the most get it, and
eliminate the need for complex tax calculation and planning by
parents.
Second, the method used for determining levels of child support
is being improved. This will result in settlements that are fairer and
more consistent. It will reduce conflict between parents and keep
money now spent on lawyers and courts in the hands of the parents
for the benefit of the child.
Third, a wide range of measures is being introduced to help
ensure that child support orders are enforced -à that support is paid
in full and on time.
We are targeting chronic, wilful defaulters. Because enforcement
is primarily a provincial-territorial responsibility, these measures
are designed to complement and bolster their efforts.
[English]
We believe more should be done to support children. Therefore
we are increasing the working income tax supplement under the
child tax benefit. This supplement assists low income parents to
meet some of the expenses resulting from work such as child care,
transportation and clothing. It also helps to make up for the benefits
lost by parents who leave social assistance and re-enter the
workforce. Therefore I am pleased to announce that the maximum
annual benefit is being doubled in two steps. It will increase from
$500 to $750 in July of next year, and to $1,000 in July of 1998.
When fully phased in this will result in an additional $250
million in support annually to some 700,000 low income working
families, one third of which are headed by single parents.
Finally, we believe the current age limit of 14 on the child care
expense deduction should be raised to 16 to provide more support
to parents, in particular to single parents whose jobs require them
to be away from home at night.
Increasingly large numbers of Canadians are providing in-home
care for adult children and other relatives with disabilities. This
work is both invaluable and difficult. Therefore this budget
proposes to increase the value of the infirm dependent credit from
$270 to $400 and to raise the income threshold for the reduction of
this benefit from $2,690 to $4,103.
A number of groups including the Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons have asked that
we examine measures over the course of the next years, including
those in the tax system, that have an impact on people with
disabilities. I am announcing that we will do so because we believe
it is important to constantly assess the mechanisms through which
we provide assistance to persons with disabilities.
Every day in every community Canadians give freely of their
time and money to support the work of non-profit voluntary and
charitable organizations. These countless acts of individual
commitment are a powerful collective response to meeting
pressing human needs, especially in this time of fiscal restraint.
Governments must support Canadians in their effort. Therefore
we are adopting the recommendation of the Standing Committee
on Finance and the Canada Council that the annual limit on
charitable donations be raised from 20 per cent to 50 per cent of net
income. That limit will be increased to 100 per cent for gifts willed
to charities in order to encourage charitable bequests. In addition,
to encourage donations in forms other than cash, the same limit
will be raised to 100 per cent on the portion of a donation of
appreciated property that must be included in a donor's taxable
income.
(1720)
Clearly the case has been made that more can be done. Therefore
over the next year and in consultation with the charitable sector we
will examine ways to further encourage charitable giving and
charitable activities. We will focus on ways to ensure that increased
government support leads to activities of direct benefit to Canadian
society.
One of the greatest challenges facing Canadians and their
governments is the changing nature of work. Around the world on
every continent we are facing a revolution whose scope and depth
rival that of the industrial revolution itself. The contours of that
revolution are clear. Distance is losing its meaning as barriers to
trade and investment collapse and communications become
instantaneous. The pace of change is accelerating as technology
makes possible daily what once was only the substance of dreams.
Some see this as a revolution about new opportunities. Others
fear it is a revolution about opportunity lost. We must ensure
Canada is on the vanguard of this revolution, not one of its victims.
We must now work together to make sure the new economy is also
an economy with new jobs.
Canadians understand that the jobs of today and tomorrow will
come from the thousands of Canadian businesses created every
year, and we agree. Therefore the question is what is the role of
government? We believe it is to provide the private sector and all
Canadians with a framework for growth, the kind of growth on
which job creation depends.
378
Clearly, despite our problems the economic climate in this
country is getting better. The nation's balance sheets are
improving. As a result interest rates have come down by 3
percentage points in the last year. Inflation is the lowest it has been
in 30 years, and Canada's economy is more competitive than ever.
The point is in this world of globalization, of competition, of
rapid change, focusing on getting the fundamentals right is
absolutely necessary but by itself not sufficient. It is in this context
that one must view the numbers on job creation. This is the most
important statistic of all. In the last 13 months 263,000 private
sector jobs have been created. Since November alone 123,000 such
jobs were created, the majority of which were full time. These are
good numbers but they are not nearly good enough.
The proof lies not simply in the numbers of unemployed but in
the increasing length of time it takes the unemployed to find new
work. The effect of change is being felt by every segment of society
in every part of the country from our biggest cities to our smallest
communities.
For instance, it is clear that rural Canada faces a particularly
acute challenge of adaptation. While major metropolitan areas are
often the focus of attention, it is absolutely essential that we
continue to pursue policies to address rural anxiety as well, that we
develop policies designed to meet the diverse needs of both urban
and rural Canada, needs which remain essential to our economic
well-being, our way of life and our future.
(1725)
[Translation]
In other words, if our future is to be brighter, we must invest in
it. And so, in addition to consolidating our fiscal gains and securing
the future of our social programs, we are strengthening three areas
of government emphasis that will help Canadians manage toward
the future.
[English]
Following the recommendations of the cabinet committee on
jobs and growth headed by the minister of agriculture, we are
making strategic investments in our youth, in technology and in
trade.
Let me emphasize that while we are announcing new initiatives,
none of the funding required represents new money. All of it is
sourced from a reallocation of existing resources.
The economy of the future will belong-
Mr. Speaker, this is the third budget in a row in which the
Solicitor General has been drinking my water.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Be happy it is not gin.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Can I talk to you before the
next cabinet shuffle?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, the success of our
economy will very clearly depend on our young people, just as
their success will depend on their ability to participate fully in all
the economy has to offer. There is a clear role for government in
helping our young people to prepare for a rapidly changing
economy through the acquisition of the right skills and the
provision of opportunities to gain work experience.
And so in this budget we are providing an additional $165
million over three years to be funded through reallocation within
the tax system so that students and their families will be better able
to deal with the increased costs of education.
First, to recognize the non-tuition costs of schooling we are
increasing the education credit from $80 to $100 per month.
Second, in order to support parents or spouses who help underwrite
the education costs for students we are raising the limit on the
transfer of tuition and education credits from $680 to $850 per
year.
Third, to encourage parents to save for their children's education
over the long term we are proposing to increase the annual limits
on contributions to registered education savings plans from $1,500
to $2,000, and the lifetime limit from $31,500 to $42,000.
[Translation]
Fourth, as we have said, we are broadening eligibility for the
child care expense deduction. This measure will assist parents to
undertake education or retraining. Single parents will be allowed
the same deductions that today are only available to couples. And
for the first time, the child care expense deduction will apply to
those completing high school, not only post-secondary education.
For our youth, learning is the first step. But increasingly,
education alone is not enough. What is required is the opportunity
for them to gain experience on the job. To help reach this goal, the
government is reallocating $315 million over the next three years
from other spending in order to help create youth employment
opportunities. This is in addition to our existing funding provided
through such programs as youth internship Canada and youth
service Canada.
Some of these additional funds will go to substantially
increasing our support for student summer employment. Summer
employment not only provides young people with the opportunity
to earn the money they need to complete their education, it can also
supply critical job experience.
379
(1730)
Therefore, we are doubling our assistance for summer
employment for 1996-97, from $60 million to $120 million.
[English]
Another part of the $315 million will be used to assist young
Canadians who have left school to find work. The details of all of
these youth initiatives will be provided in the near future by the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
In summary, we are eager to enter into a new partnership
between the public and private sector to create entry level jobs for
the young. Government and business have worked well together on
trade as Team Canada abroad. Let us now, business, labour,
educators and government work together even harder at home for
jobs for our youth.
Our ultimate challenge is to change the very economic culture of
the nation, to make Canada one of the most innovative countries in
the world. Some may think that innovation applies to only one
small sector of the economy, to those who write software, who surf
the net. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not about
part of our economy. It is about all of our economy. From small
business to large business, from coast to coast to coast, from
mining and oil and gas, from agriculture and forestry the
application of technology has become essential.
Clearly it is the job of the private sector to innovate because it is
its survival and growth that are at stake. But government too has an
important role, in levelling the playing field against foreign
competition, in forming partnerships to invest in areas of basic
research of high risk, and where the scale of investment is simply
too large for the private sector itself to carry alone.
[Translation]
To that end, the Minister of Industry will be announcing the
creation of technology partnerships Canada. This program will
encourage the development of environmental technologies,
advanced manufacturing and materials as well as biotechnology. It
will also help maintain jobs in the aerospace sector, which is
subject to very heavily subsidized foreign competition.
[English]
This marks an important departure from past practice. Both the
risks and the rewards will be shared with the private sector. The
government's investment should not exceed one-third of the total.
The emphasis is on partnership, not unilateral federal action. The
reallocated resources provided in this budget, together with the
existing Industry Canada funding, will enable Technology
Partnerships Canada to grow to about $250 million by 1998-99.
This will lever substantial additional investment by the private
sector.
[Translation]
In addition, the government is injecting $50 million into the
Business Development Bank. This equity will in turn allow the
bank to provide an additional $350 million in loans to
knowledge-based, exporting and growth businesses that would not
otherwise have access to the commercial banks.
[English]
The Minister of Industry will also accelerate efforts to bring the
benefits of information technology to the whole country. By 1998
through school net we will have connected every school and library
in the country to the information highway. By the same year 1,000
rural communities will also be connected through the community
access program.
In order to bring to small business the advantages of access to
the information highway, we are instituting a program in which
2,000 computer students will connect some 50,000 small
businesses to the Internet, not only installing those systems but
advising their owners on how best to use them.
(1735 )
Our financial institutions have a key role to play in facilitating
the growth of Canadian business. Over the past year, the banks
have made progress in dealing with the concerns of small business.
More needs to be done.
To ensure our financial institutions provide the best possible
financing for growing export and knowledge based businesses, the
government will work with business and all financial institutions,
including the banks and the insurance companies, to ensure that
further progress continues.
Finally, we are currently reviewing the legislation governing
financial institutions. We are doing so with a view to improving the
framework that was established in 1992. We have concluded that
the financial sector has yet to fully adjust to this framework.
Therefore, the present restriction on banks selling insurance will be
maintained.
The present framework for selling insurance through agents and
brokers will be preserved. The white paper covering this and all
other aspects still under review will be released in the coming
weeks.
[Translation]
Let me conclude this section by discussing trade. Canada's trade
performance has been extraordinarily good. No one can deny that.
The export sector has been the fastest growing sector of our
economy, expanding at an average 8 per cent per year over the past
decade. Our merchandise trade balance has soared, reaching a
record surplus of $28.3 billion. And as a share of the economy, our
current account deficit is at its lowest level in ten years.
380
[English]
Trade will continue to be a major thrust of the government's
economic policy. The Team Canada approach established by the
Prime Minister has proven to be a major success and will remain a
centrepiece of our strategy.
The Minister for International Trade will continue our
determined drive to secure new agreements for more open markets
around the world, building on the exemplary work of his
predecessor, the Hon. Roy MacLaren.
Export financing is critical to ensure that Canadian companies
can fully realize the opportunities before it. And so in this budget
we are providing $50 million of new equity to the Export
Development Corporation in order to support new export sales
financing vehicles and new partnerships with exporters in the
commercial banks.
In addition, we are reallocating resources from subsidized loans
for foreign borrowers to non-subsidized loans under an improved
system to manage risk. This measure will increase the amount of
financing available for Canadian exporters by as much as $500
million per year.
[Translation]
I would now like to deal with the question of government
revenues.
No one is ever happy with the tax system. That is why we must
do everything we can to ensure that it is fair and that the system as a
whole is as effective as possible.
Taxes are clearly higher than any of us would like, but the issue
is not simply one of rates. Il is also important to ensure that the
system is supportive of the nation's goals. To this end, the budget
announces the following additional revenue measures.
[English]
This is to announce the following revenue measures. The
revenue we realize from many of these has been reallocated to
provide tax incentives that will assist students, help the infirm and
support charities.
Let me begin with the provision of tax assistance to encourage
Canadians to save for their own retirements through RRSPs and
RPPs. We are proposing a number of changes that will better target
this assistance to modest and middle income Canadians while
limiting the cost to taxpayers.
(1740)
[Translation]
First, we know that many younger Canadians have a difficult
time finding the money to make full RRSP contributions. This is
often due to other pressing obligations, including education or
raising a family. We want to give them the maximum opportunity
later in life to help make up for that lost time.
Therefore, we will allow Canadians unlimited time to make up
for any years when they were unable to make their full
contribution. Thus the current seven year limit on carrying forward
any unused contribution room is eliminated.
Second, the contribution limit for RRSPs is being frozen at its
current level-$13,500-until the year 2003. The limit will then
increase to $15,500 by 2005.
Third, we are reducing the age limit for contributing to RPPs and
RRSPs from age 71 to 69.
[English]
In order to improve the effectiveness and the fairness of the tax
system, a number of additional measures are being announced. In
order to see them established, the government put in place
incentives for investment in labour sponsored venture capital
corporations. These incentives have worked. These funds are now
very well established. Therefore, we are proposing several
measures to reduce the unique incentives in place for these funds.
Next, the budget provides a variety of measures related to the
resource sector. In relation to oil, gas and the mining industries, we
are clarifying and tightening rules related to the resource allowance
following the review announced in our last budget. While revenue
neutral, this will result in a more consistent and stable tax structure.
We are announcing as well changes to the accelerated cost
allowance rules for new mines, including oil sands, so that all types
of oil sands recovery projects are treated more consistently.
For mining flow-through shares, the current 60-day rule is being
extended to one year while the eligibility rules for these shares are
being tightened for the mining and oil and gas sectors.
We believe that environmental health and economic
development should be complimentary not contradictory concepts.
To that end, this budget announces income tax changes that will
provide an essentially level playing field between certain
renewable and non-renewable energy investments. This is part of
the base line study of possible barriers and disincentives to sound
environmental practices initiated earlier.
One measure is to create a new Canadian renewable energy and
conservation expenses category in the tax system. A second
measure is to extend the use of flow-through share financing,
currently available for non-renewable energy, to similar costs for
certain renewable energy and energy conservation projects.
381
A temporary tax on large deposit taking institutions, including
the banks, was included in last year's budget. It will be extended
for a further year.
Finally, and of import, an effective business tax system should
not only raise revenue, it should be designed to help create jobs. We
believe that it is time for a comprehensive look at this issue.
In order to identify any obstacles to job creation currently
contained in the tax act and to suggest needed reforms, we are
announcing today the establishment of a technical committee of
outside experts who will report to me later this year to be followed
by public consultations. If the creation of secured jobs is our
objective, then every effort of government, including the tax
system, must be directed toward that end.
(1745)
[Translation]
That concludes our description of the measures contained in this
budget. They reflect our desire to put in place the strongest
economic framework possible for sustained growth and jobs.
[English]
We spoke at the outset about the anxieties that grip our country.
This budget is about doing what we can to help Canadians put those
anxieties to rest. But let us be clear. A budget is only a small part of
the answer. The full response lies in recognizing where we are in
the evolution of a country and where we are in the evolution of the
world beyond our borders.
It is time to turn the page. Because the fact is that success for
countries is no different from success for families or communities
or individual citizens. It is based, above all, on one thing: the
constant setting of goals and the meeting of new challenges.
Successful countries do more than occupy a place on the map. They
live in the souls of their people because they are relevant to the
betterment of their lives.
And so for Canada it is time to set goals anchored in our shared
values and our shared aspirations. We have done that throughout
our history, in the days when we dared speak of a national dream
and then built it; in the days when we aspired to a kinder society
and then created it.
Now it is time to move forward once again, to arrive not simply
at a common understanding of what we are, but a common vision of
what we can be. Our challenge today is to make Canada a place of
great expectations, a country once again where our children believe
that they have the opportunity to do better than their parents.
We must set great national challenges, not small ones, because it
is only by reaching as high as we are able that we will discover how
far we can go.
The issue is, why can we not decide together in the House and in
this country that 10 years hence, Canada will be regarded as the
world leader in the new industries of the new economy, in
biotechnology, in environmental technology, in the cultural
industries of the multichannel universe? Why not decide together
that 10 years hence, increasing child poverty rates will be a thing of
the past, that illiteracy will be erased from our communities, and
that when it comes to international tests, our students will not
simply do fine work but in fact will be the very finest.
[Translation]
Why can we not decide together that medicare, ten years hence,
will not simply survive, but be the most successful system in the
world, a system that is second to none? Why not decide together
that ten years hence our streets will be the safest they can be -à not
because we have the largest number of prisons or police, but rather
because we have faced squarely the sources of crime?
[English]
If we want to open new doors for our children, there is literally
nothing standing in our way. We are a society that mirrors the
diversity of an entire planet. We are already building on a great
foundation. Now it is time to draw on that foundation, to write a
new history ourselves.
And so I would ask, let us act, not as special interests, but as
stewards of the national interest. Let us follow in the footsteps of
those who came before, who saw challenge as a rallying cry to
move forward, never as an excuse to give up.
(1750 )
Let it be said by those who come after us that we set the goals,
that we met them together, that we propelled Canada forward into
the new millennium, still and always among the front ranks of the
nations of the world.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance's 1996-97 budget tells us nothing
except that last year's bad news will apply this year as planned, and
that all of the negative measures will continue, and will be even
worse.
The government will continue along the same path. As far as
dumping the deficit on the provinces is concerned, the government
will continue its drastic cuts to social programs, to the tune of $7
billion over the next two years.
The government will continue to make use of the surplus from
the unemployment insurance fund, $5 billion yearly, when it has
not contributed to that fund for a number of years.
382
The government will keep on going without any significant
measures for job creation. That is what it has told us today.
The worst part of all this is that the Minister of Finance is patting
himself on the back for having restored healthy public finances. He
is patting himself on the back for having applied the precepts of
sound public financial management when, during his time at the
helm of the Department of Finance, he has managed in two years to
add over $113 billion to the cumulative debt of the federal
government.
Not everything in this budget is bad, however, and I would like
to start by pointing out one positive element, the measure
concerning child support payments. I would like to take this
opportunity to express my personal appreciation and that of my
colleagues to Mrs. Thibodeau for her monumental battle to gain
equality for women.
Since this measure will bring in tens of millions of dollars in new
taxes, I cordially ask the Minister of Finance and the government to
consider the following proposal: he could use these funds for
transfers to the provinces, transfer part of it to the Government of
Quebec, which has family policy levers to help the most
disadvantaged families and children in Quebec and Canadian
society.
My congratulations, however, stop here, because a closer look at
the budget reveals that the minister deserves no congratulations.
It reveals first and foremost that the minister has given up in the
fight against waste, duplication and overlap, because this budget
contains no new measure to trim government machinery. We have
been looking at this government for two and a half years, and God
knows there is an enormous amount of wastage. On the basis of the
report by the Liberal majority on the finance committee the
government is abandoning its fight against waste.
(1755)
Our second criticism is that the Minister of Finance did not
speak the whole truth about the old age security system. The
minister's proposals run headlong into 50 years of women's
struggles for equality and financial independence, since the family
income will now be the basis for determining old age security
benefits and all the credits for seniors. It is disgraceful.
As regards taxation, we are pleased to some extent that the
minister gave in to arguments about the unfairness of the tax
system, particularly corporate taxation. After two and a half years
it was high time he did. It took him two years and a half to realize
that the tax system was giving undue preference to big business,
which makes good use of outrageous loopholes, and to accept a
forceful argument from the official opposition for an in-depth
review of our tax system.
But, as I said, the minister only went part of the way, because he
is now calling for a closed review of the corporate tax system, a
process which is open only to great tax experts, great corporate tax
lawyers who, at this very moment, are advising big corporations on
the means to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to Revenue
Canada.
But there is more. Some of the members on this new technical
committee represent companies which also have affiliates in
countries considered as tax havens. That takes some nerve. Among
the members of this committee will be representatives of
companies that have affiliates in countries considered as tax
havens, companies that benefit from special tax rates and avoid
paying what they would normally have to give Revenue Canada.
That is not what we were asking the government to do. We asked
for a more open process. We asked for a special parliamentary
committee made up of government members, members of the
official opposition and members of the second opposition party
who would have to be accountable to elected representatives, to the
public, to all those who expect us to be responsible and to disclose
the inequities in our tax system. Instead, the Minister of Finance
opted for a process behind closed doors.
We are also deploring the fact that, after announcing in the
throne speech that a Canadian Securities Commission would be set
up, a commission that would interfere in an area of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction, the Minister of Finance now wonders
``Why should there not be only one tax collector in Canada? Why
not set up a national revenue agency?''
Is it not a way of isolating Quebec once again? Is it not a way of
forcing Quebec to fall back into the line? Is it not a way of telling
Quebec that it must let go of all the financial and tax leverage that it
has been fighting for for 35 years to make way for a national entity?
Is it not a way of establishing an institution to manage the proposal
made by the government regarding a single, Canada-wide, sales tax
to replace the GST? That proposal is unacceptable.
When we are talking about eliminating duplication and overlap,
it is funny to see how the government is always willing to take
away some of Quebec's powers and keep them for itself. That is
easy to do.
It is also easy for the government to go after small investors,
those in Quebec in particular, with the kind of measures proposed
in this budget that will weaken one of the instruments we are proud
of, namely the Fonds de solidarité of the FTQ.
The government prefers to go after small investors, to go after
tools which primarily serve to create jobs, rather than taking on big
business taxation.
383
Here is another measure against Quebec: the government speaks
of eliminating the milk subsidy even if it knows full well that 40
per cent of the subsidy goes to Quebec. Attacking Quebec is easy.
In conclusion, the 1996-97 budget of the Minister of Finance is
only cosmetic, it is rather election-minded. It glosses over the
negative effects of the last budget. It glosses over the government's
inability to reduce its rate of expenditure. It glosses over the
government's true intentions as regards taxation reform. It glosses
over the government's inability to give a boost to the job market. It
glosses over this government's desire to make Quebec toe the line.
For these reasons, I will advise my colleagues to vote against the
budget.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie:
That the debate be now adjourned.
[
English]
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. When the Minister
of Finance tabled a pile of documents, among those documents was
a set of borrowing bills which it had been the intention of the
Minister of Finance to seek leave to introduce for first reading.
I am asking the unanimous consent of the House, which I believe
is there since there were consultations, for me to move the
appropriate motions on behalf of the Minister of Finance for first
reading of the customary borrowing bill.
Copies of the bill have already been submitted to the table along
with the other material the Minister of Finance tabled at the
beginning of his budget address.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-10, an act to provide borrowing authority
for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
On motion by Mr. Loubier, debate adjourned.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), the motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.04 p.m.)