CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 30, 1996
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 5877
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5878
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5880
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 5880
ORAL QUESTIONS
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5881
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5881
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5882
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5882
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5883
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5883
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5883
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5883
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5884
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5884
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5884
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5884
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5885
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 5886
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 5886
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5889
Bill C-341. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5890
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5890
Bill C-342. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5890
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5890
Bill C-343. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5890
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5890
Bill C-344. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5891
Bill C-345. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5891
Motion for concurrence in 41st report agreed to 5891
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5892
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5892
Bill C-35. Motion for third reading. 5893
Division on motion deferred 5906
Bill C-34. Report stage 5906
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken) 5906
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 5906
Bill C-35. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 5909
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 148; Nays, 30. 5909
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 5910
Motion M-221. Consideration resumed of motion 5910
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 5913
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 5914
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 5915
(Amendment negatived.) 5916
5877
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 30, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member and his
phalanx from Victoria-Haliburton.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the city of Estevan, Saskatchewan has recently completed
its 20th anniversary of the United Way radio and television 36-hour
fundraising marathon. Between October 18 and 19, Estevan helped
to raise $144,000 for the United Way, exceeding its goal by
$14,000.
After 20 years Estevan, a city with a population of 11,000, has
contributed $1,750,000 and has collected nearly 100 per cent of its
pledges through the years. The United Way in Estevan has been the
first in Canada to reach its goal 19 out of 20 times since the drive
was first established. No other community in Canada or for that
matter in North America can beat this record of raising money for
the needed agencies of the United Way.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the generous
and hard working people of Estevan and area who donate so much
of their time and money to the United Way.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the students and staff of the Vernon
Barford Junior High School in Edmonton.
On October 27, in commemoration of last year's unity rally in
Montreal, the western Canadian chapter of the Canadian Unity
Foundation under the leadership of Peter Goldring, took part in
Planes and Trains for Unity.
Front and centre on the unity train to Quebec City was a banner
signed by over 200 students from Vernon Barford Junior High
School in Edmonton. Along the way the banner inspired others to
sign their names and lend their support for a united Canada. The
banner became an important symbol in the drive for unity.
I applaud the efforts of the students and of their principal, Al
Grossman. They are all, as we are all, strong supporters of the drive
for Canadian unity.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals have goofed again with their strategy to denigrate the
Government of Quebec by spreading falsehoods, which have
reduced the little credibility they had in the eyes of the people of
Quebec to zero.
On October 22, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of
heritage stated, in connection with the program providing
computers to schools, and I quote: ``Quebec schoolchildren will not
be able to take advantage of the program, as the PQ government has
refused to take part in it.'' He went on to say that the duly elected
Government of Quebec was ``depriving young Quebecers of a
privileged access to computer resources''.
According to Department of Industry figures, as at April 1996,
the Government of Quebec has received over 5,300 school
computers under the program. Once again, the heritage minister,
through her parliamentary secretary, is proving that the federal
Government's campaign to denigrate the Government of Quebec is
totally unfounded.
Rather than carrying out a disinformation campaign, the minister
should discuss things with her Liberal colleague, the Minister of
Industry, in order to get an update on this.
5878
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House today to salute Canada's top guns. At the high
profile international fighter pilots competition in Florida, Canadian
fighter pilots won the world series of flying and beat the American
team hands down.
I applaud the whole team but in particular Captain Steve Nierlich
from the village of Sunderland in beautiful Brock township in my
riding of Victoria-Haliburton.
The prestigious top gun award is the highest individual award in
aerial combat. Canadians everywhere can be proud of this fighter
pilot and look forward to the team appearing in the Remembrance
Day fly past on Parliament Hill. The Canadian fighter pilots and
flight crew of CFB Cold Lake have positioned Canada as No. 1 in
the world in air combat. Canadians should be proud of their
spectacular performance.
On behalf of all members of the House I would like to pay tribute
to the Canadian fighter pilots and ensure that they get the
recognition they deserve. Congratulations on a job well done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to an
important event that will take place on the weekend in Winnipeg:
the twentieth annual convention of the Canadian Association of
Immersion Teachers.
This convention will be attended by teachers, administrators,
researchers, university professors and commissioners, all of whom
will take part in a variety of workshops and round table
discussions. The aim of the Canadian Association of Immersion
Teachers is to pursue bilingualism by helping immersion teachers
in Canada meet their professional development needs by various
means, including research, conventions, a newsletter, publications
and active participation at the national and international levels.
[English]
I wish all of the participants an exciting and productive weekend
in Winnipeg and I congratulate the association on their continuing
support for French immersion and bilingualism in Canada.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this month Malton, Ontario is celebrating the start up
of a new youth connection after school program, a project that will
create school homework clubs, recreational activities and a
mentorship program for children and youth in the community.
The sponsor is Malton Neighbourhood Services. A volunteer
pool will be established and parents are to be included in the
activities. The project will receive $96,881 in funding through
Youth Services Canada under Human Resources Development
Canada.
Youth Service Canada projects, which last up to nine months,
recruit unemployed and out of school youth between ages 18 and
24. This program champions the ability of young people to make a
difference in their communities.
* * *
(1405 )
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we
come to the end of Breast Cancer Month in Canada, I would like to
draw the attention of the House to another disease which affects the
lives of woman, albeit in a little more indirect way.
Prostate cancer causes a great deal of stress and suffering, yet
there is relatively little public awareness of the serious nature of the
disease. In B.C., for example, while the breast cancer rate is 30 per
100,000 population, the prostate cancer rate is 177 per 100,000.
The corresponding death rates are 25 per 100,000 for breast cancer
and 121 per 100,000 for prostate cancer.
Just as we need to find a cure for breast cancer, we also need to
find a cure for prostate cancer. Every one of us has a father, just as
every one of us has a mother. Prostate cancer affects us all.
I urge all members of this House to actively assist in the raising
of funds for prostate cancer research and to help raise public
awareness of the warning signs of the disease. Call
1-800-263-6750.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a year ago
today, the issue of Quebec's future was once again in the public
spotlight. Quebec, with 49.4 per cent for the Yes side, said loud and
clear that it was becoming more and more sovereign.
5879
A year later, the federal promises of change which came late
in the day have vanished as quickly as they were made. The
Supreme Court has been asked to challenge the legitimacy of the
plan for a sovereign Quebec and to contest the desire of Quebec
to become an independent society.
The people of Quebec are watching all this very closely.
Sovereignty is the only credible option for the future of Quebec and
Canada. We must prepare for it. A partnership, an integral part of
the plans for a sovereign Quebec, will be the basis for our future
relations with Canada. As we approach the year 2000, Quebecers
will choose the way of the future, when they will at last be able to
develop their full potential.
* * *
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, this morning
the New Brunswick
Telegraph Journal, my local paper, reported
that the Minister of National Defence, along with the former PC
minister of international trade, Michael Wilson, have teamed up to
lobby the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to try to drum
up some business for our Saint John Shipyard.
The Saint John Shipyard is billed as a centre of excellence. It has
an outstanding reputation as a world leader. Both the Trudeau and
Mulroney governments were responsible for creating the most
modern shipyard in the world in Saint John. The final frigate set
sail this past summer and 4,000 workers are now out of work.
There is a need for a new contract.
To the shock of many of the people on that side, I want to
publicly thank the Minister of National Defence for taking this
initiative. I wish him and Mr. Wilson all the best in their
endeavours and I do hope that we hear good news for the shipyard
in the future. I offer my full support.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the 22nd annual Baltic Evening which is organized by
both the Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group for the Baltic
Peoples and the Baltic Federation in Canada. This event
commenced in 1973 to bring together the Estonian, Latvian and
Lithuanian Canadian communities, members of Parliament,
Senators and representatives from the diplomatic corps.
Since the independence of the three Baltic states in 1991, the
Baltic communities have been working proactively to help build
Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. These three countries are open for
business and Canadians are encouraged to invest in trade with
them.
In celebrating Baltic Evening we are acknowledging the great
contribution made by the Baltic communities in building Canada.
Our vibrant multicultural communities have assisted Canada in
projecting a positive image to the Baltic states and all around the
world. Félicitations à tout le monde.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Guelph-Wellington is home to Semex Canada which
specializes in cattle genetics.
Through a grant from the Canadian International Development
Agency, Semex has been involved with a five-year dairy cattle
breeding project in three locations in the People's Republic of
China.
Semex Canada recently shipped beef cattle from Ontario to
China for breeding purposes. This kind of effort is another example
of a Canadian industry leading the way in China.
The Prime Minister has been a leader in Team Canada trade
missions to Asia. He knows the importance of the Pacific rim for
jobs and for growth in this country.
(1410 )
I congratulate Semex Canada on its recent successes in China.
Semex is but another example of why Guelph-Wellington is the
best community in all of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
is the first anniversary of the 1995 referendum.
On October 30, 1995, Quebecers chose Canada. They chose to
continue promoting the French language and culture as well as
Quebec's distinctiveness in the Canadian community. They asked
us to continue improving the federal system to make it more
sensitive to regional needs and differences.
[English]
Over the last year the Liberal government has been working to
respond to the legitimate concerns of Quebecers. Our work is in
progress but needs the support of the provinces in order to be
completed.
The government understood the message that Quebecers gave
last year, unlike the separatists who continue to ignore the facts.
The facts are Quebecers are looking for effective government
which will respond to their needs and priorities, not separation.
5880
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec's socioeconomic summit opened last night in
Montreal.
This summit brings hope to all those in Quebec who think that
political, social and labour-management co-operation is essential
to find solutions to the employment crisis.
This event is a fine example of the Quebec co-operation model
that is unique not only to Canada but to all of North America. It
shows Quebec's vitality and what makes us different as a people.
I take this opportunity to urge the federal government to support
the initiatives that will arise from this summit, while respecting the
Quebec government's jurisdiction.
To all the participants, including the summit's instigator, Quebec
premier Lucien Bouchard, we wish successful discussions and the
best of luck.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one
year ago we came within a whisker of a yes vote in the Quebec
referendum. Mr. Parizeau was ready with his plans but the federal
government had no plan for a yes vote and, for that matter, no plan
for a no vote.
What has happened since? Canadians overwhelmingly want to
preserve this as a country of equals in a federal system. Yet the
government persists in its concept of distinct society, appealing to
the same kind of special status sentiment as Quebec separatists do.
Little if any progress has been made on the reform of federal
institutions or decentralization to the provinces or respect for their
jurisdictions.
The federal government's plan B is also more words than action.
It has referred the question of unilateral independence to the
Supreme Court but has not developed plans of its own for the next
referendum. It still has no contingency legislation to avoid the
mistakes and ambiguities of the past.
We must all stand on guard and that must mean more than just
standing still.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the devastation of Liberal employment policies continue. The
Unemployment Workers' Health and Counselling Centre in Regina
is working hard to help those unemployed workers who have been
unfairly denied benefits by this government.
This not for profit organization, in its first year of operation,
assisted workers in getting back some $140,000 in benefits that
were denied them.
However, this organization has a problem. It has applied to
Revenue Canada for a charitable registration number so that it can
raise funds to continue its work in helping the unemployed. The
Liberal government says the centre cannot receive a number
because its work does not qualify as charitable work.
I find it astounding that the Liberals refuse to provide a
charitable registration number to an organization with a proven
track record in helping the unemployed, yet gives $86 million in an
interest free loan to a profitable corporation like Bombardier.
Even the Fraser Institute has a charitable number and everyone
knows the institute does nothing to help the unemployed, working
class or middle class families.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois will be meeting, this evening,
with representatives of a number of embassies.
Will he take that opportunity to tell them about the ongoing
mobilization in support of job creation? Will he tell them about
everything the various levels of government are doing to get the
economy going again? Will his speech address our business
people's growing interest in export markets? Will he remind them
that the quality of life in Canada and our highly skilled workforce
make Canada an ideal place to invest?
There is every indication that none of this is important enough
for the BQ leader. He will address the only issue he knows about
and cares about: the separation of Quebec.
This new initiative shows once again the Bloc Quebecois'
inability to represent the real interests of Quebec.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to commend the chamber of commerce as
well as the four commissioners and the mayors of Verdun, LaSalle,
Lachine and Montreal for organizing the business opportunity fair
for the southwest end of the Island of Montreal.
5881
This fair was held on Monday and Tuesday in my wonderful
riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul. It was designed to introduce buyers
from major public institutions in such areas as health, education,
housing and municipal services to local business people. Let us
hope that this event will become a driving force in the economic
recovery of the southwest end of the Island of Montreal.
My congratulations to the organizing committee and the whole
team for this successful event. See you next year.
_____________________________________________
ORAL QUESTIONS
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, one year ago to the day, Quebecers voted on their future.
We remember the result, a very slim win for the federalists, a win
that changed nothing. We also remember the Prime Minister's
promises in Verdun, just days before the referendum, meaningless
promises that were never acted on. Since then, there has been an
impasse, both in Quebec and in Canada.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, as the years go by and
Quebec calls repeatedly for more power, so that it can be master of
its own destiny, the offers made by the federal government and
other provinces are shrinking almost to the point of insignificance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to hear the hon. member mention that
Quebec voted to stay in Canada exactly one year ago today. It was
the second time it has done so in 15 years, despite the very
confusing question.
Yesterday, for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition
actually used the word ``separatist'', something he had previously
avoided. After two attempts, I hope that the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will one day respect democracy.
Democracy means recognizing, after two votes, that the people
have spoken. As for what we said a few days before the
referendum, we said that we were going to recognize that Quebec
was a distinct society and that is what we did in this House in
December. I would like everyone, particularly Quebecers, to know
that all the members of the Bloc Quebecois voted in the House
against recognizing Quebec as a distinct society.
When we passed legislation giving the regions a veto, members
of the Bloc Quebecois voted against a veto for Quebec, and they are
completely ignoring the whole series of changes we proposed in
February, in the speech from the throne.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has convinced himself that what he
said happened is true. But Quebecers will remember that the Prime
Minister launched his return to politics in February 1990 at the
University of Ottawa with an attack on the concept of distinct
society as defined at Meech Lake, before the Charest report. I know
that we may not use a member's name, so I will say the report by
the member for Sherbrooke. Quebecers also remember the
infamous ``Thank you, Clyde'' and what happened in Calgary.
Why will the Prime Minister not admit, like his intellectual
leader, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, that all he has to offer Quebec is the
status quo, which is based on his 1982 Constitution thrown together
that night at the Chateau Laurier and rejected by all Quebecers,
federalists and sovereignists alike? From Lucien Bouchard to
Daniel Johnson, nobody wants anything to do with that piece of
work.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is fascinating is that the Bloc Quebecois and the
Parti Quebecois opposed Meech Lake. They voted it down in the
National Assembly. The leader of the party was an MNA at the
time and he voted against it. It is a sin for me, but not for them?
(1420)
What they are ignoring is that in February we made concrete
offers to transfer responsibility for manpower. We put forward
proposals in May. Discussions are still going on.
We have offered to withdraw from mining, forestry, tourism and
public housing. We decided that spending authority would be
conditional on participation by a majority of provinces. These are
serious offers, that have never before been spelled out in such
detail. Inevitably, when we make serious offers to Quebec, when
we truly want to help, they are for the status quo. They do not want
to see a single thing changed, because they dream of separation and
they have struck out twice.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the Parti Quebecois was
against recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, and that he was as
well, because he has finally come out and told us. We heard him
say that he too was against recognizing Quebec as a distinct
society.
An hon. member: Now the cat is out of the bag.
Mr. Duceppe: So he has finally come out and said it. It took him
long enough. We said in Quebec City that we were against it. He
has just admitted it today. He is starting to see things as they really
are.
Will the Prime Minister realize that his understanding of Quebec
and of Canada bears no relation to reality? Will he one day
understand that the reality is that there is a Canadian people and a
Quebec people, whose homeland is Quebec, and that any link
between Quebec and Canada supposes the recognition of two
founding peoples and their respective inalienable rights to decide
5882
their own future? Quebec has no need to ask permission of the
Supreme Court, or of Winnipeg or of St. John's, Newfoundland.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been hearing the same thing for 30 years. Except
that when we are in Quebec, Quebecers tell us they want us to work
on improving the economy of Quebec and of Canada in order to
create jobs for Quebecers.
Today, while these people are talking about independence,
separation, and the Constitution, Quebec is foundering. We in the
government have put Canada's financial house in order. That is
why, for example, Quebecers are enjoying interest rates that are
3.25 per cent lower than in the United States. That is what Canada
is doing to help Quebecers.
But the Bloc Quebecois is still harping on the Constitution.
While we are working to create jobs for Quebecers, they are
making jobs disappear.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will
the Prime Minister realize some day that Canada cannot be
changed, because there are two visions of this country, one that is
shared by a majority of Canadians who, rightly so, want to have a
country that meets their needs, and the other that is shared by a
minority, namely Quebecers, who also want a country that meets
their needs?
Will the Prime Minister realize that nothing will change as long
as he refuses to recognize this reality?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the minority vision is the vision of separation, which
is rejected by the vast majority of Quebecers when the question is
put to them clearly. The vast majority of Quebecers want to keep on
being Canadian. They want to celebrate their Quebec and Canadian
identities as a strength, as a formidable complementarity that they
will never give up if the question is put to them in a clear and
honest manner.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister can make all the nice speeches he wants, here or
elsewhere.
But will the Prime Minister admit, one year later, that the
promises he made just before the referendum, which were light
years away from what Quebecers want in any case, have not even
been fulfilled? Is this not the best proof that he has nothing left to
offer, except futile comments on the Constitution?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, those who have nothing left to offer and who, in fact,
never had anything to offer are the members of the secessionist
bloc who sit across the floor.
(1425)
Theirs is a party which, day after day in this House, cultivates
jealousy, behaves like it is besieged and thinks it is a victim of
discrimination. And who are the tormentors? I imagine it is the bad
anglos, but the Bloc cannot support its contentions.
Quebecers have had enough of this narrow vision. More and
more of them are distancing themselves from it and are preparing
to enter the new century along with the other Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister said that he wanted to debate the
issues in the House. Let us debate the issues in the House.
The reality is that 1.5 million Canadians are still unemployed,
consumer confidence has plummeted even though we have such
low interest rates, and Canadian families have suffered a $3,000
pay cut since 1993. Those are the facts. He knows them, I know
them. Canadians are worse off now than when the Liberals took
power in 1993.
Since these three years of Liberal economic mismanagement
have failed to make a dent in unemployment, consumer confidence
or the tax burden, why will the Prime Minister not do this: balance
the budget, cut taxes and create real jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the facts of the matter are, since we have taken office, over 700,000
new jobs have been created by the private sector. Since we have
taken office, the unemployment rate has dropped by a point and a
half. Since we have taken office, Canada's current account surplus
has been the highest that it has been since 1984. We have become
one of the major exporting nations of the world. We have turned the
economy around and it is felt from coast to coast to coast.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, only by
tax relief are we going to see true job creation and people feeling
better about themselves.
The reality Canadians are facing is this. People are working too
hard to pay taxes that are too high. Paycheques are shrinking, job
security is disappearing and family time is taking a back seat to
overtime and tax time.
Reform will give Canadians $15 billion in tax relief, $2,000 for
the average Canadian family by the year 2000, because leaving
5883
more money in the taxpayer's pocket as the minister knows is
more valuable than leaving it in the hands of a politician.
Why will the Prime Minister not give Canadians tax relief and
create real, long term, sustainable jobs for Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the Reform Party is offering to do is to cut the Canadian
health and social transfer by $3.5 billion. What the Reform Party is
offering to do is to cut equalization payments for the seven
provinces which require them without having the courage and the
guts to stand up in the House and tell us what provinces they are
going to do it to.
Will the Reform Party members from Saskatchewan stand up
here and say that people in Saskatchewan are not entitled to the
same level of public services as other Canadians? No, they will not
do it. They are going to hide.
What the Reform Party has offered us is a massive attack on the
middle class. What Reformers are offering to do is to pit region
against region, Canadian against Canadian. They would destroy the
Canadian dream. That is what they are offering us.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
hate to take us down the same road that we went yesterday. I will
not say what I said, but the minister must have some pretty serious
concerns about that.
He says that we will cut health care. Maybe now it is becoming
clear to me why this minister is the finance minister and why there
are some serious problems. We are talking about putting $4 billion
back into health care. He has cut $3 billion. That may be why we
are having such serious problems within the finance department.
The Prime Minister last weekend told delegates that once the
budget was balanced his government would return to its free
spending Liberal ways. The Prime Minister could lower taxes if he
was willing to kick his spending habit. That is the problem.
Why does the Prime Minister think that $15 billion in the hands
of government bureaucrats or politicians will do more good than
those $15 billion in the hands of Canadian taxpayers?
(1430 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
us be very clear. What the Reform Party members are saying is that
they will take $3.5 billion out of the Canadian health and social
transfer and then they ask Canadians to trust them to put it back
four years later. Four years, after how many hospitals would have
been closed? Four years, after how many low income Canadians
would have suffered? That is what the Reform Party has offered.
If we want to know what they really think, we could take a look
at their first budget. Their first budget was a massive attack on
health care. Their first budget said that we should have two-tier
health care. Their first budget said that the principles of the Canada
Health Act did not apply. Their first budget really gave what they
really believe and that is an idealism that is not Canadian.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
an interview at last week's Liberal convention, the Minister of
Heritage stated that she was not responsible-an opinion we
share-for the fact that the CBC budget had been reduced by $127
million in 1996-97. According to her, the responsibility lay with
the Minister of Finance.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Heritage
explain to us today her flagrant lack of ministerial solidarity in
dumping onto her colleague, the Minister of Finance, her own
responsibilities and commitments toward the CBC?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was not interviewed at
the Liberal convention.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
several occasions in this House she has fobbed off responsibility
for the cuts onto the Minister of Finance. Her response indicates
how little importance she attached to the reality of a
recommendation, and of Liberal commitments, to find stable multi
year funding for the CBC.
On the weekend, Pierre Juneau, the author of the Juneau report,
was quoted in the Toronto Star as being concerned about the future
of Radio Canada International, as was the Conseil de presse du
Québec. So we are just where we were a year ago.
Will the Deputy Minister and Minister of Heritage commit now,
before this House, to take all of the steps necessary to save Radio
Canada International, instead of once again dumping it onto her
colleague in finance?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my
honourable colleague, as I assured those attending the meeting of
national media women, that I am working in close collaboration
with the Minister of Finance on our promise of a long-term
stabilization fund. I am also doing the same with respect to the
future of Radio Canada International.
5884
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are not fooled by the Liberals' spin on their pathetic
record.
Canadian families have suffered a $3,000 national pay cut per
year, and since the Liberals came to office 1.5 million real people
are still looking for jobs. The Conference Board of Canada is
saying that the government's low interest rate policy has failed to
inspire consumer confidence. According to Statistics Canada, this
``reflects the ongoing dead weight of weak income and labour
markets''.
When will the finance minister admit that because his policies
are not working Canadians are not working?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is not quoting the conference board correctly.
What the conference board has said is that there is a lag time
between interest rate cuts and job creation. It pointed to the
tremendous interest rate cuts as having been one of the main
reasons that there has been stronger job creation in Canada than in
any other G-7 country outside of the United States.
(1435 )
What the hon. member ought to do is to look at the fundamental
measures the government has taken in terms of job creation; our
external trade and the fact that we have become one of the major
exporting nations of the world; the Team Canada missions led by
the Prime Minister which have led to contract after contract; the
summer jobs from the Minister of Human Resources Development;
the amount of money we have put into research and development;
the amount of money we have put into trade financing; the support
of small and medium size businesses. All of this is leading to a
very, very healthy economy.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I say to
the finance minister, tell that to 1.5 million unemployed Canadians.
Canada Trust's chief economist has said: ``Unless we have a real
strong sense of job security, interest rates just are not going to
entice people into spending''.
The finance minister's job creation strategy is in the tank. When
will he admit that what Canadians really need is smaller
government and more job creating, confidence creating tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think one really ought to give the lie to the bogus myth that the
Reform Party is putting forward.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Give the lie to is not saying it
is a lie. Try a little bit of English instruction.
What the Reform Party members are suggesting in their tax cuts
is to simply shift the tax burden on to the provinces. They would
cut federal taxes on the one hand and then they would cut
equalization. When they cut equalization in Saskatchewan, do they
not think that the Government of Saskatchewan is going to have to
look at its own revenues? When they cut the Canada health and
social transfer and they cut the revenues of the provinces by $3.5
billion, do they not think the provinces are going to have to look to
their revenues? When they cut federal taxes, they are as well
cutting the revenues that go to the provinces. Do they not think the
provinces will have to increase taxes?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The fact that
francophones are consistently under-represented within the armed
forces is common knowledge. We have known that for quite some
time. What we did not know is that the army's chief historian
concluded recently in a book of over 700 pages on the subject, and I
quote: ``If there is a problem, it is perhaps due to the fact that there
is no motivation''.
Does the new Minister of National Defence endorse the
conclusions of his chief historian as to the cause of consistent
under-representation of francophones with the forces, and if so,
what does he intend to do about this problem?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
doubt that in a number of sectors, it has always been a challenge to
ensure adequate representation of francophones, and that is the
case in the armed forces. The historian in question mentioned a
situation which, as the hon. member pointed out, is common
knowledge.
We are trying to remedy the situation, and I can inform the hon.
member that it has certainly improved. If we look at all the reports
made over a certain period of time, there has been an improvement
but, as in many other sectors, much remains to be done, and we will
try to do it to the best of our ability.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
francophones in Canada and Quebec are sick and tired of hearing
people say it is always a challenge to give us our fair share. The
minister's chief historian also concluded that francophone officers
always have to take most of their training in English. I may remind
the minister that it was his government, the Liberal government,
that
5885
closed the Saint-Jean military college. That is certainly not going
to reverse the trend.
What explanation does the minister have for a comment by his
historian that the army never wanted to have francophones in the
intelligence sector, for instance? Is it or is it not true that
francophones are systematically kept out of certain strategic
positions in the Canadian army?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
should start naming all the outstanding individuals who have ever
held senior positions in the Canadian forces, in order to refute the
allegations made by the hon. member.
(1440)
I can tell him that today about 27 per cent of the people in the
Canadian forces are francophones. I acknowledge the hon.
member's concerns, and I want to give him the assurance that we
are making progress with our recruitment both for the regular
forces and for the officers corps, even after the closing of the
military college in the province of Quebec.
Young Canadians who want to be part of the Canadian forces are
very conscious of the challenge they are facing if they come from a
francophone region in Canada. This has been going on for a long
time, but it is improving. I am delighted to see that the hon.
member is still interested in the future of the Canadian forces.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find it
incredible that the Minister of Finance can do no better than to
spew a bunch of misinformation about the Reform plan. That is
really annoying. But my question is for the Prime Minister.
Canadians are begging this Prime Minister to keep his promise
on ethics. On Monday the President of the Treasury Board said:
``Government travel cards should be used only for official
government business''. However, the minister of youth knowingly
signed expense forms claiming personal expenses as legitimate
government business.
Why does the Prime Minister not discipline this minister for her
misuse of public funds and her misrepresentation of the facts?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board replied very well
yesterday to this problem.
There was a minor error made by the minister. We checked with
the ethics counsellor and every cent has been reimbursed to the
government. I have looked into the matter and I am sure that the
same mistake will not be repeated.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about
that minor error. This statement came from the credit card
company directly to that minister's office. That minister did not
deduct those personal expenses and submit only the ones that were
legitimate. That minister submitted the whole bill and signed on
the bottom ``this is legitimate government business''. If that is not
a breach of ethics, I do not know what is.
I am asking the Prime Minister if he will fire that minister for
this obvious and blatant breach of public trust.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
these cases, the card that we use as government travel card is the
Diners Club enRoute card on which no interest has to be paid.
The normal procedure is for a member of Parliament to pay
directly the amount with his or her cheque and then to send it to the
department which then checks the expenditures. The process the
member is talking about could not have taken place. I am assured
that the member has paid all the payments that were demanded of
her and that all her personal expenditures have been reimbursed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Liberal majority on the public
accounts committee tabled in Parliament another highly partisan
report on the family trust scandal. The Liberals deliberately
concealed serious violations by the officials-
The Speaker: My colleagues, the words ``deliberately
concealed'' are unacceptable, and I would ask the hon. member to
withdraw the word ``deliberately''.
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word
``deliberately''.
The Liberals concealed serious violations by the officials
involved, including those working for the deputy minister of
revenue, Pierre Gravelle.
With all he has done with regard to family trusts, does the
Minister of Finance admit that his government has done everything
possible to bury this scandal, going as far as muzzling its own
members and forcing them to submit reports that conceal the truth
from Canadian taxpayers?
5886
(1445)
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I categorically reject all the accusations that are part of
this question. In fact, this file is an example of how a good
government operates.
Let us review the facts. In 1991 there was a decision made by the
former Conservative government on taxpayer migration. In May of
this year the auditor general drew to my attention his concerns with
some policy and administrative aspects. I acted immediately to
direct my officials to improve their administrative process, and the
Minister of Finance acted immediately to send the issues of policy
to an open committee of this House, the finance committee. Having
received its report he has closed that loophole. This is an example
of how good government operates.
I am very proud that because of the actions taken by this Liberal
government, a decision that was made in 1991 by the
Conservatives cannot be made again.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister claim she has done a good
job when we heard dozens of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and
different versions from the senior officials who testified before the
public accounts committee?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me make a comment here and quote from the auditor
general: ``I believe that a fairly thorough response to the concerns
that we have raised has been taken. I am pleased by the seriousness
with which our concerns have been taken''. This is how good
government operates.
I would like to ask the hon. member a few questions because he
knows that in this country the province of Quebec has a parallel
system that collects the income tax for Canadians in that province.
He knows that the province of Quebec has that responsibility. He
knows that system does not publish its rulings, nor has that system
changed to close the loophole that we have done here.
The facts are clear. This government has acted. It is the PQ that
has not.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the President of the Treasury Board.
According to the Treasury Board, agriculture Canada currently
collects more than $100 million annually through various cost
recovery programs. Farmers are increasingly concerned about the
multiple impact cost recovery is having on their ability to survive
and prosper.
What economic impact analysis has been and will be done to
monitor these impacts and is the minister prepared to redress any
serious negative impacts should they result?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
first principle of course is that those who get the benefits of
government services should whenever possible be those who pay
for the costs. This is where the user pay policy comes from.
In the case of the various departments, the departments are
responsible for deciding in which circumstances, for what products
and for what groups of users charges are to be paid. Once this is
determined they make impact analysis and if they realize that their
user fees have affects that were not foreseen or are negative then
they are free to change their policies.
For specific initiatives each minister is responsible for their
impact analysis. The Treasury Board then looks at the overall
policies and if there is any consequence that appears to be improper
it is then changed and we amend the policy accordingly.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question was
to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ducked the question,
avoiding his responsibility, as he is the one who places the
ministers in their positions and he is the one who answers for the
question of ethics.
I have before me the actual statement that the minister for youth
submitted to finance for payment. It has nothing to do with Diners
Club. It is a personal American Express credit card, as far as we can
tell.
(1450)
My question is for the Prime Minister. This is so clearly a
breach. It states: ``I certify that the foregoing expenses have been
incurred on official business'', and it bears the minister's signature.
It is blatant and obvious. Surely this government has enough ethic
sense to act on this.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if it
is a personal credit card I am not sure I see the problem.
In any case, could I ask the member to send me the papers so I
can look at them. I will look at them to see what happened in this
case. I think it is quite unfair to make an accusation on the basis of
papers that people have not seen. Therefore, if he sends me over the
papers I will look at them.
5887
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is getting
a little bit bad here. Surely the President of the Treasury Board
has access to this information. He should not have to ask me for
it. He can ask his minister for it-
The Speaker: As you know, colleagues, the rules of the House
are not to use props. If you are quoting from a document of course
you may quote from it, but I would prefer that it not be used as
prop. I would ask the hon. member to please put his question.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to state my question. We
have a copy of the statement. The copy we have has a bunch of stuff
blanked out but the total of $7,900 was submitted. Why was this
paid?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
stated before, when the statement is made the comptroller's
division in a department receives the account, looks at it, decides
what is government business and then either reimburses or receives
payment for whatever is a personal expenditure.
In order to judge what exactly happened in this case I would need
the documents that are printed there. Once again, we have been
assured by the departmental comptroller's division that all personal
expenditures have been repaid.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Two days ago, the President of the Treasury Board came to the
rescue of the Minister of National Defence by supporting his
decision not to disclose how much General Boyle's generous
separation package would be. The minister is hiding behind the
Privacy Act. But the act is clear: discretionary benefits are not
included in the definition of personal information. For the
minister's information, I am referring to subsection 3(l).
How can the minister stand by what he said when the act, on the
one hand, does not recognize discretionary benefits as personal
information and, on the other hand, explicitly authorizes the
disclosure of any other type of benefit in the public interest? To be
more specific, I am referring to subparagraph 8(2)(m)(i).
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member has given us his own interpretation of the act. Let me
share with you our lawyers' interpretation: ``The fees and amounts
an individual is entitled to constitute personal information, the
disclosure of which is prohibited under the Privacy Act''.
While he was indeed a government employee and an employee
who served his country well, General Boyle is nevertheless entitled
to the same protection against invasion of privacy as any other
officer or employee of the government or anyone in the private
sector.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): To listen to the
minister, Mr. Speaker, even salaries should not be made public.
How can the minister put his head in the sand like that when,
only last month, in a Federal Court ruling in the McCreery case on
MPs' pensions, opposing the privacy commissioner and the
Department of Public Works, Justice Richard concluded that this
kind of public interest information could be disclosed? What are
they trying to hide behind this separation payment?
(1455)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is right when he says that even salaries would be
protected against disclosure, because individual salaries are indeed
not disclosed.
If you take a look at the orders in council that are issued, the
salary range is provided, not individual salaries, for that very
reason, to protect personal information.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
This government continues to break major promises by
approving an $87 million interest free loan to Bombardier. In this
very House the Minister of Industry said: ``We talked about cutting
subsidies to business. That is what we stand for''.
He also said: ``We are not prepared to grant massive assistance to
any company''. Why, then, did the Minister of Industry cave in to
corporate welfare interests rather than keep the government's
promise to Canadians?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to explain to the hon. member, as I did to
his colleague over the last couple of days, that the assistance that
we have provided in the regional jet project is not a handout to
business. It is not a handout to a corporation. It is an investment in
research and development, fully repayable out of royalties on sales
of aircraft.
5888
This hon. member is the member of his party on the industry
committee. I think he understands the importance of trying to
develop industries within this country that can succeed.
I remind him that the only high technology sector in which
Canada at this moment wins a trade surplus is the aerospace
industry.
I remind him that every other country in the world with an
important aerospace sector is involved in it by state ownership, by
defence procurement or by other measures.
I remind him that as we invest in aerospace in Canada, we will be
repaid with jobs and growth. If he wants to have his finance critic
stand up and talk about jobs, then I suggest to him that he
understand what it takes to create jobs.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
could not agree more. I know exactly what creates real jobs. Tax
relief creates real jobs.
In the last 15 years the federal government, including this
government, has pumped $1.2 billion into Bombardier. Yet when
taxpayers want to know how much of this money is paid back, the
taxpayers are told to take a hike.
If it is an investment, as the minister claims, why does this
government refuse to divulge how much money has been paid back
by Bombardier to the Canadian taxpayer?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me first of all assure the hon. member that in
introducing this new program called technology partnerships
Canada we are looking only at those companies where we see an
investment in research and development bringing in products to the
marketplace that will have success in the international markets.
That is the same attention that I will pay to prominent firms in
his own riding that are applying under technology partnerships
Canada.
Let us look for a second at the $87 million in assistance which,
as I have told him, is fully repayable and compare it to his
proposition of tax relief. If we take the $87 million and divide it
among the 20 million individual tax filers in this country, roughly
$4.40 would go to each taxpayer.
I will take the investment in Bombardier, the 2,700 jobs it will
create and maintain, over the $4 to buy a hamburger for everyone
else in Canada.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. By the way, it is
great to see the solicitor general back in the House. The Gander,
Newfoundland air crash, the Hinton train wreck, the Dryden
aeroplane disaster and the Westray mine explosion have one thing
in common: inquiries were conducted into all four tragedies.
(1500)
The Air-India explosion more than 11 years ago was the worst
civil aviation disaster in Canada's history. Can the minister tell the
House when Canadians can expect the long overdue inquiry into
the Air-India tragedy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member pointed out, the crash of the Air-India plane in
1985 was a terrible tragedy but it was also a terrible crime.
Hundreds of Canadians lost their lives.
That is why the RCMP has been actively investigating the matter
with a view to getting the evidence on which charges can be laid
and those responsible for the bombing can be successfully
prosecuted.
The government has not forgotten the victims or their families.
For the first time a solicitor general, namely myself, met with the
families. I directed senior RCMP officers to keep them regularly
informed of the progress of the investigation. As you will recall,
Mr. Speaker, a $1 million reward has been offered. This has
generated hundreds of leads which are being actively pursued.
It is not considered appropriate to have a commission of inquiry
while there is an active investigation. However, the commissioner
has confirmed to me that if there is an impasse in the investigation I
will be informed. I want to assure my hon. friend that if there is
such an impasse I will immediately discuss this matter further with
the Prime Minister.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Statistics Canada has announced that tuition fees for
students at Canadian universities have increased by nearly 12 per
cent over the last year.
Since the Liberal government took power and started hacking
away at transfers for post-secondary education, tuition fees in
Canada have increased by a total of almost 30 per cent. Increased
fees mean more and more young people are being excluded from
the opportunity to participate in the so-called knowledge based
economy that we consider so important because they can no longer
afford to go to school.
5889
My question is for the Minister of Finance. If by continuing
the cuts to education is it his intention to deny the children of
middle class and working families access to education. Is it the
government's intention to return Canada to the days when only
the wealthy could afford to go to university?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member knows, tuition fees began to rise in Canada long
before this government took office. It was as a result of those
tremendous increases in the tuition fees that the federal
government, for example in its last budget, increased the tuition
credits for students. We made it possible for single mothers, for
instance, or custodial parents who require additional child care help
to be able to go back to school.
I should point out to the hon. member that in his province the
federal government contributes 65 per cent of the cost of
post-secondary education.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to bring to members' attention the
presence in the gallery of a delegation that will be involved in the
choice of Expo 2005. As you know, Canada is involved in the
bidding for Expo 2005.
[Translation]
We have with us the fact-finding mission of the International
Exhibitions Bureau, headed by its president, His Excellency Ole
Philippson.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505 )
[English]
The Speaker: I have notice of a point of privilege from the hon.
member for Regina-Lumsden. I would ask the hon. member,
before he puts his point of privilege: Does this point of privilege
arise from the question period today?
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, yes, it does arise from the question
period today.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of privilege which is consistent with
Beauchesne's
Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, 1958, at page 95,
section 104(4). This point of privilege refers to the matter which I
want to raise today. It states:
Certain urgent matters, such as assaults upon or insults to Members if they should
occur during a sitting of the House, may be raised at once in spite of the interruption
of debate or other proceedings-
My point of personal privilege is in reference to a question put
by the hon. member for Elk Island to the Prime Minister which was
responded to by the minister in charge of the treasury board. I feel
that members of the House, as well as Canadians, are insulted by
the lack of action and response by the President of the Treasury
Board and the Prime Minister.
In question period the hon. member for Elk Island raised the
point about the Secretary of State for Training and Youth misusing
her expense account and she has not-
The Speaker: The question was put in question period. It was
directed to the government and at that time the government
responded to the question.
I fail to see how this would be a point of privilege for the hon.
member for Regina-Lumsden. Privilege is a very narrow area. I
would ask, if the hon. member still wishes to proceed, that he go
directly to the point of privilege which affects him.
Mr. Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just getting to that
point.
The reason I rise on this issue is because I am insulted by the fact
that the Secretary of State for Training and Youth has abused her
position and has not accounted for her actions.
The Speaker: I do not have any evidence before me that there is
any guilt of any member on any side. What I have in front of me, as
your Speaker, is a question that was asked and a question that was
answered. Outside of it being unparliamentary, which it was not, I
judged it to be a parliamentary question and acceptable. I judged
the answer to be parliamentary. Whether it is acceptable to one side
or the other is neither here nor there. I judged it to be a normal
response that the government gives.
At this point, at least, my dear colleague, I would rule, from what
you have put before me, that there is no point of privilege.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I need your
assistance on this point of order. I asked a question specifically of
the Prime Minister in an area which is specifically his
responsibility, that is the assignment of duties to ministers. He
alone does that. Is that-
(1510)
The Speaker: In the first two weeks I was in this House I was
corrected by another hon. member because I thought just the same
thing.
The fact is that a question is not technically put to any minister.
A question is put to the government. At that point the government
5890
may choose to answer or not to answer. Any member of the
government may answer any question that is put to the government.
In response to your question, you can put a question to any
minister or parliamentary secretary but they may or may not
answer. Those are the rules of the House and that is how it works.
_____________________________________________
5890
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 23 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 41st report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Industry.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in
the 41st report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-341, an act to establish the terms and conditions
that must apply to a referendum relating to the separation of
Quebec from Canada before it may be recognized as a proper
expression of the will of the people of Quebec.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill outlines a process for dealing with
any future referendum on the issue of Quebec sovereignty. There
are three main features of this bill. First, it allows the Government
of Canada to determine whether a referendum question in Quebec
is clear and unambiguous. If it is not, the Government of Canada is
required to undertake a number of actions, including the holding of
a parallel referendum in Quebec which asks a clear question on
separation from Canada.
Second, in the event of a yes vote, the bill authorizes the
negotiation of separation subject to consultation with the
provinces. Any final settlement would be subject to approval in a
national referendum.
Finally, the bill affirms that a unilateral declaration of
independence is ineffective with respect to Canadian law and does
not affect the functioning of the Canadian Parliament, government
or courts with respect to Quebec.
These proposals avoid the mistakes of the past, ensure a respect
for our legal order and ensure that all Canadians, including
Quebecers, have a role in shaping their future.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-342, an act to establish principles of responsible
fiscal management and to require regular publication of
information by the Minister of Finance to demonstrate the
government's adherence to those principles.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this act would require, among other things,
that the crown's financial reporting be in accordance with generally
accepted accounting practices so the people of the country could
see what the debts and assets of the country are.
(1515 )
In addition, it would require the government to publish before
each general election an economic and fiscal update prepared by
Treasury Board for the next three years and also to include
forecasting of the estimated actual financial statements for the
crown.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-343, an act to provide for the holding of citizen
initiated referenda on specific questions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be rising today to
present this bill. It is 25 pages in length and was worked on by more
than a dozen people over a two-year period. It is a workable
initiative and referendum legislation that is based on working
legislation in a similar parliamentary democracy. It includes new
methods of voting such as electronic voting. It is very detailed and
I urge all members to read it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
5891
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (no early parole for those who murder a peace
officer).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill which
would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code. It would deny
early parole for anyone convicted of the first degree murder of a
police officer.
Canadians are aware that the faint hope clause included in
section 745 allows first degree murderers to apply for early parole
after 15 years. My bill would make sure that those convicted of the
first degree murder of police officers, which includes police,
corrections officers and customs officers, would be denied the right
to apply for parole and would have to serve at least 25 years rather
than a possible 15 years of their life sentence.
Our police put their lives on the line every time they go to work.
They deserve our support. We must give a clear message to those
convicted of killing them that Canadian society does not tolerate
those who murder them in the line of duty. My bill is an important
first step in a strong message of support for our police and others
who serve on our behalf.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to
provide for the limitation of interest rates on credit cards.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to introduce my
private member's bill today. This legislation is an act to provide for
the limitation of interest rates on credit cards. The purpose of this
bill is to significantly reduce the excessive credit card interest rates
that banks and department stores are currently charging.
I am sure that members in the House will agree that the major
banks are making unprecedented profits. Indeed last year the major
banks collectively raked in some $15 billion in profits. This year
the third quarter reported profits are 20 per cent over last year for at
least two of the major banks.
Industry Canada officials have recently stated that credit card
rates are persistently high. The major banks countered that their
low rate cards are now in the 11 per cent range.
My bill would ensure that any credit card issued by a financial
institution or a department store could not have an interest rate
exceeding more than four or five percentage points over the Bank
of Canada's discount rate.
Our economy needs a boost. My bill will greatly assist in jump
starting the economy. If more Canadians have access to credit cards
at a lower interest rate then obviously their purchasing power will
increase.
(1520 )
It is time for all parliamentarians to put an end to the fat cats at
the lending institutions reaping fat profits out of the pockets of
Canadians. I look forward to unanimous approval of this legislation
from all members in this House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to table a committee report.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, and pursuant to the
order of reference made under section 19 of the Statutory
Instruments Act, the third report of the Standing Joint Committee
on Scrutiny of Regulations.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is asking the
government to table a complete response to this report.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the 41st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to table petitions submitted to me by 3,600 residents of
Windsor and Essex county. They are objecting to the mandatory 25
per cent tax being withheld by the United States on their U.S. social
5892
security benefits. These petitioners call upon the Canadian
government to renegotiate the Canada-U.S. tax treaty to stop this
inequity.
I know the government is working on a solution to this situation.
However I urge the government to do it very soon.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to this
House two petitions signed by the residents of York North.
The first petition is about the Helms-Burton law. The petitioners
draw to the attention of the House that the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity (Liberated) Act attempts to impose
American domestic policy on other sovereign countries and
therefore violates international law.
The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that
Canadian interests, rights and businesses must be defended with
strength and vigour. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament
to pursue all avenues available to ensure the rights of Canadians are
protected.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition draws to the attention of the House the important
role that small business plays in our economy.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to continue to create a
healthy environment for small businesses and ensure they have
access to the financing they need, and to help them explore and
capitalize on new opportunities.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a petition signed by 969 constituents from the
region of Durham.
[English]
This petition calls upon Parliament to ensure that the present
provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide, or active or passive euthanasia.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to submit a petition asking for the abolition of the Senate.
Over 30,000 petitioners, including 6,300 from the riding of
Frontenac, support this measure to save more than $50 million in
taxpayers' money. It goes without saying that I fully support this
petition, which has been appropriately certified by the Clerk of
Petitions.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions, the Bloc Quebecois and
those whom I represent have questioned the raison d'être of the
Senate. Its inefficiency and its unproductivity have been
demonstrated time and again.
I submit a petition signed by 1,786 Quebecers from my riding of
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans. They insist that the Canadian
government use the salaries paid to members of the other place for
reasons others than the enrichment of people who bring nothing to
the evolution of the Quebec and Canadian societies.
Consequently, we ask that the Senate be abolished.
(1525)
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table a petition from my constituents. The 567 signatures
on this petition are in addition to the 30,000 ones from other
ridings.
The petitioners ask for the abolition of the non-elected Senate
and state that this spending of $40 million is unjustifiable, given
the cuts affecting UI benefits, the lack of an employment policy
and the cuts to seniors' benefits.
People in my riding say no to the Senate, because it costs too
much.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 a
petition with 74 names from the Vancouver area. This petition is
sponsored by Sun Hope in memory of Andre Castet and it includes
names from my own riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam.
These petitioners unequivocally reject Bill C-37. They call upon
the government to enact legislation to address the public demand
for substantial revision of the Young Offenders Act and substantial
reform of the justice system.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
good to see you back in the Chair after an extended absence.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present
today. The first comes from Wetaskiwin, Alberta.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon
Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination
against families who choose to provide care in the home for
preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
5893
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Labrador City, Newfoundland.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and
others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
* * *
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for
the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following
motion:
That all recorded divisions demanded today on Private Members' Business
motion M-221 be deferred until Tuesday, November 5, 1996, at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to two questions
on the Order Paper.
The first is Question No. 9 of which notice was given on
February 28, 1996 with a request that a response be made within 45
days. This same question was initially tabled in the House in
September 1995. The previous parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader assured me and the House that an answer
was forthcoming. Apparently a couple of departments were not
able to supply all of the information quickly. Following
prorogation of the House, the successive parliamentary secretary
assured me that an answer was forthcoming very soon.
We are now in October and a considerable time has elapsed since
February, over half a year. I still do not have an answer to Question
No. 9.
As well there is Question No. 60, for which notice was given on
June 13. Again, much more than 45 days has elapsed and the
question has not been answered. I would like to know why.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
take the matter raised by the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminister under notice and will see that the
message is delivered to the parliamentary secretary, being quite
sensitive of course from his perspective of the length of time it has
taken to get the answers.
(1530)
On the other hand, quite often that simply reflects the
complexity of the question. We will take all those things into
consideration and get back to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker.
_____________________________________________
5893
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Labour, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code
(minimum wage), be read the third time and passed.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you and to the
Minister of Labour for giving me the opportunity to speak in
support of Bill C-35.
This is an act to amend the Canada Labour Code to automatically
align the federal minimum wage to the levels applied in the
provinces and territories.
When I first realized that the federal minimum wage had not
been raised in 10 years, I was totally amazed. A lot of things have
changed in our country since 1986, both economically and socially.
5894
[Translation]
All these years, the four dollar an hour federal minimum wage
has not increased, and in principle is still at the same level as it was
in 1986.
[English]
In the meantime, every single province and territory has
upgraded its minimum wage and in some cases more than once.
This means that all workers under federal jurisdiction who have
been paid at the $4 an hour rate will immediately receive an
increase.
We know that wage increases are much more important for those
who are at the bottom of the economic ladder. For them, as for most
people, every penny counts. We each have to stretch them to the
maximum to make ends meet.
As former minister of labour for Prince Edward Island, I can
assure members that the government has made the right choice by
aligning the federal minimum wage to the rate applied in each
province and territory.
The provinces clearly have the lead on this issue, as they govern
98 per cent of all minimum wage earners in Canada. It is a fact that
industries under federal jurisdiction such as transportation,
telecommunications, banks and some crown corporations have
very few workers at minimum wage.
Indeed, recent estimates show that less than one-tenth of one per
cent of the Canadian labour force falls into this category. The
federal government could have followed the traditional approach
and introduced a flat increase to set the minimum wage in the
middle of the range of provincial and territorial rates and the
government could have taken the path as it has done in the past.
Indeed, the government could have just done what past
governments have done. But then, by the time the new rate would
have been in effect, a number of provinces could have increased
their own rates. A number of the provinces, including my own
province of Prince Edward Island, have raised their minimum wage
rates since this bill was introduced in the House last May.
The status quo was not a viable option either because the federal
minimum wage was falling far out of line with overall social and
economic conditions. This is very important because our
government is committed to helping those who are most in need.
We mean this.
This is why the Minister of Labour has seriously analysed the
situation and has chosen a method setting the federal minimum
wage that fulfils three important objectives: to ensure its
continuing relevancy; to promote fairness by ensuring that
workers, whether subject to federal or provincial labour laws, are
entitled to the same minimum wage within the same labour market;
to provide more incentive for people to seek work while balancing
and limiting the negative impact of job creation.
We recognize that the economic realities and the labour market
conditions are very often different from one region to the other. We
also know that these factors are clearly reflected in the way
different provinces set their minimum wage.
Adopting provincial territorial minimum wage rates maintains
this balance across regions without punishing or rewarding anyone.
Let us look at the figures.
Today the provincial and territorial minimum wage rates vary
from $5 an hour in Newfoundland and Alberta to $7 an hour in
British Columbia. This is a huge difference. But then, who would
argue that the cost of living is not different in these regions of the
country? This is a perfect example of why aligning the federal rate
to the provincial rate is the best way to go.
(1535)
I would like to address the issue of the efficiency of this bill.
[Translation]
I believe all members of this House want to make legislative and
parliamentary procedures still more flexible and efficient. Each
week we meet people in our riding offices with complaints about
the current system. They feel it is too slow and a source of
confusion, with too much duplication and overlap. I know this,
because far too many such cases are brought to my attention.
[English]
Here is an opportunity for all of us to do something concrete and
positive to streamline government activities. From now on there
will be no need to amend the federal minimum wage regulations in
order to adjust the federal minimum wage to the reality. It will be
automatically updated on a regular basis in line with territorial and
provincial increases.
I was also happy to hear the minister note that the new rates will
apply equally to adults and to young workers. I must admit that I
have great difficulty in accepting that a person should be paid less
just because of his or her age. I also believe that such a practice
may likely be discriminatory under the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. I therefore strongly support section 178(2) of the
bill which states that where provinces have set rates according to
occupation, age or work experience the general rate will apply. If
there are different rates based on age, the highest minimum wage
rate will apply to those in federally regulated industries.
I would also like to say a few words about the process the
government followed with this bill. We had serious consultations
will all of the stakeholders before choosing this formula. Every-
5895
body has had the chance to express their view before the final
decision was made, and the general reaction is very positive.
Sometimes employers become very apprehensive when they
hear talk about raising the minimum wage. They are often afraid
that these costs will hurt their competitiveness. Not in this case.
The federally regulated employers, transportation, communication
as well as the Canadian Bankers' Association have indicated they
do not oppose the government's initiative. Indeed, business leaders
recognize that it makes a lot of practical sense to harmonize federal
and provincial rates since federal employers have done so in
practice for some time.
Labour organizations welcome the move as a small increase long
overdue. They would like to see a bigger raise in the minimum
wage and of course so would everyone. But in this field we all have
to move according to a pay set by the economic strengths and
weaknesses of a specific labour market. In this specific case we
have not met any significant opposition for the simple reason that
Bill C-35 brings into force what has by and large already been
practised across the country.
As the Minister of Labour was saying earlier, we are bringing the
legislation in line with reality. There is also good support for this
initiative because everyone recognizes that by harmonizing the
federal rate with the provincial and territorial ones we will end the
stagnation we have seen over the last 10 years.
[Translation]
Of course, some will say that the federal government ought not
to transfer such responsibilities to the provinces and territories,
because it would run the risk of ending up weaker as a result. We
are not, however, giving up our authority, for we are retaining the
legislative power to establish a different rate, if this decision were
taken.
[English]
Should a province or a territory decide to bring down its
minimum wage or set it to a level we estimate would be too low,
the federal rate will stay at the higher level. We are not passing our
responsibilities to the next jurisdiction.
What we are doing is working hand in hand with the provinces
and territories to find the best and most efficient way to keep the
federal minimum wage in line with reality in each and every
province and territory of our country.
This initiative has been taken with the full knowledge and
co-operation of all provincial and territorial governments which
know that this bill will improve the system and better reflect the
realities of our current marketplace. The bill has gone through the
scrutiny of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and is coming back to us without a single
amendment.
(1540 )
This shows clearly that the formula is the right one and that the
consultation process was absolutely appropriate to develop a large
and a strong consensus.
[Translation]
Given the Government's creative strategy with respect to the
federal minimum wage, I feel that the future looks most
encouraging.
[English]
In his speech at second reading of this bill the Minister of Labour
told us about his plan to overhaul the Canada Labour Code in order
to make it a more useful tool to move and adjust to the new realities
of the workplace.
I am very confident that the minister will be successful. He will
succeed because he is dedicated to dialogue and consultation. He
will succeed because he is facing the problems head on in search of
a practical, efficient and permanent solution. Bill C-35 is an
excellent example.
Amending the Canada Labour Code is an important task because
it sets the basic rules for the workplace for thousands of Canadians.
Today we are taking a small step to improve the working
conditions for some Canadian workers who are under the
jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. They are the ones at the
bottom of the economic ladder. They work hard for their pay. They
are proud workers. They participate in society and they contribute
to society.
That is why I support Bill C-35. I am confident that every
member of the House of Commons will also show their support.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak for up to
a maximum of 40 minutes, and I will try to stay within those limits.
You know how unpredictable this is, but before discussing the
minimum wage, I shall, if I may, be out of order and offer my
congratulations to a friend who works with us at the leader's office
and has now become a father-talk about a positive element. David
MacDonald, who is well known here on the Hill, is now the proud
father of a baby girl.
That being said, my congratulations duly extended, we are now
talking about a very serious matter. Our listeners know that when,
as parliamentarians, we discuss the issue of minimum wage rates,
we refer to three major factors. These are people who are less well
off in society. There are people who often have no collective
agreement, who lack this often elementary protection that puts it all
down in writing. In that case they have to rely on legislation like
the bill before the House today to amend the Canada Labour Code.
5896
These are people who work part-time and who in many cases
have difficult working conditions and hold down several jobs. For
their sake it is certainly very important to try to impose a certain
number of rules which according to the legislator set the absolute
strict minimum.
As we have said on several occasions, we believe that Bill C-35
is a rather positive bill. It is positive, since it has six major
characteristics. The first one is that to all intents and purposes, and
I say this very carefully, the bill before the House today says that in
every province where there are federally-regulated companies, the
minimum wage rate will be aligned with the rate in effect in that
particular province. The federal minimum wage was $4 and has not
been increased since 1986.
Of course the federal government, and that is one of its
prerogatives, retains the right to establish an hourly rate for
companies under its jurisdiction, should there be no minimum
wage rate in effect in the province, but to all intents and purposes,
the bill will put an end to this aberration which we have condemned
many times in the past, which meant that two groups of workers
within the same territory and doing the same job could not be
getting the same hourly rate, which made no sense at all.
Let me give you the broad parameters of Bill C-35. As I said
before, and to make quite clear to listeners who have just tuned in, I
repeat that the federal minimum wage is set at the hourly rate
established by the employee's province or territory of employment.
(1545)
Having said that, I think that, for the sake of clarity, we must
bear in mind that the reality in terms of the Canadian labour market
and the current minimum wage is a rather fragmented, uneven
reality, since we are not in a situation where minimum wage rates
are harmonized. Think that there are provinces where the minimum
wage rate is barely above $4, while it is as high as $7 in generous
British Columbia. But for this reality to be reasonably meaningful
to our fellow citizens, I will nevertheless list the various hourly
rates in effect in each province.
Alberta has set its minimum wage rate at $5; British Columbia,
whose financial situation is the healthiest, has an hourly rate of $7;
Prince Edward Island, $5.40, as the minister, who was himself born
and raised on this island no larger than Montreal, pointed out;
Manitoba also has an hourly rate of $5.40; New Brunswick, $5.50;
Nova Scotia, $5.50; Ontario, the very conservative province of
Ontario, where a lot is happening these days, as you know from
following the news, has an hourly rate of $6.85; Quebec, $6.70;
Saskatchewan, $5.35; Newfoundland, $5.25; the Northwest
Territories, $7; and the Yukon, $6.86.
So, it was wise on the part of the government, as the federal
legislator, to decide to bring its rate in line with the provincial
rates, and that is an initiative we have applauded on several
occasions.
It should be pointed out that the bill calls for the general rate to
apply, regardless of the profession, status, or work experience of
the worker, which has not always been the case. In the past,
exceptions were made possible because of characterizations like
the ones I just mentioned.
Also, and it was wise to provide for this, when workers are paid
under a different criterion-there are places for instance where
earnings are calculated by the piece, that is another
possibility-they must receive at least as much as the minimum
wage equivalent for the work in question.
Fourth exception, where the wage rate set by the province is
based on age, the highest rate applies, and we think this is normal
and desirable.
Fifth, as I said, the federal government may set the minimum
wage rate with respect to employment in a province.
Sixth, the federal government specifies the conditions under
which and the occupations in which young people under the age of
17 may be employed, but there may be no specific rate for them.
As you can see, one of the changes introduced with this Bill C-35
is that exceptions on the basis of age will no longer be allowed,
contrary to what had been the practice until just recently, for fear
that it would not meet the test of the Charter in eventual court
challenges, as the chairman of the human resources development
committee can imagine, he who, as we know, is very concerned
about these issues.
As much as we applaud this legislation and feel it should be
supported, it still has some flaws. We still did our job as opposition,
because the opposition must work on improving the government.
Of course, it is a full time job. With all we have ahead of us, no one
could work only part time on improving the government. If we
want a better government, the opposition must work very hard and
full time, and be able to introduce amendments.
We proposed an amendment which the Liberals rejected with
some weak arguments. We do not fully understand what drove
them to it; Their justifications were somewhat vague. But we did
put forward an amendment aimed at-it is still possible. Even if
only 10 per cent of workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code,
this does not mean we should not be concerned with them. Ten per
cent of workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code.
(1550)
Fifty per cent of this 10 per cent of workers are paid the
minimum wage. This is another reality we must deal with. Since
this is a federal jurisdiction, there are cases in which a worker may
perform his duties in more than one province. There is the whole
issue of trucking, of interprovincial transport.
5897
We have concerns. We wondered what would happen when a
worker does not have a fixed workplace and the employer himself
can assign a workplace in Ontario, Saskatchewan or Alberta.
Would the employer not be inclined to choose the workplace with
the lowest hourly wage rate?
Because we are concerned with this social democratic aspect, we
questioned the minister in subcommittee. I think the committee
chairman will recall that some of our questions remained
unanswered. That is why we felt it was our duty to move an
amendment. So we put forward an amendment that was defeated by
the Liberals.
In short, we still did our duty and I am convinced that we
uncovered a flaw in this bill which was minor but nonetheless
worth bringing to the government's attention.
But, to me, the most important issue in this fundamental debate
is not so much the fact that the minister proposes a bill on
minimum wage. It would have been interesting to put the issue of
minimum wage in the context of impoverishment. This is the
reality and we will keep repeating it as long as we sit in this House,
because there are few people, with the notable exception of the
official opposition, who are truly concerned about the plight of the
poor. It must be understood that there have never been so many
poor in Canada.
No one in this House, whether from the government, the Reform
Party or the Bloc Quebecois, can rise and say that, since the
seventies, the Canadian and Quebec societies have become more
affluent overall. It is not the case. Rather, there is an increasing
number of poor, 4.8 million of them, in Canada.
I thank the Speaker for showing concern about my health. It is
true that I was not feeling well the last few days. I had the flu. Had
it not been for my robust health, I would not have recovered. But I
am here to talk to you and to protect the interests of the poor.
Poverty is not disappearing. It is not diminishing. I am pleased to
see the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development, because I want to remind him that, while
poverty is measurable, while it is a statistical data, it is also a
human reality. Behind every graph, chart, figure and fraction, there
are destinies, hopes, dramas and families.
We are told there are 4.8 million poor in Canada, and it is agreed
that a Canadian is considered to be poor when 56 per cent of his or
her income is spent on the three basics, namely clothing, housing
and food. As you know, poverty, like unemployment, is not a
genetic trait.
The labour, international trade and human resources ministers
keep telling us about market globalization and interdependency,
but the fact is that we have an unemployment rate which is
chronically much higher than the average for OECD countries.
(1555)
And while the average rate of unemployment in OECD countries
stands at 7.8 per cent, the Canadian average is 12 per cent, and in
certain parts of large cities, 13, 14, 15, 16 and even 22 per cent.
One day we would like an explanation as to why certain
countries that are not on Mars but right here on Earth have achieved
full employment, when it is still eluding us here in Canada.
For the official opposition, one thing is certain and that is that
there is no getting around the fact that two governments get in each
other's way, and that when you are without a job, when things have
taken a turn for the worse and you have lost your job because of a
disability, or have just been laid off, there is no one place you can
go for help. There are a certain number of programs you may turn
to if you receive income security benefits, but not if you are on
unemployment insurance.
The only truly integrated labour market policy is one in which all
related activities would be handled by a single authority, which can
only be the provinces.
I would like to come back to the issue of poverty. It is not a
question of genes. The parliamentary secretary, who generally has
little to say when we mention figures, but manages to find his
tongue in committee, will agree with me that poverty is not
something you are born to. It is not as though some people are
destined to be poor, while others are destined to be rich. However,
it must be admitted that certain decisions drive people into poverty.
I would like to give you a recent example. This is not an example
from 50 years ago, but is something quite contemporary and
immediate, and has resulted in a cloud of shame descending on this
Parliament, particularly to your right, when the employment
insurance legislation was passed.
The employment insurance reform is bad for two reasons. First,
because it limits the accessibility of workers and of employees to
the protection of unemployment insurance that they have paid for.
It will be remembered, first of all, that the Canadian government
has not, since 1992, contributed one red cent to the unemployment
insurance fund, and it would be impossible to find comparisons
within the OECD, to find any example of a country which has
decided to disengage in such an irresponsible way from the
unemployment insurance field.
The fact is, that with unemployment insurance reform, benefits,
coverage and duration are being reduced. What does this mean? It
makes it clear that there is a link between the constitutional
framework and Quebec's sovereignist project. What did Louise
Harel, the Quebec minister of employment and MLA for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve have to say in the last referendum? ``We
are investing $10 billion yearly for the Quebec labour market''.
This is not a trifle, $10 billion yearly. It is even far higher than the
average amount invested in the OECD countries. Despite the fact
that we are investing more in work force policies within Quebec,
including
5898
income security and unemployment insurance, we are faced with
an unemployment rate that is higher than the OECD average.
What does this mean? It means that the continued
unemployment is not a result of lack of money, or of resources. If
there is this much unemployment, it is because programs have been
poorly designed, because there is no possibility for a single
decision-making centre to have an integrated labour market policy.
(1600)
Think how wonderful it would be if, once a person was out of the
work force, for all manner of reasons, more often than not reasons
beyond his control, there were only one single centre of authority
for that person, where he could be offered a broad range of
programs and measures, where a true path back to work would be
available to him. In other words, a given individual would be
followed from the very beginning of his loss of employment,
throughout the system, and right up until he obtained a new job,
without any concern for federal-provincial overlaps, for this is
where the damage is done.
We have two decision-making centres which are not
co-ordinated, which do not speak the same language, which do not
take the same steps, which discourage people, and which make it
impossible for Quebec to have a proper integrated labour force
strategy.
Still more serious is the fact that the policy proposed by the
Minister of Human Resource Development is a one which
contributes to destabilizing Quebec's public finances. I believe we
must speak of this reality. Those listening to us have a need to
know. With the restrictions that have been made within
unemployment insurance reform, making it into employment
insurance, 30,000 new households have been unable to qualify for
employment insurance and have therefore had to apply for income
security, which is a last resort.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote an
eminent economist known to a number of us. His name is Pierre
Fortin. He is an economist with the UQAM. He is not a member of
the Bloc Quebecois. He is not a member of the executive of my
riding association. He has no sovereignist leanings. He is a brilliant
intellectual and a respected member of the academic community.
He was involved in drafting a report published under the title:
``Pour un régime équitable axé sur l'emploi''. This report, released
not quite a year ago, was very critical of the employment insurance
system. I would like to quote from the report.
It says: ``In 1995, approximately 120,000 people were either
unemployed and recently excluded from unemployment insurance
or had dropped out of the labour market altogether as a result of
these restrictions. Since it is usually estimated that 25 per cent of
those who are not eligible for unemployment insurance end up on
welfare, it is reasonable to believe that federal restrictions-and I
will repeat this in an attempt to get the attention of the former
parliamentary secretary, I feel sorry for him, but it is not our
decision-it is reasonable to believe that federal restrictions have
caused as many as 30,000 more households to go on welfare. The
annual cost to the Quebec government would increase by about
$240 million. The first estimates available indicate that the new
changes in unemployment insurance announced for 1996 would
add another 20,000 households to those already on welfare and
would finally put the cumulative cost of these restrictions at
approximately $400 million for Quebec''.
Do you realize the tragedy behind all this? When you see the
Minister of Finance with his grey hair and his unconscionable ego
rising at the Liberal convention strutting like a peacock when he
says that he made it, that he is about to achieve his budgetary
objectives, there is something extremely troubling here which is
almost dishonest, because the Minister of Finance did not tell us
that, as he is about to achieve his budgetary objectives which were
to bring the deficit down to 2 per cent of GNP, he did so with
absolute contempt for the provinces, by offloading his problems
and making the provinces poorer.
(1605)
That is the reality, and when Pierre Fortin tells us that the
reforms proposed by the Liberal government will add an additional
$400 million to the cost of welfare payments, this is the most
despicable, pernicious, unacceptable and irresponsible example of
what Canadian federalism has to offer. That is why we are a
sovereignist opposition and why we intend to achieve our
sovereignty.
That being said, as long as we are in this House, as long as we are
the official opposition, we will always be what the Reform Party
and the government cannot be: the voice of those who are less well
off in our society.
In the time I have left, I would like to draw a thumbnail sketch of
poverty. I said earlier that poverty was a very specific reality
affecting 4.8 million Canadians. But not all are affected equally.
There are some classes of people in society whose social status
makes them more vulnerable to poverty and financial setbacks.
For a very long time, seniors were seen as the poorest in our
society. So much so that, when the Senate carried out a study on
poverty in the 1970s, there was an old person on the front page of
its report. I am not saying today that seniors are no longer poor or
that there are no people who have trouble making ends meet, but
the fact is that the face of poverty is changing. At this time, the
poorest members of our society are young families headed by
someone under 25. Canada's poverty rate is 17 per cent. If we had a
sample of 100 people, 17 of them would fit the statistical definition
5899
of poor, in that they must spend 56 per cent of their income on
clothing, food and housing.
Well 44 per cent of young families headed by someone under 25
are poor, compared to 17 per cent of all Canadians. So, if you are a
family head under 25, the more family obligations you have before
the age of 25, the better your chances of fitting the definition of
poor, since 50 per cent of young families are poor.
Even more so for single-parent families headed by a woman
under the age of 65 who has a child under the age of 18. In that
case, the poverty rate raises to 56 per cent.
Also, and this is a fairly new reality, the scope of which we are
only starting to realize, fewer members of our society are getting
married. The number of singles is on the rise. Not so much among
Canadians, but still there is a growing number of single people, of
people living alone. And people who live alone and are single have
about a 40 per cent chance of living below the poverty line.
This profile should have been enough to convince the minister
that it is not enough to table in this House a bill to bring the federal
minimum wage rate in line with the rates in effect in the provinces
and more should have been done.
You will recall what the Liberals promised. In the last election
campaign, the Liberals were talking about establishing a national
child care system in Canada. They talked about guaranteed
minimum income. Their generous spirit during the campaign
translated into extremely cheap and restrictive policies and
decisions regarding those people who are the less fortunate, the
most disadvantages.
I would like to address a number of myths concerning poverty.
(1610)
In order to be clear, and since we can express them with
numbers, let me say that, in 1994, poverty levels-these are the
most recent ones established by the National Council of
Welfare-in large urban areas were estimated at $16,511 for a
single person and at $31,061 for a family of four.
So, in 1994, a person living in a large city with a total income of
$16,511 was considered to be poor. Similarly, a family of four, that
is two spouses with two children, living on $31,071 was also poor.
This takes us back to the sad picture that I tried to paint earlier.
Let me tell you about a number of biases that prevail and that
are, of course, promoted by the Reform Party, and sometimes,
albeit to a lesser degree, by the government majority.
There is this thinking, behind the proposed employment
insurance measures, that poverty is first a personal matter, that
people choose to be poor, that it is a deliberate choice, as if people
deliberately chose to lose their jobs, to become unemployed, or to
be laid off.
I think there is something terribly hypocritical about the reform
proposed by the government. It wants to impose penalties on
people because they are unemployed, and asks them to find work,
when we are not in a position to create enough jobs for all the
people who want them. There is something profoundly
unacceptable about imposing penalties on people who are looking
for work.
There is also this whole idea that the poor do not pay taxes, that
they are wards of the state and that they are not contributing their
fair share. This is interesting, because the National Anti-Poverty
Organization has reminded us that most people living in poverty
work part time, and that over 60 per cent of heads of families living
in poverty and over 70 per cent of single people living in poverty
pay taxes. In Ontario alone, it is estimated that these people
contribute $160 million in taxes. So much for that myth.
There is another myth that must also be dispelled, particularly
now that the Canadian government has pulled out of the Canada
assistance plan. Our viewers must know that under the Canada
assistance plan, in existence since 1966, the Canadian government
shared half the cost of funding provincial income security
programs, and that terminating this program will not only
destabilize budgets in the provinces concerned, but can only mean
that there will be increasingly fewer funds available for those who
have nowhere else to turn.
There is this idea that people on income security are receiving
way too much money, enough to meet their needs and then some.
What has to be said, in the context of social programs and a debate
such as this one today in the House, is that all Canadians on welfare
are living under the poverty line. The highest welfare benefits are
still 20 per cent below the poverty line as defined by specialized
organizations. This is another myth that must be dispelled.
Another point that must be mentioned is that, by adopting a bill
like the one on employment insurance, the government is following
a philosophy of auditing. The idea is that the unemployed, those
receiving benefits, are cheats, and that this is a way to get money
back, and thus a way to improve public finances, whereas studies
have proven that, while not claiming there are no cases of
fraud-for there are-they account for only about 3 per cent of all
accounts.
(1615)
How can anyone dream of establishing a policy for putting
public finances back on their feet based on a philosophy of
auditing, one as shameless as the one proposed to us by the Liberal
government with employment insurance, while it knows full well
5900
that barely 3 per cent of all claimants are involved in fraud, and
knows equally well that the level for income tax fraud is 20 per
cent?
How is it that the government has not had the same enthusiasm?
How can it be that the government has not exercised the same
diligence in trying to get tax money out of the well to do, in trying
to go after the richest of taxpayers? We know that there is a 20 per
cent fraud rate at Revenue Canada. This would offer an opportunity
to make some savings and remedy shortfalls. The government has
preferred to attack the most disadvantaged rather than shoulder its
responsibilities, so much so that the last budget informed us there
would be fewer and fewer audit staff at Revenue Canada.
The result of this is that prejudices continue, that we continue in
a situation where wrong ideas are being entertained, and where
there is no hesitation to go after the most disadvantaged, very likely
the category of people who have contributed most to restoring
public finances.
There is one extremely important statistic in this connection
which we ought never to lose sight of, which we ought never to
forget, when attempting to design social policies. It is a statistic
reminding us that, in Canada, income, or in other words wealth, is
very unevenly distributed. If we look at the total incomes of
Canadians, we find that the wealthiest fifth of the population of
Canada receives nearly half of all Canadian income.
The wealthiest 20 per cent of the population gets 50 per cent of
this income, while the poorest 20 per cent gets only 3.4 per cent. In
other words, the wealthiest fifth of the population gets 14 times as
much money as the poorest fifth.
If we really want to be serious about what we do in Parliament, if
we want to do something useful, this is where we should start. This
is real injustice. We know the statistics, we know the most
troubling facts about the distribution of wealth, but the
government's complacency, in its refusal to deal with the problems
and its habit of proposing measures that are less than satisfactory
have meant that our society is becoming increasingly poorer, that
wealth is unequally distributed and that the wealthiest continue to
get wealthier and the poorest get poorer.
An hon. member: I agree with that.
Mr. Ménard: I seem to have the support of one of my Reform
colleagues, which is certainly quite welcome, although as
surprising as it is unexpected, but it certainly is inspiring to realize
that when we discuss these things we can understand each other and
convince our colleagues that certain things have to be done.
I believe my time is running out. I would like to add that the
National Council of Welfare, a very serious and non-partisan
agency which has been around for quite some time, since it was
founded by a constituent act in 1966, the National Council of
Welfare reminded us that Canadian society has never been as poor,
that wealth has never been as unequally distributed, adding that if
we had wanted to, we could have wiped out poverty.
(1620)
I would like to quote what the National Council said in its 1995
report. It recalled the following facts: ``Despite the sombre reality,
it is not utopian to think that we can win the war against poverty.
Statistics Canada estimates that it would have cost $15.2 billion in
1994''.
I repeat: It is not utopian to think we can win the war against
poverty. Statistics Canada estimates that it would have cost $15.2
billion in 1994 to bring all the poor above the poverty line. This is
an enormous amount but certainly not too much, in a country where
the federal government and the provincial territorial governments
spent about $350 billion in 1994 and where the value of all goods
and services produced exceeded $750 billion''. We are living in a
society where governments spend $350 billion and where we
produce $750 billion.
If we had had the common sense to pool our resources and put
$15 billion into active measures to fight poverty, today in this
House we would not only be discussing the minimum wage, we
would also be able to say how proud we are that as legislators,
co-operating with all partners, we were able to wipe out poverty.
For this scenario to become a reality, however, it is not enough to
have a debate. It is not enough to have a government. It is not
enough to have a democracy. We need an ingredient that is
extremely important and also extremely rare in a democracy, one
that is certainly lacking in the government before us. I am of course
referring to political courage. Because to raise this $15 billion, we
must also do something about the distribution of wealth. And if we
want to do something about that, the government would have to
have the guts to put a minimum tax on the table, something the
opposition has been asking for three years.
However, a minimum tax means taxing a certain number of
corporate citizens, who are of course friends of the present
government.
Since my time is up, I will say in concluding that we will never
do enough to fight poverty.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I support
the overall intent of Bill C-35 because it makes at least a tentative
move toward the elimination of outdated regulations. It is a step in
the right direction. It shows the provinces that the Government of
Canada is willing to recognize, at least in part, their ability to make
sound financial and humanitarian laws.
5901
However, the bill has one glaring flaw. As I mentioned during
second reading debate and as my colleague from Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia said yesterday, section 178(3)
gives the cabinet the power to set rates if it disagrees with the
rates established by the provinces or territories.
We proposed an amendment which would remove this clause and
give full jurisdiction over minimum wage rates to the provinces.
Surprisingly, though, members of the official opposition did not
support our amendment. I can only assume that they are really not
in favour of giving more autonomy to the province of Quebec in
labour matters. That surprises me. I have always been under the
assumption that the devolution of powers was something that was
very near and dear to their hearts.
Government members also refused to support our amendment,
showing that they are really not sincere about giving more
responsibilities to the provinces. Instead, the government continues
to waffle on the issue of decentralization. Like parents who try to
prolong their kid's childhood, this Liberal government is refusing
to acknowledge that the provinces have come of age. Not
surprisingly, this is contrary to the red book promise.
(1625)
Broken promise No. 14 reads: ``A Liberal government will work
closely with provincial governments to reduce duplication and
improve service delivery in all areas where governments are
involved''.
By clinging to the ``Father Knows Best'' tradition, the
government is failing to live up to yet another campaign promise.
With this bill, the government is implying that it wants to better
the lot of workers yet it stubbornly clings to the old myths. It wants
wage earners to believe that by retaining the right to set minimum
wage rates that it has their best interests at heart. It is just like it
wants workers to believe that somehow governments can create
jobs.
A study released this week by a Halifax based think tank
concludes that large increases in regional subsidies to Atlantic
Canada have had a perverse effect, retarding economic growth
rather than spurring it.
After 30 years of failure, people from coast to coast are
recognizing that the policies promoted by this Liberal government
have increased the debt load on Canadians and on the federal
treasury, a double whammy. So much for red book promises.
If the Liberal government is really sincere about keeping at least
the red book promise or the throne speech pledge of cutting red
tape and ending duplication, now is the time to show good faith and
give the provinces the sole governance over minimum wage rates.
If the spirit of co-operation really exists, section 178(3) can be
deleted and a memorandum of understanding negotiated to ensure
that provinces maintain reasonable minimum wage standards. This
would protect Canada's international commitments and free trade
agreements.
Today of all days, on the first anniversary of the Quebec
referendum, the government should be aware of the need to initiate
some form of decentralization of some federal powers. The fact
that the Prime Minister ignored the unity issue last year almost
resulted in the break up of the country. The government must now
recognize that the status quo will no longer keep Canada together.
The Reform Party has a plan which we think would be
acceptable to all Canadians. In recognition of the need for
decentralization, we developed a bottom up agenda for change that
does not require amending the Constitution. The Reform Party's
fresh start platform commits us to rebalancing powers, moving
governmental responsibility closer to the people and strengthening
Canada's federal nature and institutions.
As long as the government insists on retaining the right to revert
to cabinet decreed minimum wage rates, the Reform Party cannot
support this bill.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-35, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code.
This amendment speaks to the type of government this is. It is a
government that seeks justice, opportunity and recognizes that hard
working Canadians need to be rewarded for the work they engage
in. The legislation would automatically align the federal minimum
wage rate with the general adult minimum wage rates of the
provinces and territories.
I am sure hon. colleagues were quite surprised to learn that the
federal minimum wage as of July 17, 1996 had not increased in 10
years. I am sure hon. members will agree that just about everything
else increased during the past decade.
(1630)
This legislation is most certainly overdue. It is time the federal
minimum wage was brought into line with minimum amount
workers under provincial jurisdictions receive for their labour.
The federal minimum wage was $4 an hour until July 17, 1996
when it was raised to provincial and territorial minimum wage
rates effective at that time. I note that five provinces have increased
their minimum wage rate since July 17.
The minimum wage affects our most vulnerable workers, those
who are most in need of receiving a reasonable hourly income,
those hard working Canadians who are contributing to the
economic growth of our nation. I really believe they deserve better.
For the most part these workers are non-unionized. Passage of
Bill C-35 will help protect Canada's unorganized workers. Since
non-union workers make up about two thirds of the Canadian
workforce that is a substantial number of people. Of course in
practical terms aligning the federal minimum wage to the provin-
5902
cial and territorial rates affects only a small portion of workers; all
the more reason to ensure passage of Bill C-35.
These men and women deserve to be guaranteed the same
compensation for their labour as is received by their provincial
counterparts. Furthermore, this legislation establishes a level
playing field for all Canadian employers and employees with
regard to minimum wages.
Businesses will be protected nationwide from unfair
competition, at least as far as payment of basic wage is concerned.
There is no danger of us opening a Pandora's box of economic
uncertainty. In fact, as hon. colleagues have pointed out previously,
most employers under federal jurisdiction are now paying their
lowest paid employees the equivalent of the provincial rate.
Passage of Bill C-35 will ensure that this practice is applied across
the board. It will benefit those workers who enjoy little or no
bargaining power.
As soon as the act comes into effect, all workers under federal
jurisdiction will be paid the respective provincial or territorial
minimum wage.
Another positive aspect of this piece of legislation is that it gives
further impetus to the government's desire to bring greater
harmony to the federal and provincial laws governing the
workplace standards. By aligning the federal, provincial and
territorial minimum wage rates the rates will correspond more
directly, more precisely with the realities of each region's
economy.
I believe it is important for hon. members to note that the
provinces and territories govern 98 per cent of Canadian workers
who are paid minimum wage. Those under federal jurisdiction
represent less than 10 per cent of the Canadian workforce. That is
one reason why the Minister of Labour did not choose to follow
tradition and simply increase the former federal minimum wage
rate. Had the minister taken this approach, before long provincial
and territorial rates would increase and once again the Government
of Canada would find itself lagging behind some of the provinces.
Passage of Bill C-35 will resolve the quandary once and for all.
Bill C-35 will ensure that every time a province or territory
upgrades its adult minimum wage the government of Canada's
minimum wage will follow suit.
(1635 )
I am sure hon. members can see that this approach will be much
more administratively efficient. Let us consider for a second that
rules will be simpler. Eliminating duplication in minimum wage
rates will mean less paper work. Federal, provincial and territorial
government activities regarding minimum wage will be
harmonized. Both management and employees will know exactly
what to expect when there is an increase in a provincial or
territorial minimum wage rate. All businesses in the same region
will be required to pay the same minimum wage for the same kind
of work. Records pertaining to minimum wage for all workers will
in fact be the same.
Since I pointed out a moment ago most employers under federal
jurisdiction already pay wages according to the prevailing
provincial and territorial minimums, then it is simply good
business practice to have a minimum wage that reflects local
market conditions.
To consider Bill C-35 from a socioeconomic perspective, the
increase in the minimum wage that will result from this legislation
is in fact fair and reasonable. By giving due regard to provincial
and territorial economic conditions the respective increases simply
reaffirm the right of workers to be paid the same minimum wage
for the same kind of work.
I think hon. members will find it self-evident that an attractive
minimum wage adds to incentives for individuals to continue to
work or to seek employment and thus a move toward
self-sufficiency.
Helping the private sector to create jobs is a priority of this
government and while admittedly only a small step, harmonized
minimum wage rates with our provincial partners is definitely a
solid step in the right direction.
Furthermore, hon. members can be assured that the resulting
increases to bring the federal rate in line with respective provincial
and territorial rates will not result in a loss of jobs or encourage
inflation. That is I think self-evident given the small number of
federal minimum wage earners and the fact that virtually all federal
jurisdiction employers pay provincial minimum wage rates.
At the same time, the Government of Canada is not relinquishing
its fiduciary responsibility under the Canada Labour Code. Should
a situation arise where it became necessary, the government retains
the legislative power to regulate a federal minimum wage for the
entire country or in fact for a specific region.
In closing on this subject matter, I would encourage all members
of Parliament on both sides to support Bill C-35. This amendment
to the Canada Labour Code I believe is complementary to the
Minister of Labour's plans to modernize Part III of the Canada
Labour Code. It is legislation I firmly believe is well overdue. It
will demonstrate internationally that Canada is a leader in labour
standards among industrialized nations.
It is this spirit of governing that I think is welcomed by the
people of Canada. I think Canadians have realized that this
government where it sees social and economic injustices tries to
address them through creating a better climate for economic
growth, expanding opportunities for Canadians. There is no
question we made some commitments to the Canadian people three
5903
years ago almost to the day when we sought to become the
government.
Look at some of the issues that we have had to deal with. For
example, Canadians asked for no personal income tax increase.
The government delivered on that promise. They told us to be
unlike the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney which
missed every single deficit target it proposed in every single
budget. The government has in large part achieved the deficit
reduction targets. We are heading toward a balanced budget.
(1640)
The government has reduced its spending which was part and
parcel of its agenda for change. It has created an environment
conducive to job creation. Over 650,000 jobs have been created.
Let me be very clear. I wish the unemployment rate would fall
even further, particularly as it relates to the high unemployment
that young people in our country face today. The government has
made some steps to alleviate the problem. We have increased by 57
per cent, for example, the amount of money and investment we
make with Canada student loans over five years. That is a $2.5
billion commitment by the federal government.
The government has doubled its commitment in summer jobs for
students, fully understanding that summer jobs represent a very
important part of employment prospects for young people. As they
receive a summer job and participate in a summer job these young
people are acquiring valuable skills and also earning money
required for them to return to school.
Above and beyond that, some of the programs I am quite excited
about in relation to young people are Youth Service Canada and the
youth internship program.
The youth internship program is tied to growth industries
through our national sectoral council initiative where we have
identified 33 growth areas in our economy. These areas are creating
approximately 50,000 jobs for our youth. That speaks to the type of
job creation required to make sure sustained economic growth
occurs in our country.
I do not mean to belabour the point but Canada is viewed as one
of the top G-7 countries. We are looking toward perhaps the fastest
growth of any of the G-7 countries. Why is that? We have been able
to increase our exports. We have been able to provide world class
infrastructure for our companies.
The Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade
have taken it upon themselves to market Canada abroad. The
contracts that were generated in the trade missions to China, India,
Pakistan, Malaysia and Latin America have brought home $20
billion of new business. Every $1 billion creates approximately
11,000 jobs in Canada. Mr. Speaker, you would have to admit that
it is really helping the Canadian economy.
The government has been able to keep its promises. It is
reducing the deficit, which is quite important to put the fiscal house
in order. We are expected to rank first, No. 1, in economic growth
of the G-7 countries in 1997. Jobs have been created to the tune of
over 650,000.
I am sure the members of the viewing audience from my riding
of York North want to know how all of this manifests itself at the
local level, which is usually how government policies are gauged
on whether they are having an impact. I am happy to say that in my
riding the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.3 per cent. That is
well below the national average. Over the years we have been able
to build the type of socioeconomic infrastructure that speaks to
three major priorities: youth, trade and technology.
(1645)
We have been able to equip the riding with a type of
infrastructure that speaks to the creation of 21st century jobs which
will be highly skilled, highly paid and will produce the high value
added products we will need if we want to maintain our social
programs and the type of quality of life to which the people in my
area and indeed across the country have grown accustomed.
The infrastructure program has helped our local economy. In my
riding over 1,200 jobs were created as a result of that program. The
program works because it addresses local realities. Working with
provincial counterparts and the municipal governments we were
able to set the local priorities and identify what we should do to
make sure we modernize the infrastructure of the area with the
hope of creating a better quality of life and enhancing job creation.
I have already touched on the issue of youth. Many programs
initiated at the national level have found their way back to the local
level. Whether it is summer jobs for young people, the youth
internship program or Youth Service Canada, these programs are at
the local level.
We need to understand the issue of technology. The government
and its partners have understood the importance of developing and
enhancing a technological revolution in our country. For example,
we are leading the rest of the world with SchoolNet. We know we
are leading the way when all schools and libraries will be
connected. We know we are leading the way in providing good
service and a good infrastructure for future generations.
I have been closely involved with the social security review. We
have done what I think was the proper thing to do. We have
modernized our unemployment insurance program moving toward
an employment insurance program that is much more active and
less passive than it was in the past. We are providing tools for our
5904
unemployed workers which they will need to re-enter the
workforce.
When we look at the new employment insurance program we see
things like wage subsidies; we see skills and loan grants. Greater
opportunities are being created in an active way to ensure that
the-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this bill,
which raises the federal minimum wage rate, has been long awaited
by the people concerned. The federal minimum wage rate is now $4
an hour, compared to $7 in British Columbia, $6.85 in Ontario, and
even $5.25 in Newfoundland.
(1650)
Needless to say, this minimum wage is extremely low, and it is
high time that this so-called modern government adjusted it.
What is interesting is that, in adjusting the minimum wage, the
federal government has chosen-thereby breaking with
tradition-to align it with the minimum wage rate paid in the
province where the employee under federal jurisdiction works.
This is extremely interesting because it shows how, with these
different labour markets and labour laws, when the federal
government does not do the same thing in other areas, workers in
the same province end up with two different labour systems.
As a result, a Quebec worker under federal
jurisdiction-depending on where she works-does not have the
right to preventative withdrawal from work, even if she and her
doctor feel that staying in the workplace might be dangerous for
her and the foetus. The only thing she can do is ask for unpaid
leave. Quebec law allows her to start by asking to be transferred
elsewhere in the business, and if the employer has no job to offer
that does not present a risk to her and the foetus, she can stay home
and wait for the birth while receiving benefits amounting to 90 per
cent of her gross salary.
My point is that the central government should align itself with
the other labour systems and conditions set out in the Canada
Labour Code. We will see what it does after the committee tables
its amendments to the bill and what the minister does with them.
The time when there could be two different systems in the same
province is over.
I should stress that the federal government's decision to align the
federal minimum wage for the workers affected with the minimum
wage in the provinces deserves to be acknowledged. This is a
historical moment.
Why? This is the labour relations professor in me, who sees
values in tracing things back in time. It is in fact interesting to note
that, in the early 1900s, the federal government took steps to
regulate labour conditions. In 1907, the Lemieux act was passed to
try to impose a bargaining system in enterprises that may be
generally described as public-oriented or public sector enterprises.
The Lemieux act was challenged. Finally, the Privy Council in
London-it had not been patriated yet at the time, in 1925, the act
having been passed in 1907-ruled that the provinces should have
jurisdiction over labour relations as well as the standards and acts
dealing with the relationship between individual workers and
businesses within the province.
(1655)
Ever since, this area has come under provincial jurisdiction,
based on the interpretation of the Constitution given by the Privy
Council clearly stating that it should be so.
There was one other time in our history when the central
government attempted to interfere in this area. It must be
recognized that it was for a good cause, at the days when we were
still knee deep in the depression and, in the U.S., President
Roosevelt was just starting to pull his country out of the slump, if
not the recession, with his new deal, establishing the right to
organize, a minimum wage and labour standards for workers. I will
repeat that, in order to pull his country out of the slump in 1993, the
President of the United States of America proposed what we would
call today regulations.
To pull Canada out of the slump, a severe slump, with job
creation only starting to pick up-in fact, the pre-1929 level of
employment was not be regained and clearly exceeded until the
war-the Bennett government also came up, in 1935, with a series
of measures including legislation on the 48-hour work week and
other provisions of the sort.
Basically, as I said, they introduced regulations to ensure that
workers get a larger share of wealth so that, in turn, they could
spend and get the economy rolling again.
I point this out because, as we know, the current economic talk is
to the contrary. So, when you look at history, it is somewhat ironic
to see that the government is trying to overcome the current crisis
by doing exactly the opposite of what helped us put an end to the
Great Depression.
The fact that workers do not get the same treatment in a
province, depending on whether they come under provincial or
federal jurisdiction, has a negative impact.
I make this comment because, as you know, some challenge the
very existence of minimum wage, or want it to be the lowest
possible. It is interesting to note that, in a business,
competitiveness must not be based on the cost of work.
5905
If we accept that the price of hydro and the cost of basic
resources should be the same for all businesses, it only makes
sense that the work itself should also be paid the same price, and
that competitiveness be based on the ability to organize, to choose
good products, to develop them, to innovate, to identify markets
and to benefit from them. Productivity should not be based on a
form of discrimination affecting the price paid for work.
(1700)
So, this legislation is a step in the right direction. However, there
is an issue that remains unresolved, namely the implementation of
federal and provincial minimum wage laws.
One has to realize that, even if there is a minimum wage act in
effect, pressures can be exerted on workers so that they do not ask
to be paid this minimum wage or, if one does not want to directly
contravene the act, one can pay minimum wages to workers and
then demand money back under the table.
Such practices have been reported many times. We know they
exist. So, any pressure to help restore the balance in favour of
workers is welcome. It is important to note that consumption plays
a major role in the economy.
As you know, I worked very hard to make sure that all those who
can work are able to find jobs and to ensure that job creation is a
concern to all. However, when well-paying jobs are not available,
people earning minimum wages, and also UI and welfare
recipients, help the economy, since their money goes directly into
it.
I will just take 30 seconds out to greet you, Mr. Speaker. Is this
your first time in the chair, Mr. Speaker? I am talking to you. I
believe this is your first time in the chair.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Yes, it is.
Mrs. Lalonde: That is why I am greeting you. You have thrown
me off my stride slightly, but I will try to interest you, and I will
take this opportunity to say that when members speak in a House
with the composition of this one, it is always interesting to have the
Speaker take an interest in our remarks, even if he does not agree
with them. I am quite aware that it does not matter whether or not
the Speaker agrees with what we are saying, but I feel that his
interest is very supportive for members who rise to speak and to try
to defend the interests of their constituents and of the public
generally.
That being said, I will return to what I was saying about the
federal minimum wage bill, which will bring the wage paid
workers in areas under federal jurisdiction into line with that paid
in areas under provincial jurisdiction. I was saying, then, that those
who are not in agreement with a decent minimum wage should
remember that all those without an income, wherever they may be,
are largely responsible for driving the economy, particularly in
slow periods. You do not invest in Honolulu on a minimum wage.
Your investments are limited to paying your grocery bills and
buying the necessities of life for your children.
(1705)
I would also like to take this opportunity to draw attention to
something that is extremely troubling. In one of the latest
publications of the OECD, the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development, of which Canada is a member, one
of 28 members, there is a table showing the percentage of low wage
earners in all OECD countries. Believe it or not, Canada has the
second highest, right after the United States. This is very troubling.
Obviously, when you realize that the minimum federal wage is
$4, you might say it is understandable. However, I know that this
category of minimum wage earners is so small in number that it
could not have had an impact; nonetheless, the fact that Canada is
the second country after the United States with regard to the
prevalence of low wages is significant.
But worse yet, Canada is the country were the gap between
incomes in the first quintile and the fifth quintile is the widest. This
means that on a income scale of five, it is in Canada that the gap is
the widest, wider that in the United States. This is what I noticed in
that same table. I know that the OECD compiles statistics from
data freely provided by member countries.
This is an extremely disturbing fact, which makes this bill even
more necessary, even though it is only a tiny drop in the bucket.
This is not all. The parliamentary secretary stressed how
important the reform he called ``updating the employment
insurance'' was. I would like to mention two things. According to a
report published yesterday by Statistics Canada, its second job
survey-it conducts two surveys, one by phone to compile the
monthly statistics and a more lengthy one using employers's
payrolls-shows that in the past year the net job loss in Ontario was
50,000 while it was 34,000 in Quebec, this according to payroll
data.
This is in blatant contradiction with the government's boastful
pat-on-the-back attitude with regard to the economic situation. The
truth is ordinary people do not believe the recession is over, no
matter what statistics say. The truth is there has never been such a
wide gap among Canadians in terms of income, as shown by the
statistics published by the OECD.
The truth is averages often hide gaps which might be extreme,
which brings us back to basics, namely, the situation of those in
need. This in turn brings us back to the need for job creation.
I will not be able to talk long about the fact that the employment
insurance premiums now required of SMEs which were previously
exempted for employees working less than 15 hours are having a
5906
serious impact on these businesses, as is the case in my riding and
as my constituents told me this week.
In conclusion, I will say that this bill is long overdue, but that it
is only a drop in the bucket to improve the situation of ordinary
people and promote job creation.
(1710)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): At the request of the chief
government whip, the vote is deferred until 5.30 p.m. this day.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-34, an act to
establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products, to
repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Agricultural
Products Cooperative Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for
Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There are three motions in
amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill
C-34.
[Translation]
Motion No. 1 cannot be submitted to the House as it did not
receive the Governor General's recommendation. Standing Order
76(3) requires that notice be given of the said recommendation no
later than the sitting day before the day on which the report stage is
to commence.
[English]
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate. A vote on
Motion No. 2 applies to Motion No. 3.
[Translation]
I will now submit to the House Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will be lenient and give me 11
minutes because I would like to take a minute to congratulate you
on your appointment to the chair. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you were
listening to my speech last night and while I had some concerns
about the way that you were appointed to the chair and the fact that
it broke some Liberal promises, we certainly do respect your ability
and we wish you well in that position. I hope you get your outfit in
time for Hallowe'en. I am sure you will look very officious in the
chair in your outfit.
I do have to admit that you were one of the best hecklers, one of
the most aggressive hecklers on the other side and it will certainly
be a change for you to be sitting in the chair. We know that you will
restrain yourself and we will miss that boisterous echo we used to
hear from the other side. Sincerely, congratulations and we wish
you well.
I rise today to discuss Bill C-34, important agricultural
legislation that proposes the amalgamation within the various
sectors of agriculture marketing. As my colleagues are aware, this
bill will combine four separate agricultural acts and one program
into a single act.
(1715 )
Reform generally supports this motion in principle. However
there needs to be some amendments in order for the act to best
assist farmers, financial institutions and other organizations that
are affected by the act.
We brought some amendments to the committee. By the way, the
bill followed the new route that you, Mr. Speaker, so heartily
endorsed. The bill went to committee prior to second reading in the
hope that there would be more opportunity for amendments in
committee.
5907
Unfortunately, the amendments were not accepted by the
government side. We were a bit surprised. We thought perhaps
under the new formula at least some amendments would be
accepted but they were discarded without any due consideration.
We really do feel badly about that because some of them were
excellent amendments. I believe they all were, but certainly some
of them were.
We have put three amendments forward today. Mr. Speaker, you
correctly ruled that the first amendment cannot be considered
because it did not receive a royal recommendation. That is
unfortunate because the minister and government had the
opportunity to grant it a royal recommendation and we could have
at least debated this amendment in the House. I do not know why
the Liberal government is afraid to debate new ideas in this House,
why it would use the technicality of rejecting a royal
recommendation to get itself off the hook.
Our first amendment would have permitted in cases of
emergency where an emergency advance was issued on an
agricultural commodity, that $25,000 would be included in part of
the $50,000 interest free portion of the cash advance. The rationale
and the thinking of the Liberals on this issue is beyond logic. Here
we have a bill which suggests that a $50,000 interest free cash
advance be provided to producers on the first $50,000 that they
accept in advance and that interest be paid on subsequent amounts
advanced, up to a maximum of $250,000.
If there is an emergency, if there is trouble in the industry, if
there are dire situations, when the farmer is down and out, does the
Liberal government extend any consideration? No, it gives them a
knock out punch. The government says if there is an emergency
situation, $25,000 will be advanced but it will not be interest free.
If the government allowed the $25,000 to be advanced and said:
``You pay interest but the next $50,000 will put you on par with
other producers who qualify for $50,000 interest free'', that would
be fine, but the Liberals did not see it that way. They said: ``If there
is an emergency, we will just knock the farmers a little harder. We
will try to keep them down and we will charge them more interest
than we will charge farmers who are not facing an emergency''.
This is blatantly unfair.
I do not understand why the Liberals were afraid to debate this
issue in the House, why the minister would not permit a royal
recommendation to my first amendment that was tabled in the
Notice Paper. He chose not to and he will have to answer and be
accountable to producers for his actions.
I want to get to the second and third amendments which were
grouped together. In a nutshell, these two amendments eliminate
the government purchases program. This program has not been
used for years. The last time it was used was in 1985. It has only
been used once or twice in the last 20 or 30 years. It is a relic. It is a
bit like the Conservative Party; it had its day, but it is gone.
We asked the officials why the government purchases program is
in the new legislation, the new reorganization of cash advances.
They said they did not know why it was there but that maybe
sometime they would have to use it. It is the same as saying that
maybe sometime we will have to impose the speed limits on horses
and buggies that are in the bylaws. We may just have to use that
sometime.
Knowing the way government works, I am sure they need a few
bureaucrats in charge of the government purchases program even if
it is not being used. Therefore they will expend some money just to
monitor the situation. Of course that will be money that cannot be
spent in more useful areas.
The government purchases program provides the minister with
wide ranging authority to buy, sell or import agricultural products,
to stabilize domestic market conditions and to conclude sales to
other governments or government agencies.
I have heard members from the other side worry about vertical
integration in the agriculture sector. If members want to talk about
vertical integration, this is it. The government can be in total
control: buy, sell, import products. This is not a good situation. The
federal government has no business being in a government
purchases program for agricultural products. It is not using the
program. It is history. It is ancient. It should not have been included
in the bill. All it will do is provide work for a few people in the
department when they could be better expending their energies in
another area.
(1720)
Therefore we brought forward very reasonable amendments
which would delete this part of the bill. Those two clauses are the
only clauses which deal with the government purchases program
and we believe they should be deleted.
We talked about the wide ranging power that it gives to the
minister. It also affords zero accountability. Although there are no
resources budgeted to this program, the government has been
unable to adequately justify continuing it by entrenching it in the
new legislation.
There is some unusual terminology in it which quite frankly
could not be defined. They could not say what unusual market
conditions were.
Given the technology at the end of the 20th century as we
approach the 21st century, any attempt to justify the continuation of
this program is shallow to say the least.
Ten minutes is not a lot of time in which to discuss the bill.
However, we did talk about other areas of the bill as well as the
government purchases program and the fact that the emergency
5908
advance should be interest free. We will have an opportunity to
debate those issues further at third reading.
We were concerned about the fact that the minister has the power
to increase the contingent liability. We made the argument in
committee that if the contingent liability needs to be increased, that
means the industry is doing well. It does not mean there is a crisis
or an emergency; it means that producers' income is increasing. We
felt that there should be provisions in the bill which would make
the minister more accountable to the industry and to the House with
respect to the contingent liability.
We were concerned about the fact that there was some inequity
in the bill. Not all producers and organizations were treated
equally. It seemed the problem was the Canadian Wheat Board. It
has a higher default level than other producer organizations and
administrators who administer the cash advances. Because it could
not get its act together quickly enough, it was provided with special
provisions to account for its difficulties. That of course is to the
detriment of other sectors within the industry. When we favour one
group we always hurt someone else.
The penalty for default on Canadian Wheat Board advances was,
I believe, based at zero per cent while others were higher. The
Canadian Wheat Board was given a two-year period to get its act
together. I would have thought that the Canadian Wheat Board,
being the wonderful institution that it is, would have had its act
together more quickly and would have been administering the cash
advances on a more prudent basis.
I would ask the House to consider the two amendments to
eliminate the government purchases program. We believe it is the
prudent thing to do. This is 1996. Why are we implementing
something that should not be used and probably will not be used?
However, it is in this piece of legislation and it requires the
attention of the department. It requires consideration from time to
time simply because it is in the legislation.
I ask the House to consider supporting the two amendments
under consideration at the present time.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair. I have watched
over the past eight years and have seen how well you follow
parliamentary procedure and how good you are in that area. I know
that you will be a bonus to the House and that you will administer
your job in an extremely good manner. Congratulations.
The motion before us is to delete clause 31 of the agricultural
marketing programs bill. The deletion of clause 31 in effect deletes
part III which deals with the government purchases program. This
part provides the authority that is currently contained in the
Agricultural Products Board Act. The only amendment being made
to that act is the removal of the board to administer the act.
(1725)
The government purchases program gives the government the
flexibility to deal with special purchases, but only with governor in
council approval. Authority of this nature is not available in other
pieces of legislation. The authority would cover the following:
To sell Canadian grown agricultural products to other
governments or government agencies. This authority is very
important when making trade deals with countries that are not
comfortable in dealing with private industry within another
country. Such marketing opportunities will be lost without this
flexibility. The deletion of this authority will eliminate sales made
to central planned economies and other countries where for various
reasons the intergovernmental sales are required. For example, in
1990 and 1991, $16.5 million of pork was sold to the USSR under
this act.
To remove the surplus product from a depressed market
generally caused by unusually large production, to be sold back
into the market at a later date when market stability has returned.
For example in 1993 due to unusual weather conditions a large
surplus of juice apples were processed into apple concentrate and
sold into a different market through this act, allowing the apple
juice market to stabilize.
To provide emergency food aid to countries not named under the
Canadian International Development Act. The act was used for this
purpose as recently as 1990-91 and again in 1991-92.
Under the act the government cannot sell the product for a lower
price than the purchase price plus costs, without the approval of
governor in council. Since there is no such budget attached to this
part of the act, ministers through GIC approval would have to
approve any funds for this part.
The major changes and liberalizations in international and
domestic trade still leave a need for programs of this nature to
facilitate international transactions and to help stabilize domestic
markets where unusual conditions exist. Therefore it is the
recommendation of myself and the government to defeat this
motion.
With regard to the motion to delete clause 36, this clause
describes the penalties that result from failure to provide
information under the government purchases program. For the
proper administration of this program, it is essential that the
government be provided with sufficient accurate information to be
able to determine the need to use this program in any particular
circumstance. This clause is essential to ensure the provision of
this information.
5909
Clause 36 is linked to clause 31. The arguments for keeping
clause 31 apply equally to the retention of this clause. It is
therefore the recommendation of the government to defeat the
motion.
I want to correct a point that was made by my hon. colleague
across the way when he introduced his motion. It was on the
emergency funding of $25,000. That emergency funding would be
rolled into the $50,000 under the present act and would well
support any emergency dollars, plus give the benefit that is equal
under the act consistent to all farmers in the country. I think a very
great misinterpretation has been given to that aspect of the act.
Quite frankly, I am not clear why the member did that.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35,
an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum wage), be read
the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-35, an act
to amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum wage).
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 151)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Althouse
Anderson
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Crawford
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Zed-148
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-30
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bélisle
Canuel
Cohen
Cowling
Crête
de Savoye
Duceppe
English
Gallaway
Guay
Jacob
Lefebvre
Maloney
McCormick
Murphy
Pettigrew
Pomerleau
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Torsney
Wood
5910
(1755)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
[English]
It being after 5.30 o'clock the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5910
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1800)
[Translation]
The House resumed from June 20, 1996, consideration of the
motion and of the amendment.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the motion submitted by my colleague, the
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, should be rejected.
However, I will not criticize it too harshly because I would not
want to curtail the new enthusiasm of the member for the renewal
of our federation. I would like to tell the member that, even tough I
cannot approve the substance of the motion, I agree wholeheartedly
with the intention behind it.
I can easily understand why my colleague from the official
opposition believes it is worthwhile to renew the country. I am
happy that he would make such efforts to represent the majority of
Quebecers who support the renewal of our federation.
A poll conducted last March for CBC and Radio-Canada showed
that 60 per cent of Quebecers believe that premier Bouchard should
work hand in hand with the federal government and the other
provinces towards renewing the federation.
Why is it that a majority of Quebecers believe that Canada is
worth renewing? Because, year after year, the United Nations rank
Canada as the first country in the world as far as quality of life is
concerned and fifth among advanced countries for per capita
income.
For the past 30 years, from 1960 to 1990, Canada has been
second among the G-7 countries in the area of economic growth.
For three years now, Canada has had the second lowest inflation
rate among the G-7 countries. Our inflation rate is lower than those
of France, Germany and the United States.
Since the election of the Liberal government in 1993, the overall
unemployment rate has decreased and at least 650,000 new jobs
have been created.
The GDP shows that Canada's financial situation is improving
more rapidly than that of other G-7 countries. In 1997, Canada will
have the lowest total deficit to GDP ratio of all the G-7 countries. It
will be lower than the one in France, in the United States and in
Germany.
Canada has the reputation internationally of being a tolerant and
open country, which makes all of us very proud. Canadians are
recognized all over the world for their commitment toward the
values of justice, compassion and solidarity.
As the French Minister of Culture indicated last May: ``Canada
is an example of successful answers to questions that are being
asked in each of our societies''.
However, I do not mean by that that we should be complacent,
far from it. In response to the desire expressed by Quebecers and
other Canadians for the renewal and modernization of the
federation, the Government of Canada has undertaken a wide series
of initiatives. These initiatives will ensure us that the federal
system will operate at its full capacity, thus allowing us to face the
future challenges with much confidence.
(1805)
We have a firm renewal plan for the country and we are on the
right track regarding our plans.
Within the Liberal plan for the renewal of the federation, we are
working toward a more effective balance of roles and
responsibilities between the federal government and the provinces.
At the premiers' meeting last June, our initiatives were well
received by the great majority of provincial premiers and, in some
cases, they were approved unanimously. Provincial premiers took
action to follow up on these initiatives during the annual
conference of provincial premiers in Jasper.
We proposed to transfer the responsibility of all active
employment measures funded by the employment insurance fund
to the provinces, which, in many cases, want a greater control over
manpower development. This provides the provinces the
opportunity to manage the some $2 billion that the federal
government spends each year on employment assistance measures.
This means that, if they so wish, the provinces will be free to
implement their own programs in areas such as wage subsidies, job
counselling and placement.
Our government is also willing to withdraw from mining and
forestry development, thus allowing the provinces to develop their
own programs in these sectors of activity, according to their
priorities and to local needs. We also propose to transfer the
administrative authority over social housing to the provinces, as
well as the $1.9 billion used to fund this sector.
5911
Last May, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment, including the Quebec Minister, decided to work
toward a detailed multilateral umbrella agreement between the
government of Canada and the provincial ministers of the
environment. That agreement was to ensure a healthier
environment for Canadians. A better clarification of the roles and
responsibilities of everyone involved would help to reduce the
operational costs of the private sector. Lower costs for the
companies would not only ensure better protection for our
environment, but would also mean more money for these
companies to create jobs.
We are not only focusing on national issues. We are also trying to
meet the specific needs of each and every one of the provinces.
For instance, in the weeks following the conference of the first
ministers, the federal government and the government of British
Columbia signed an agreement on a very important issue for many
residents of that province. Both governments agreed to a detailed
bilateral review of the roles and responsibilities of the federal and
provincial governments in the management of the Pacific salmon
fishery. Recently, the premier of British Columbia said that
significant progress had been made and that the Prime Minister of
Canada was to be praised for his contribution to this issue.
All the initiatives I mentioned stem from our willingness to build
a much more efficient federation. However, efficiency cannot in
itself renew our federation. A modern federation needs to be
flexible. And I am glad to say that we have also made progress in
that direction.
The Canada health and social transfer is a good example.
Provinces used to receive federal transfers for social assistance
under the Canada Assistance Plan and funding for health and
post-secondary education under Established Programs Financing.
These programs were subject to complex rules that determined, for
example, which expenditures were eligible to a share of public
assistance. In summary, the whole system was quite cumbersome.
This is why, last April, the federal government replaced these
two different types of transfer by a block fund called the Canada
health and social transfer.
(1810)
This fund will give more leeway to provinces in the design and
implementation of their social programs.
Moreover, we have made a commitment to provide stable and
predictable financing into the next century. The new transfer will
help provinces plan health, welfare, and post-secondary education
in an orderly fashion.
We are making these moves to renew the Canadian federation in
order to meet the expectations of the vast majority of Quebecers
and other Canadians who want their federal, provincial and local
governments to work in a spirit of co-operation to meet the
challenges of the next century.
With these comments, I congratulate the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup on his efforts to renew our
federation. I hope his attitude will prove contagious with his
colleagues in the official opposition.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to be here to address you in the chair this afternoon,
sir. I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motion No. 221 put
forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
As I travel throughout my constituency and performing my
duties as a member in other parts of the country, I am amazed at
how distrustful and concerned people are at the way politics are
being carried out. One of the popular topics of discussion is
integrity. People are determined that their leaders and their
institutions be responsive to their needs and to their wishes.
Presently Canadians are very distrustful. There is an air of
cynicism that I find disheartening. People put little or no faith in
the promises of politicians or the activities of political institutions.
Every time an election comes around so do the politicians,
making all kinds of promises that are sure to be broken when no
longer convenient. That is the attitude that people express. People
want their leaders and their political institutions to represent
themselves accurately and to be accountable to the people they
represent.
That is why the debate today on the Senate is such an important
one. The Senate is a political institution that has for far too long
neglected the needs and the interests of Canadians. It is an
institution that is accountable to political parties, nothing else and
no one else. That must change. Our country needs servants of the
people, not servants of political parties.
The solution to the Senate accountability problem is not Senate
abolition. The solution is Senate reform. For this reason, the
Reform Party and I cannot support Motion No. 221, although we
understand the frustration that motivates the presentation of this
motion.
Before I discuss the reason Reform cannot support this motion,
let me give a brief background, if I may, about the Senate. Every
large nation, such as Canada, with an uneven population
distribution, must find a way to balance and effectively represent
the interests of both the thinly populated and the heavily populated
regions of the country in national decision making. To meet this
challenge, the architects of Canada chose the classic federal system
of government, that is, they established two levels of government,
one national and the other provincial, with a division of powers
between the two.
5912
(1815 )
A democratic bicameral national Parliament was also formed in
which the composition of the lower house, the House of Commons,
is based on representation by population. The composition of the
upper house, the Senate, is based on representation by region.
Legislative proposals do not become law until they are approved by
both houses.
The purpose of the Senate is to represent the regions of the
country, especially those sparsely populated regions which have
fewer seats in the House of Commons than the more heavily
populated regions such as southern Ontario and southern Quebec.
Therefore if the Senate were abolished there would be absolutely
no way of safeguarding the interests of the thinly populated areas
of the country. That is the major reason that we cannot support
Motion No. 221.
I know the argument will be raised that the Senate does not
represent the interests of the regions as it now stands anyway, so let
us just abolish the Senate. I understand that frustration. The people
who argue this point are absolutely correct about one thing: the
status quo is not good enough.
The Senate exists today as an ineffective and unaccountable
institution. It does not balance the interests of the thinly populated
resource producing regions of the country such as the west, central
and northern B.C., the north, Atlantic Canada, rural and northern
Ontario and Quebec. It does not balance these areas with those
heavily populated regions of southern Ontario and southern
Quebec.
There are two reasons for the Senate's ineffectiveness and lack
of accountability. First, the Senate is undemocratic. Its members
are appointed by the Prime Minister and it has become the
patronage heaven for old and tired politicians and political
fundraisers. Senators are accountable to no one except their
political party.
Second, the Senate is regionally unbalanced. That is, almost 50
per cent of senators come from the already more heavily populated
regions of the country. How with our present Senate can the thinly
populated areas of Canada like rural British Columbia have
balanced representation with Ontario and Quebec? It is impossible.
We have seen over the years many examples where decisions
have been made by Parliament that have weighed heavily in favour
of central Canada. Last year the federal government secured
parliamentary approval for Bill C-68 on universal gun registration
and the distinct society clause for Quebec. In the 1980s the national
energy program, the Meech Lake constitutional proposals, official
languages legislation and the CF-18 decision all received
parliamentary approval. These policies and decisions completely
ignored
the interests and desires of many Canadians living in the thinly
populated regions of Canada.
The Senate is an ineffective body. However, as I mentioned a
moment ago, the solution to the Senate's ineffectiveness is not
abolition. Abolishing the Senate would leave no means of
balancing and effectively representing the interests of both the
thinly populated and the heavily populated regions of the country
in the national decision making process.
Most important, however, abolition of the Senate is not what
Canadians want. I sent out a questionnaire in my riding earlier this
year about the Senate. I asked people whether all future senators
should be elected before being appointed by the Prime Minister.
Eighty-four per cent of those who responded said yes. Let me read
some of the comments which accompanied these responses.
A lady from Eagle Creek, British Columbia wrote: ``The Senate
should be much more regional in its make-up''. A person from
Clinton, British Columbia wrote: ``The Senate has been stacked
with people used to further the agenda of the government of the
day, which has not always been good for the country''.
A man from Williams Lake, British Columbia wrote: ``The
Senate has proven to be ineffective''. Another person from
Williams Lake wrote: ``An elected Senate would mean that. The
Senate vote would be a truer vote than the one taken by the Prime
Minister's cronies''.
(1820)
A couple from the 106 Mile Ranch in British Columbia wrote:
``Stop political patronage''. A man from 100 Mile House, B.C.,
wrote: ``I feel that an elected, more equal, more effective Senate
would be a good thing''.
The Reform Party of Canada has been listening to these voices
and the voices of many other Canadians who want their political
leaders and institutions to be more accountable, who want the
Senate to truly represent regional interests and who want the Senate
reformed, not abolished.
The Reform Party of Canada has developed a plan to help
Canadians. This plan is detailed in our fresh start program. It is
called a fresh start guarantee. This guarantee will give Canadians
the tools to ensure that politicians and political institutions will be
accountable to the Canadian people. These tools include recall,
freer votes, referendums and citizens' initiatives. Most important,
our fresh start guarantee will include a commitment to achieve
Senate reform, not Senate abolition.
Senate reform means a triple-E Senate, a Senate that is elected
with equal representation per province and with effective power to
5913
represent regional interests. To my Liberal colleagues, the Prime
Minister even supports the triple-E Senate reform. He said in his
speech to the House of Commons in 1991: ``To meet the hopes and
dreams of those who live in the west and in the Atlantic, a reformed
Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and
equal''.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me take this occasion to say how happy I am to see you
in your place.
I propose that Motion No. 221, tabled by my colleague, the hon.
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, be rejected for a
number of reasons. However, let me say how pleased I am that by
proposing an amendment to this fine institution the Bloc is
recognizing the legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution.
Opening up the constitutional debate at this time, even for the
purpose of abolishing the Senate, is far removed from the concerns
and aspirations of ordinary Canadians. Indeed it is unfortunate that
the Bloc is ignoring the real needs of its constituents who are
looking for jobs, who want to achieve a decent standard of living,
who are concerned about the future of social programs and who
want their governments to work together constructively.
On this side of the House we firmly believe that job creation,
economic and social development should be the top priorities of all
elected members. They are the top priorities of Canadians.
Since the Liberals were elected we have kept our commitment to
work toward the creation of a climate for opportunity for
Canadians. We have put forward tangible measures to help make
government more efficient, renew the federation, keep the country
united and forge new partnerships with the provinces. All
Canadians, including Quebecers, want change. They want Canada
to work better. They want the different orders of government to be
more efficient and to fulfil their respective roles more effectively.
Much of it can be done without constitutional amendment.
Accordingly, the government has made a commitment to
modernize the federation step by step, focusing on co-operation
with the provinces and territories to serve Canadians better.
Canadians have said they want to see government roles and
responsibilities clarified, and the government has responded. We
are withdrawing from areas of activity that are more appropriately
the responsibility of the provinces or the private sector, forestry,
mining development, recreation and some aspects of transport.
In the area of labour market training the government submitted a
proposal to the provinces in May and this enables them to takeover
responsibility for active employment assistance measures. The
provinces can therefore, if they wish, manage the approximately
$1.9 billion per year the federal government currently spends on
active employment assistance measures and implement their own
programs such as wage subsidies, income supplements,
self-employment assistance and private sector job creation
partnerships, as well as many other labour services such as
screening and job counselling.
(1825 )
The framework we are putting in place will provide a maximum
flexibility for the provinces, making it possible to meet local and
regional needs more effectively.
At this June's first ministers meeting, new avenues for
partnership with the provinces were explored, including initiatives
in the fields of social housing, freshwater fish habitat and
environmental management.
In the area of social housing, negotiations have started with the
provinces including Quebec on the orderly transfer of social
housing management and the billions in grants that go with it.
In the sector of freshwater fish habitat, the federal government
tabled a bill in the House of Commons on October 3 to amend the
Fisheries Act. This bill will substantially modernize and update the
legal framework for fisheries, conservation and habitat
management in Canada. It will allow industry, including fisher
people, to participate directly in fisheries management through
partnership agreements. Discussions are under way with interested
provinces.
With respect to the environment, the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment adopted a work plan on May 31
which was approved by the first ministers meeting on June 20 and
21 to strengthen co-operation and eliminate duplication while
maintaining the highest standards. Progress was made on
developing a framework agreement, setting out principles and
objectives for co-operation between the federal and provincial
governments. Progress was also made on negotiating two
subsidiary agreements on effective inspection and high
environmental standards.
With the Canada health and social transfer we have also ensured
that the principles of the Canada Health Act will be respected
throughout the country. In this way we will ensure the universality
of health insurance and social programs in line with our
commitments and the values that Canadians cherish.
The government has also for the first time in history made a
commitment to limit its spending power. We have said that we will
no longer use that power to establish new, cost shared programs in
areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the
majority of the provinces. Provinces which do not wish to
participate but which nevertheless choose to implement a
comparable program will be compensated.
The Bloc should acknowledge that our plans for renewal are
serious, concrete and affect the day to day realities of all Canadians
including those it represents.
5914
A bill has been tabled to bring all food inspection services,
comprising 4,500 employees, under one body. This move is yet
another step toward working more effectively with provincial
agencies to set up a co-operative Canada-wide food inspection
system that will lessen the regulatory burden on the food industry.
Discussions are continuing with those provinces interested in
this project and in other federal-provincial joint initiatives such as
a national revenue collection body and a national securities
commission.
All our initiatives will help eliminate overlap and duplication,
thus yielding substantial savings and more efficient services for
Canadians.
Canadians from coast to coast want their government to make
the country work better. They want their governments to put their
public finances in order, improve economic growth and bring about
an economic climate conducive to job creation. In fact, I am
surprised to see that Bloc, in tabling this motion, is out of touch
with the concerns of the very people it represents.
For its part, this government is already working closely with the
provinces and all its social and economic partners to explore new
options and find new ways to do things so as to serve Canadians
better and respond to their immediate concerns.
I therefore consider the motion tabled today by the hon. member
from Rivière-du-Loup to be inappropriate. For that reason, I call on
the House to reject it.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. But
first, allow me to congratulate you on your election to your
position. I know that it was arduous but, nevertheless, I think the
majority of the members of the House have recognized your
qualifications, and I am happy to join with my colleagues in
wishing you every success in your new duties.
(1830)
That being said, I repeat that I am pleased to take part in this
debate. I know this issue is of great interest to you, Mr. Speaker,
since, together with some of my colleagues, I have already had the
opportunity to debate with you in this House the appropriateness of
maintaining the institution we call the other place, the Senate.
I listened very carefully to the remarks made by some colleagues
from the Liberal Party, the hon. member for
Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, whose remarks I will get back to
later, and the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
Incidentally, in the case of my hon. colleague for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury, with all due respect I have for him
in certain circumstances, if a rule of relevance applied in these
debates, I think you would have interrupted him very early in his
speech to call him to order because, from what I understood of his
remarks, except for blaming the Bloc for putting forward the
motion that is before the House, he confined himself to masking
the facts with regard to the reform of our institutions, the reform of
federalism.
He set out a series of measures that, according to him, would
have the advantage of improving the efficectiveness of our
federation. The reality is altogether different.
However, I want to get back to the issue we are debating now, the
motion put forward by my hon. colleague for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup that, in essence, asks for the
abolition, the end of the Senate. First I want to congratulate my
colleague on this initiative, since, contrary to what our Liberal
friends may suggest, it answers an often repeated wish by all our
fellow citizens in Quebec, for sure, but also in the whole country.
When we talk to people back in our ridings, there are tens and
hundreds who ask us to demand that the Senate simply be
abolished. Why? For several reasons.
First, the Senate's provincial counterparts-everybody
remembers the legislative councils that existed in each and every
province with basically the same role as the Senate-the legislative
councils were abolished one after the other in all the Canadian
provinces. The legislative council was abolished in Quebec in the
late 1960s.
What happened after the legislative councils were abolished in
the provinces? There was no revolution, at least not in Quebec.
Nobody started fights on buses or got in a state because the
legislative council had been abolished. On the contrary, nobody,
maybe with the exception of the members of these legislative
councils and their entourage, realized in the end that these
institutions had disappeared. We can also question the usefulness
of that institution of the Senate.
If we were to go back to the time when the Liberal members
were in opposition and read their speeches, we would certainly find
that some of them shared our point of view on the usefulness or
lack thereof of the Senate.
In the last years, the auditor general criticized repeatedly the
workings of the Senate. He criticized the fact that some funds go to
the maintenance of this institution.
(1835)
Last May, I rose to speak on a motion by one of my colleagues
who criticized the use of tens of millions of dollars to this end. Year
in and year out, the institution of the Senate has a budget of over
$40 million.
There are now in our society people who cannot afford to feed
their children or clothe them for school or other activities. Every-
5915
day in Montreal, in all of Quebec's and Canada's major cities and
even in the smallest ones, we see people having to go to food
banks, to organizations which will feed them at least a minimum.
Everyone acknowledges that the economic situation we are living
in at the present time is a difficult one.
This very morning in Quebec, as we speak, yesterday rather,
marked the opening of a summit bringing together all those
involved in the socio-economic sector in Quebec. They will be
spending three days discussing how to improve the situation of all
of our fellow citizens, particularly those who are the least well off,
in order to find ways of getting them jobs, in order to provide them
with quality government services. During this exercise, which is
being held in Quebec right now, but could be held anywhere in
Canada, efforts will also be made to find ways of doing less harm to
the disadvantaged during the process of putting our public finances
on a better footing.
Meanwhile, the unemployed and people on welfare are being
asked to tighten their belts even more so that we can have a zero
deficit, but when these good people come home at night and watch
television, when they watch the newscast, they will realize that, at
the federal level, we are maintaining an institution that although
there are some senators who are competent and have experienced,
and are trying to do a good job for our country, nevertheless, the
most vulnerable in our society who watch this debate will realize
that we are maintaining an institution which the vast majority of
the population feels is completely useless.
So the hon. member's motion is a very important one. And when
we in the Bloc Quebecois ask for the abolition of the Senate, we do
not want to renew federalism, we do not want to get involved in a
process to renew the federation, we are simply making the point
that money are spent on this institution could be better spent
elsewhere.
That is what we are saying to the federal government. Instead of
cutting payments to the most vulnerable in our society, as we have
seen in the last three budgets of the Minister of Finance who, year
after year, has cut unemployment insurance and transfer payments
to the provinces for welfare, post-secondary education and health
care, we say again to this government: clean up your act and do
something about your own institutions.
So the motion moved by the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup is a piece of advice to the
government on how to save money, and they can do that by
abolishing the Senate. Take this money and let it be used to help the
people who need it most in our society. That is how we should
understand my colleague's motion.
If hon. members would set aside partisan considerations and go
to their ridings and listen to their constituents, they would hear
from them, day after day and week after week, that this motion
makes sense. I sincerely hope that the government will take this
into consideration before the next election.
(1840 )
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
before I begin, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment
to the chair. It is a much deserved appointment and I know you will
serve this House and the people of Canada very well.
Canadians have mixed feelings about the Senate. There are three
attitudes: those who feel it should be abolished; others who say no,
it should be maintained but elected; still others who are happy with
the status quo.
Let me remind everyone that this House cannot simply act
unilaterally to abolish the Senate. That would require a very
complex series of constitutional negotiations involving the
provinces and could only be affected through an amendment to the
Constitution. Therefore Motion M-221, which proposes that the
government should abolish the Senate, is not something that we can
do and it should be rejected by the House.
I find myself wondering how many letters the members of the
Bloc have received from their constituents recently demanding that
they spend their time pushing for the abolition of the Senate. Are
the cafes on Quebec's Grande-Allée or Montreal's rue St. Laurent
abuzz with discussions on the future of the upper Chamber? I think
not.
I suspect that if the members sitting opposite to me listened to
their constituents with a little more care they would find that the
people in their ridings are much more interested in other issues:
economic growth, job creation, government deficits, protecting our
social programs and medicare, and relaunching the economy of
Montreal to name a few.
Their constituents would be pleased to know that the Liberal
government shares these concerns, even if their elected members in
the official opposition have become somewhat out of touch.
Since elected, the federal government has been getting its fiscal
house in order. During the election in 1993 it was clear that this was
a major concern for all Canadians. We responded.
According to forecasts the objective for 1997-98 of reducing the
deficit to $17 billion or 2 per cent of GDP will be met, down $25
billion from 1993-94 when the deficit we inherited represented 6
per cent of GDP.
Thanks in large part to the measures taken by the federal
government to put public finances in order, interest rates have
dropped 17 times in the last 17 months. Lower interest rates mean
that more benefits will be generated than any program or tax cut
could possibly bring in. For ordinary Canadians, this means that
5916
someone renewing a $100,000 one-year mortgage will save over
$3,000 a year. In addition, the lower interest rates have been a big
help to the provinces in reaching their deficit reduction objectives.
Between January 1995 and June 1996 the provinces saved $1.3
billion in debt servicing charges. Quebec alone saved some $625
million.
The Liberal government knows that Canadians want to work.
That is why we have been working so hard with our provincial
partners to promote a climate favourable for job creation. Our
efforts I am pleased to say have met with success.
Certainly there is more to be done. We all know that. But no less
than 650,000 new jobs have been created in the Canadian economy
since the government took office. Unemployment is under 10 per
cent for the first time in half a decade. These are achievements of
which all Canadians can feel proud.
Internationally Canada's reputation as a country with low
inflation is beginning to attract notice. In December 1993 the
federal government and the Bank of Canada set a target to keep
inflation between 1 and 3 per cent through the end of 1998 and we
are on target.
Having a good international reputation like this is vital for
Canada's economy and that of the provinces.
In recent years, exports have been the main engine of the
economic growth necessary to decrease our unemployment levels
even further. An important part of our strategy for promoting
exports has been our Team Canada trade missions.
Their value is widely appreciated. It is certainly hoped that all 10
provincial premiers this time will be accompanying Canada's
Prime Minister and a large delegation of Canadian business people
on the next mission to Korea, Thailand and the Philippines.
During the missions to date, Canadian businesses have
announced 369 business deals worth some $20 billion.
Furthermore, Canadians have had the opportunity to see what the
federal government, the provincial governments and the private
sector can achieve when working in a spirit of co-operation.
Canadians want their country to work like this. They want their
governments to work together efficiently and effectively to respond
to their concrete everyday needs. I hear this all the time: ``Why do
the governments of Canada not work more effectively together?''
With the leadership this Prime Minister and this government
have brought to bear on this situation, that is exactly what we are
starting to see, and it is high time.
This motion under consideration today does not address the real,
everyday fundamental concerns of Canadians, including those
Canadians in Quebec, their economic concerns. It certainly does
not address the concerns of the member's constituents. Therefore,
with respect, I cannot support the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 6.46 p.m., the
time provided for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
(Amendment negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
(Motion negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 6.47 p.m., this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)