CONTENTS
Thursday, March 20, 1997
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 118; Nays, 15 9241
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 94; Nays, 49 9242
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion and ofamendment 9243
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9248
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9251
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9251
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9260
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion and of theamendment 9265
Division on motion deferred 9268
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.56 p.m.) 9268
(The House resumed at 2 p.m.) 9268
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 9269
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 9270
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9271
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9274
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9274
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9274
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9275
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9275
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9275
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9275
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 9277
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9277
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 9277
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9277
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 9279
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9280
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9280
Bill C-81. Concurred in at report stage, read the thirdtime and passed 9281
Bill C-32. Motion for third reading 9282
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9284
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 9287
Bill C-5. Motion for second reading of and concurrencein Senate amendments 9287
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion forconcurrence in Senate amendment 9296
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 12; Nays, 119 9296
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 101; Nays, 33 9297
Bill C-82. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 9298
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto committee.) 9298
Consideration resumed of the motion 9299
Amendment to the amendment 9299
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9304
Consideration resumed of motion and of the amendment 9306
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9307
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 9308
9241
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 20, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to eight
petitions.
[English]
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(1040 )
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 276)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bodnar
Bonin
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Discepola
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Fillion
Finlay
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hickey
Hubbard
Iftody
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mercier
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Patry
Peric
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-118
NAYS
Members
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Grubel
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Jennings
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Morrison
Schmidt
Solberg
Speaker
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-15
9242
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Brushett
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dromisky
Dubé
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Guay
Guimond
Landry
Laurin
Lefebvre
McKinnon
Murphy
Pillitteri
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. We will now
proceed to orders of the day.
_____________________________________________
9242
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-70, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing
and Reduction Account Act and related acts, not more than one further sitting day
shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to the bill and,
fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on
the allotted day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings
before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in
turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put
forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1050)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 277)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Discepola
Dupuy
English
Finestone
Finlay
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Iftody
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-94
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Grubel
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Mercier
Morrison
9243
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solberg
Speaker
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-49
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Brushett
Calder
Collins
Daviault
Dromisky
Dubé
Easter
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Guay
Guimond
Landry
Laurin
Lefebvre
McKinnon
Murphy
Pillitteri
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
The House resumed from March 17 consideration of the motion
and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre has
four minutes left.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to clarify that we had
concurred earlier at the time the debate was wrapping up that the
hon. member for Calgary Centre had four more minutes. He was
quite insistent in debate on several occasions that he had been done
out of that time.
We are very happy to yield to him those four minutes that remain
in his debate and then to carry on with the government side.
The Deputy Speaker: Would members of the Reform Party
indicate if the hon. member for Calgary Centre is available?
Mr. Williams: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the member for
Calgary Centre is not available. Therefore he will relinquish his
four minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification. Will we
not be moving on to the rest of the routine proceedings, the tabling
of reports and so on?
An hon. member: No, no. We have moved on to government
orders.
Mr. Lebel: So we are talking about Bill C-70?
An hon. member: Right.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise to speak to Bill C-70, which has come back from the Senate
with the amendments we had proposed as the elected members of
this House forming Her Majesty's official opposition, but that the
government had refused to hear.
And so, after a short trip to the Senate, where 104 non elected
individuals made recommendations that mirrored the ones
proposed by the official opposition and by my friend the member
for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, the bill is back, and the inclusion of
the GST in the cost of consumer goods is delayed accordingly.
The official opposition contested the provision to include the
GST in the price for the simple and valid reason we gave the
government: ``Face up to your obligations. When you advocate
something, at least have the courage to say it was your idea''. The
fact that the cost of the GST will now be hidden in the price of the
product is something public opinion, with the avalanche of
information it is buried under, tends to lose track of. This is what
the Liberal government was hoping for in starting to include the
amount of the GST in the selling price immediately.
What still leaves me a bit perplexed is the fact that, when we in
the Bloc proposed this amendment to the bill, nobody listened. And
now 104 non elected individuals representing the parties in power
more than the Canadian public, these honourable individuals are
proposing to the government what we proposed. In a gesture of
submission to a non elected authority, the government proposes to
pass the bill as returned to this House with a provision for delaying
the inclusion of the GST in the selling price.
(1055)
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, tell the Minister
of Finance-who I know understands and approves what I am
saying-that it leaves a bitter taste in our mouths because it flies in
the face of democracy.
When we go to the people seeking to get elected, we tell them
that the House of Commons is where the decisions are made and
legislation passed, the show place of democracy where ideas are
tossed about in a spirit of camaraderie and unfailing honesty. Now
we have a situation where a proposal was rejected out of hand when
originally put forward by the official opposition, but reinstated
after consideration by the Senate, these 104 non elected
representatives who impose their will on this House. The worst of it
is that, while number of senators is almost the same as the number
of members of the official opposition and the third party combined
in the House, the Senate has more influence. That was my comment
regarding the fact that the bill was sent back to the House.
This week, my colleague, the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, asked the Minister of Finance, who was
here at the time, when he would be compensating Quebec for
harmonizing the GST. At second and third reading, Bloc members
had raised and discussed this issue repeatedly and at great length.
In response to another question by my collegue from
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot at
9244
the beginning of the week, the minister said, again rather evasively,
that Quebec had not lost anything by harmonizing and he therefore
did not feel the need to compensate Quebec for losses that were not
incurred.
The Minister of Finance knows full well that the provinces have
the power to levy taxes on commercial activities, on the provision
of goods and services, and so on. Within their jurisdictions, the
provinces have the power to levy taxes, and it is always up to the
provincial government to decide, for example, whether or not to
increase personal income tax so that the sales tax can remain
somewhat lower, which, in turn, promotes trade and boosts the
economy. It is up to the provincial government to decide not to hit
the taxpayers with an excessively high sales tax, but rather to draw
its revenues from income tax.
In other provinces, like the maritimes, where unemployment is
high and the labour force is much smaller than in central provinces
like Quebec and Ontario, taxing the income of workers was not
producing enough revenue, as opposed to sales tax. They therefore
chose to keep income tax relatively low, but to make up it with a
very high sales tax.
The minister contends that harmonizing their sales tax with the
GST, which involved lowering their sales tax, created a 5 per cent
shortfall. That is a totally arbitrary figure. I ask the Minister of
Finance: Why 5 per cent? Why not 4 per cent or 8 per cent? Why 5?
Because that is what he has agreed to with his friend, Premier
MacKenna. They worked out the McKenna formula together and
decided on 5 per cent to get a round figure of approximately $1
billion.
(1100)
This government hit the maritimes hard, more specifically in the
fisheries sector and when it reduced personnel on military bases.
Since it now wants to make up for this before the upcoming
election, it has decided it would be 5 per cent. It could also have set
the rate at 4 or 6 per cent. The government never really explained
why it opted for 5 per cent. Where did that 5 per cent come from?
Did it come out of the blue, or is it the result of some accounting
method? We were never able to find out. The minister said to the
hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot that God probably told
him to set the rate at 5 per cent, and I do not doubt that for one
moment.
In any case, this is profoundly unfair to Quebec, which willingly
harmonized its tax with the federal GST, but did not get any
compensation for doing so. Yet, this Liberal government has made
all kinds of cuts in Quebec, just like in the maritime provinces. It
did a number on Quebec, notably by closing the military college in
Saint-Jean, thus depriving the local economy of millions of dollars.
This decision was just as devastating to the residents of Saint-Jean
as the downsizing of military bases in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick was to the people in those provinces, but Quebec was
not compensated. Quebec is not compensated because it is Quebec.
It is the Prime Minister's home province. The Prime Minister can
do anything he wants without being accountable to Quebecers. He
took for granted not only his riding of Saint-Maurice but also
Montreal's West Island, from west of St. Laurent Street all the way
to the Ontario border, and that was enough for him.
So, Quebec was never compensated for the blows and the cuts it
had to put up with. However, it is a different story for the
maritimes. Thirty-two of the 33 seats in these provinces are
currently being held by Liberals, and the government wants to keep
them. It got a warning last fall when, contrary to all expectations, a
Conservative government was elected in a maritime province. This
is basically the reason why the Minister of Finance opted for that5 per cent.
Quebecers must understand that. The decision whether to
increase income taxes or the sales tax rate is a political one made
by the provincial government. Quebec chose to increase income
taxes, because it has a much larger workforce than all the maritime
provinces put together. Therefore, it had the option of increasing
income taxes while keeping its sales tax as low as possible, so as to
revitalize the economy. However, this is not what happened.
From this point of view, the official opposition will never ask
this government for enough. It is simply a question of justice. I
have trouble understanding how a federal finance minister, such as
the current one, can back the decision taken by certain maritime
provinces to hang on to a separate sales tax and stand in Quebec's
way when it prefers to raise income taxes and go with a lower sales
tax.
But it amounts to the same total. Arbitrarily, without consulting,
arrogantly even, the minister says: ``No, Quebec has lost nothing;
Quebec is losing nothing by having harmonized, so I owe it
nothing''. In reality, he wanted to win points with Acadians and
Maritimers who were extremely disappointed because of lowered
fishing quotas and EI reform. People in the maritimes are the
hardest hit by EI reform because they have the highest
unemployment rate in Canada.
(1105)
So he had to do something with the election coming up; he had to
be able to tell Maritimers: ``It is true, you have lost some ground
with respect to UI, because now you will have to work more hours
for less UI, and in many cases you will not receive any at all
because you will not have accumulated enough hours to qualify for
benefits''. All this left people pretty frustrated and irritated. I
remember seeing the present Minister of National Defence heading
off to speak at a public meeting in his riding and having to be
escorted by RCMP officers who were armed because they were
9245
worried about a popular uprising in the riding. When a minister has
to travel with a quasi-military escort in his own riding, that is proof
enough that people are not happy.
I also saw the member for Beauséjour make a speech to people in
his riding and get treated to quite a chorus of boos. People were
unhappy because they felt they had been taken advantage of,
cheated. With an election coming up, the government had to try to
turn the public's attention elsewhere and the ingenious solution it
came up with was to tell the maritime provinces: ``Harmonize your
sales tax with our GST and we will give you a cool $961 million
that you can dole out to try to pacify a bunch of unhappy people''.
This is why I am among those predicting that an election will be
called this spring. It is the same with a Christmas present. You
remember it on Boxing Day, but come May or June, something you
received the previous December 25 may have fled your mind.
In many cases, you can ask someone, even right after the
holidays, what he got for Christmas. He will try to recall, but may
have forgotten. It is the same with the government: it hands over
$961 million-my, but we are generous-and then decides the time
is right to call an election.
It is like someone who wants somebody to forgive him for
something. I have handled many matrimonial cases in my time and
sometimes had to play the role of umpire. For example, I would
often see a husband who had treated his wife rather violently, and
she would be threatening to leave with the kids, and to demand
division of the family assets. Then the guy would suddenly wake up
and say to himself ``Oops, it is time to do something''. So he would
send her roses, along with a card asking for forgiveness of course,
and then everything would be fine.
That is a bit like the attitude of the present government. I do not
wish to be vulgar in this House, but it gave the Maritimers a real
kick in the pants, and now it is saying ``If I want to be able to go
back there and walk unashamed in the streets, I am going to have to
buy back favour somehow''. That is the explanation for the $961
million.
Quebecers can learn a lesson from this, particularly those who
are represented here by Liberal members, from the West Island for
the most part: that a vote gained is a vote gained. They have no
need to earn that vote, no need to deserve it, no need to gain these
people's confidence, it is a given. They do not need to make any
promises to them, to be nice to them in any way; they can even
thumb their noses at them, for they know they will get their votes
anyway.
(1110)
That is the attitude the present Liberal government has toward
those Quebecers who have what I consider the misfortune of
having elected Liberal MPs. Madam Speaker, you are indicating
that my time is coming to an end, but I still have enough time to tell
the Quebecers who voted Liberal out of fear, fear of the threat of
secession, fear that the sovereignists were a bit too strong, that they
have shot themselves in the foot. Perhaps it is time for them to start
thinking that they too are important, that they too ought to be
involved, that they too need to be able to have an MP who is up to
the challenge of representing and defending them.
Where were the Liberal MPs in October 1994, the Liberals
representing the West Island of Montreal, when there was an
unprecedented attempt by Ontario members to break the Drug
Patent Act regulations? Not a one was visible. They all disappeared
into the woodwork. They were no more talkative than the fish in
my aquarium: not a single word.
And where were they when raw milk cheese was being discussed
this past spring? There was even a cheese tasting here in the
rotunda, and the Quebec Liberal MPs were so scared to commit
themselves that they would not even show their faces and taste the
delicious cheeses the Caron family from my riding had brought in.
They were absolutely magnificent cheeses, but what the Liberals
would like to see on our tables from now on, as our premium
cheese, is Kraft Cheez Whiz.
These attitudes must be spoken out against, but these folks do
not make a move, because people will vote for them anyway. We
know that people in certain ridings are so scared of the sovereignist
threat that they will vote for them. They often add insult to injury
by dozing off in their seats. I would ask them to reconsider
Quebec's request. You owe us $2 billion, when are we going to get
it?
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
first I want to assure the hon. member that Canadians do not treat
Quebec with disdain. I am sure most Canadians would agree that
Quebec is a very important part of a united Canada and that we all
share, enjoy and own a piece of every part of Canada.
In his comments the member, as other Bloc members have,
talked significantly about the issue of some sort of a subsidy or the
billion dollars. I am wondering whether the member is aware of the
facts concerning the three provinces that are harmonizing. Just to
refresh his memory, in Newfoundland and Labrador the current
provincial rate is 12 per cent. The combined federal-provincial rate
is 19.84 per cent and when it is reduced down to 15 per cent it is a
savings of 4.84 per cent or a reduction in provincial revenues of
4.84 per cent. Similarly for Nova Scotia it is a 3.77 per cent
reduction in provincial revenues. For New Brunswick the reduction
is 3.77.
9246
In Quebec the combined rate is 13.96 per cent. The member
will quickly appreciate that there was a significant loss of revenue
to those three provinces. Quebec harmonized on a voluntary basis
in advance of everyone else. The member knows that Quebec has
benefited significantly particularly in terms of its exports because
of the harmonized sales tax in Quebec of 13.96 per cent.
Is the member aware of the differential in the combined rates?
Does he understand that the subsidies are not an indication of
disdain for Quebec but rather a reflection of the adjustment or
equalization of the revenue realities to the provinces involved?
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Madam Speaker, here we have a fine example of
someone who prepared his question yesterday, I suspect, and is
putting it anyway.
I have just explained in detail the very thing he just asked me in
the form of a question.
Mr. Pomerleau: Absolutely. He did not understand.
Mr. Lebel: He is doing exactly what is done at other points in
the stages of bills before they are sent to the Senate. I have just
explained the government's choices, that the Government of
Quebec chose to raise income tax and keep its sales tax low,
whereas the maritime provinces kept their income tax low and their
sales tax high.
(1115)
With the sales tax lowered, his question is dumb. You did not
understand anything. That is the problem. That is what I am doing
my darnedest to explain to him. Clearly, however, he prepared his
question yesterday or last week and he decided to put it anyway,
even though I had just showed him in black and white that they
were wrong in this.
Yes, indeed. I repeat, you are in the process of buying the
maritimes' vote. That is what you are doing. At least have the
courage to say so.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was
listening with interest to the member's speech. When Bloc
members speak, I always wonder what happens to co-operative
federalism which is that we all try to work together to create a
better country. They always seem to say if everything is flowing
toward Quebec they are happy and if it is flowing away to
somebody else then they have a problem. I guess that is what they
use to support their separatist position.
The point is this idea of the federal government's paying any
province or the three Atlantic provinces the better part of a billion
dollars to buy into the Minister of Finance's policy is quite
repugnant. To think that Quebec would want to tie on to the same
type of subsidy is just as repugnant for the separatists who want to
get money for their province.
I would have thought that if this policy of a harmonized sales tax
was a good policy, the provinces would have bought into it, the
people in these provinces would have bought into it and the
premiers of these provinces would have bought into it, but they did
not. That is why we have had a long debate.
Then of course the Minister of Finance was adamant that it
would be tax in pricing. When the other House went down to
Atlantic Canada and held these hearings, we found out that the
premiers there did not like tax in pricing, the people there did not
like tax in pricing and now the other House is asking us to
reconsider. In order for the Minister of Finance to accomplish his
agenda, he acquiesced to a request from the other House so that it
can all be put in place.
The member talked about the harsh period in the province of
Quebec. Look around at the growing economies elsewhere. In the
province of Ontario it is going to be booming next year. An article
in the Globe and Mail this morning stated that the economy in
Alberta, where I am from, is going to lead the country in growth.
Surely if they would abandon this whole notion of separatism,
work toward co-operative federalism where they can take
advantage of their unique opportunities in Quebec, work with the
rest of the provinces to build prosperity, to create jobs, to ensure
government is the smallest we can have, then people can prosper.
Why does the hon. member keep talking about the harsh
problems in Quebec when most of us realize that they are caused by
the lack of confidence in Quebec, caused by the fact that there are
so many separatists sitting here and we have a separatist party in
the legislature in Quebec? If they would endorse co-operative
federalism things would improve.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for St. Albert.
He at least prepared his question after my remarks. He did not write
it three weeks ago.
On the other hand, when he tells me what constitutes Canada, I
agree. There is a Chinese saying: ``Feed a man a fish, and you feed
him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime''.
That is sort of the way it worked with the provincial transfers the
federal government has always made to Quebec. It gave us transfer
payments to buy our groceries. Ontario gets the about the same
amount, but in the form of industrial infrastructures, things that, as
in the case of my Chinese fisherman, help provide a living.
(1120)
That is the nuance the Liberals make. I see the member for Sault
Ste. Marie jumping up. He will never admit it, of course, but that is
the essence of the problem in the Canadian federation. Quebecers
get a bit of money to stock their fridges, Ontarians get money to
9247
build industries, to get people to work and process raw materials.
There lies the injustice at the heart of this federation. What hurts
the most is having a francophone who is in the process of losing his
status shout at you that you are wrong. I am sorry, but that is
Canada's history.
The member for St. Albert may be upset-it is his
prerogative-but I say: ``Be fair. Start treating Quebecers fairly. It
is about time-you are 100 years late. Perhaps Quebecers will
change their thinking about you''. Perhaps it will be easier to reach
agreements.
It will not be by assimilating and frustrating us, as you have done
for the past 100 years, especially as concerns Quebec's industrial
development, and by setting up little tariff barriers. Free trade hurt
you? Why? Because, now to stock my fridge I can buy from you or
go elsewhere if you are too expensive. I could not do that before.
That hurt you. Think about it.
[English]
Mr. John Godfrey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise in
support of the harmonized sales tax. I see it, as many speakers have
said before me, as being part of a more efficient system of national
taxation. I see it as being part of the wider construction of an
economic foundation for Canada, allied with our efforts on deficit
reduction and program review.
To me the real significance of the harmonized sales tax is the
message it sends out to Canadians about our ability to work
together. The real significance is the progress we have already
made with the province of Quebec and with some of the Atlantic
provinces in establishing the basis for a national harmonized sales
tax.
If we can work together, as we have, on such a thorny question as
the harmonized sales tax, what other good things can we achieve in
that same spirit? What is the foundation that we are building and
what is the future which we will build on top of that foundation?
We have to move beyond these economic foundations to some
kind of view of ourselves which is grander and more important than
the ones we have been concentrating on to date. We have to realize
that out there beyond the harmonized sales tax is a series of greater
projects, national projects which will allow us to attain greater
goals. In order for that to happen, as we have done with the sales
tax, we need to set timelines and priorities. We need to measure
progress and outcomes.
Most of all, we have to recapture the spirit of working together in
the execution of these projects because it is only by working
together that all of us can recover our collective sense of optimism
and hope as a country.
In his 1996 budget the finance minister set out a vision of
Canada for the new millennium. Successful countries do more than
occupy a place on a map. They live in the souls of their people
because they are relevant to the betterment of their lives. So for
Canada it is time to set goals anchored in our shared values and our
shared aspirations.
We have done that throughout our history, in the days when we
dared speak of a national dream and then built it, in the days when
we aspired to a kinder society and then created it. We have set great
national challenges, not small ones, because it is only by reaching
as high as we are able that we will discover how far we can go.
Why can we not decide together in the House and in this country
that ten years hence Canada will be regarded as a world leader in
the new industries of the new economy, in biotechnology and
environmental technology, and in the cultural industries of the
multi-channel universe? Why not decide that ten years hence
increasing child poverty rates will be a thing of the past, that
illiteracy will be erased from our communities and that when it
comes to international tests our students will not simply do fine
work but will be the very best? Why can we not decide together that
medicare ten years hence will not simply survive but that it will be
the most successful system in the world, a system which will be
second to none?
(1125 )
Why not decide that 10 years hence our streets will be the safest
they can be, not because we have the largest number of prisons or
police but because we have faced squarely the causes of crime? I
ask with the finance minister why not indeed.
Moving from that vision and those goals will require what the
Prime Minister referred to last year as a domestic Team Canada. It
simply means all of us working together. The harmonized sales tax
has been an example, a difficult, trying example of us working
together with the provinces to achieve a more efficient and fairer
Canada.
National goals and national projects are not simply federal, they
are national. They require all levels of government, federal,
provincial and municipal, to work together. Beyond the kind of
co-operation we have had with the harmonized sales tax, national
projects require the participation of the public and private sectors,
of trade unions and social activists, of professionals and volunteers.
Above all, national projects demand the full participation of
citizens.
National projects are of a scope and scale that no one sector of
society can achieve in isolation. National projects allow us to
mobilize all our resources as a country to achieve a great collective
purpose. National projects remind us of why we need a country in
the first place.
9248
The role of the federal government, as it was in the case of the
harmonized sales tax, in promoting national projects, is to think
of the interests of all Canadians. The federal government must put
before Canadians a series of goals and invite their comments and
participation, as we did in 1993 with our red book. The federal
government must act as a strategic broker in forming the
partnerships that can achieve national projects. The federal
government can neither dictate, implement nor fund national
projects by itself.
National projects demand that we put aside our differences and
see Canada as a collective enterprise, a fate sharing vessel. We
have to see ourselves as a society of mutual obligation, not simply
a collection of provinces, interest groups and individuals. It
requires thinking of ourselves as a national society to reach
national goals by creating national projects.
In the 1996 budget the finance minister outlined an ambitious
series of goals for the next decade. Our task as a government for the
next four years, if we should be re-elected, is to choose four or five
of these national projects which will have the strategic effect of
fundamentally improving the lives of Canadians.
One such national project would be to set for ourselves the goal
of making Canada the best country in the world for the care and
nurturing of young children. If we could say of Canadian children
from birth to the age of six that Canada has the lowest poverty rate,
the lowest rate of child abuse, the best prenatal programs, the best
parenting courses, the best child care programs, the best rate of
school readiness by the age of six, the positive consequences for
Canada would be enormous.
By this single national project we would have gone a long way to
achieving many of the goals set out by the finance minister. Not
only would we have reduced child poverty, we would have
dramatically improved literacy rates and we would create solid
base for future academic success and for employment success in
the new economy.
If we could produce six year olds with the best coping and
learning skills in the world, this would be the single greatest
investment in improving subsequent adult health status that any
society could make. These same competent six year olds will
dramatically lower drop-out rates, delinquency rates and crime
rates as they grow older.
What would be required to achieve such a project? Nothing less
than a mobilization of all our resources, professional and voluntary,
public sector and private, community by community, province by
province, coast to coast. By enumerating and configuring all our
existing assets, by setting goals, objectives and timelines, by
measuring and monitoring our progress, by sharing results
nationally through the Internet and by each level of government
and each sector of society taking their share, eliminating
duplication, co-ordinating efforts and filling gaps, this national
project is eminently achievable. Why indeed should we not
attempt such things in our next mandate?
The harmonized sales tax creates a climate of working together
which makes such national projects possible. It has been difficult
but it shows us that such things can be done and that what we have
to do is broaden our vision of a better Canada for the 21st century.
(1130 )
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I hold my hon. colleague in high esteem since he always
makes very intelligent comments. I would like to hold up some of
his comments to some factual statements made by members from
the maritimes.
The hon. member mentioned in his speech that Bill C-70 would
increase efficiency and provide a climate of working together. I
want to take the time to quote some statements from our provincial
counterparts.
Ontario finance minister Ernie Eves said that the blended sales
tax using the GST base would cost Ontarians over $3 billion in
extra taxes and put a kibosh on any other harmonization schemes.
In the business community, the Retail Council of Canada said that
by forcing stores to bury the new tax in prices, the harmonized tax
regime was going to cost retailers at least $100 million a year. The
Halifax Chamber of Commerce predicted that the harmonized sales
tax would push up new house prices by 5.5 per cent as well as force
municipalities to raise property taxes. I have other examples. I am
sure this is no news to the hon. member opposite.
In view of the statements I have just made, which contradict
what the member said, I would certainly like to know how he can
stand in the House and say that Bill C-70 and the harmonization of
the tax is actually going to increase efficiency and provide a
climate of co-operation. Clearly many members in the business and
political communities in the maritimes and the rest of this country
are blatantly against it.
Mr. Godfrey: Madam Speaker, there are three parts to the
answer.
Any system which removes a layer of administration, that is to
say so that a tax is put together and collected by only one group of
tax administrators, must by definition be more efficient than two
separate tax regimes. That is the first answer.
The second answer is that opinions are clearly divided regarding
the efficiency and ultimate consequence of this tax because those in
other provinces such as New Brunswick, take a totally different
view. They see this as a tremendous economic advantage.
The third response is that the government has shown itself to be
remarkably flexible in wanting to accommodate the wishes of the
individual provinces to overcome the deficiencies that may be
present in such a scheme. It is that third element of flexibility,
9249
negotiation, reasonableness and working together which I would
wish to emphasize, because it is in that spirit that this country will
move forward.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member brought forth examples from New Brunswick and
said that New Brunswickers are in favour of this. I would like to
cite some examples from New Brunswick.
The Canadian Real Estate Association said that the
harmonization will increase the cost of a new house by $4,000 in
Nova Scotia and by $3,374 in New Brunswick. The GST
harmonization will be responsible for the closure of five Greenberg
stores and a loss of 79 jobs in Buctouche, Dalhousie, Moncton,
Sussex and Saint John. The management of this chain said that
there is a 50-50 chance of further store closures and a loss of 71
jobs in such places as Shediac and Moncton. These are very
specific examples of what the harmonization will do in the
province of New Brunswick.
Again, I would like to ask how the hon. member can say in this
House that the harmonization of the GST is actually going to
improve efficiency and increase co-operation when provinces in
the maritimes are blatantly against it.
I agree with the hon. member that a harmonization with a
decreasing tax base would benefit the provinces and individuals but
it has to be a substantial decrease in the taxation on individuals.
Furthermore, I would like to bring to the hon. member's
attention that the government is actually nibbling around the edges
on this issue. Since being elected the government has introduced 36
tax increases. What has been the impact of the 36 tax increases that
his government has introduced over the last three years on people
not only in the maritimes but also in the rest of Canada?
(1135 )
Mr. Godfrey: Madam Speaker, let me turn first to the opening
comments in that question which deal with the whole question of
efficiency.
The devil is clearly in the details. The purpose of the GST was to
replace the manufacturers sales tax and to create a more efficient
tax to net out the same amount of money. In harmonizing the sales
tax we retained that goal of wishing to have exactly the same
amount of money but arrived at in a more efficient way. This will
indeed allow us to lower the overall tax rate in the direction which
was supported by the hon. member.
As to the hon. member's second point about 36 tax increases-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry the
time has expired.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-70. Passage
of this bill will be a major step forward in our efforts to reform the
goods and services tax.
As of April 1, 1997 the harmonized tax will replace the GST and
provincial sales taxes in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador. This new system will
benefit both consumers and businesses in these provinces for the
following reasons:
Consumers will have lower tax rates and on many goods will pay
lower taxes. Businesses will have to deal with only one tax, one
rate, one base, one set of forms and one administration. Businesses
will not have to pay taxes on goods which they export from their
province. That means more exports and more exports means more
jobs. Businesses in the three Atlantic provinces will be able to
compete on an equal footing with businesses elsewhere in Canada
thanks to a national approach to interprovincial sales.
The detailed agreement between Canada and these provinces
means more efficient and less costly government. It will eliminate
existing duplication and overlap in the administration of sales taxes
in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Let me now outline what harmonization means for consumers.
Consumers in the Atlantic provinces who have endorsed this
agreement have to pay provincial and federal sales taxes, but the
existing system is very cumbersome, costly and complicated. The
new harmonized system will be simpler, cheaper and more clear.
The detailed agreements announced by the federal government and
the governments of the three participating provinces will benefit
consumers in a number of different ways.
First, it will mean a lower combined tax rate. To be specific, in
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the new combined rate of 15 per
cent-7 per cent federal and 8 per cent provincial-will effectively
be four percentage points lower than it is now. In Newfoundland
and Labrador the combined rate will effectively be five percentage
points lower.
The new system will mean lower prices on most goods not only
because the combined rate will be lower, but because hidden
provincial sales taxes will be eliminated. Under today's provincial
retail sales tax system, businesses are taxed on items they buy to
make their products, deliver their services and keep their
businesses going. That will no longer be the case as of next month.
It is true that the new system will mean that consumers will pay
tax on a broader range of goods and services. At the same time,
spreading the tax burden in that way makes it possible to keep the
HST rate at a reasonable level. Taxpayers will have the assurance
9250
that their federal and provincial governments are working more
effectively by eliminating needless and costly duplication.
What does harmonization mean for business? The new sales tax
system will be simpler, less costly and more efficient. It means one
tax, one rate, one base and one administration.
A harmonized system will be particularly advantageous for
small business which bears disproportionately higher costs today,
the costs of dealing on a daily basis with two separate sales tax
systems. For example, under the new system small businesses with
less than $30,000 in taxable sales will no longer have to register for
either the federal or the provincial sales tax.
For all businesses there will be no separate requirement to
register for the new harmonized tax. Businesses registered for the
GST will automatically be registered for the harmonized tax. In
addition, there will be no requirement to report separately tax
collected and remitted at the 15 per cent rate or input tax credits
claimed at the 15 per cent rate. Tax remittances will be made on the
existing GST return.
(1140 )
The new sales tax system will help to make businesses in Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador more
competitive. That is because exports from these provinces will be
free of existing provincial retail sales tax on business inputs.
Furthermore, they will be free of that tax when they compete with
imported goods.
Because of the amendments proposed by the other House, we
will have to postpone tax included pricing until such time as more
provinces have harmonized their sales taxes. This delay is very
regrettable because Canadians have told us in no uncertain terms
that they prefer tax included pricing. However, the more important
objective at this time is to implement the harmonized sales tax on
April 1 so that the Atlantic provinces can begin to reap the benefits
of this new sales tax system.
I should point out that this legislation we are debating today
incorporates a vast number of technical amendments to the Excise
Tax Act that will benefit all Canadians. It is important to proceed
without delay for this reason also.
As I said earlier, businesses will be able to claim back all the
sales taxes paid on the goods and services they purchase. Currently
they can only get credit for the GST they have paid, not the
provincial sales taxes they have paid.
We can be sure that the premiers of the Atlantic provinces
understand very well that the harmonized sales tax will allow
businesses in those provinces to have a competitive advantage over
businesses in those provinces that have not harmonized.
Notwithstanding the comments of my colleague from
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, sometime ago the premier of Ontario
recognized that harmonizing the sales tax in Ontario was the
direction Ontario should take. He is on record as having endorsed
harmonization. He may have flip-flopped later but we are getting
used to that. Frankly, I am not sure what the delay is. By delaying
harmonization in Ontario, the province is depriving consumers and
businesses in Ontario of the benefits of harmonization.
In terms of construction, some in the construction industry
would like to see the GST eliminated. To do that we would have to
raise taxes or we would not be able to deal with the deficit. The
reason the construction industry is working so hard today and
business is up in absolute terms an incredible amount is because of
the fiscal policy of this government and the fact that we have been
able to reduce interest rates to 40 year lows. To say that the
construction industry is not in favour of this tax is really stretching
the point.
Businesses in Ontario now pay $2.8 billion in hidden taxes to the
Ontario government. Exporters in Ontario will also gain with a
harmonized tax because goods produced in Ontario will no longer
have these hidden taxes embedded in their price when they are
shipped abroad. It is the export sector that has been creating most
of the jobs in Ontario over the past few years. In fact, international
exports now account for 44.5 per cent of Ontario's economy. That
is why it is vitally important to make our exports as competitive as
possible: exports create jobs.
Although exports are non-taxable, it is estimated that the value
of Ontario exports includes about $825 million a year of embedded
provincial sales tax. We better believe that Mr. McKenna in New
Brunswick understands that very well.
With these delays, businesses in Ontario, in particular small
businesses, are unable to simplify their tax reporting procedures.
Independent studies have suggested that Ontario businesses, again
notwithstanding the comments earlier of my hon. colleague from
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, could save between $200 million and
$300 million as a result. These are independent studies; this is not
the Ontario government speaking. In addition, the Canadian
Institute of Chartered Accountants estimates that it costs the
Ontario government about $40 million a year to run the provincial
sales tax system.
What are the consequences if businesses are not competitive? If
businesses in Ontario are not as competitive as companies in the
Atlantic provinces and Quebec-because Quebec has harmonized,
much to its credit-then over time this will translate into fewer
jobs for Ontarians.
The efficiencies that would result from a harmonized sales tax in
Ontario could mean that a combined tax could be implemented at a
rate of 14 per cent, not a 15 per cent combined rate. This effectively
means that the GST could be reduced by a full percentage point
right now in Ontario. If the political will existed at Queen's Park,
9251
that could happen. As I said earlier, harmonizing the sales tax in
Ontario would provide the opportunity to reduce the GST by one
point right now through increased efficiencies.
(1145 )
A number of organizations in Ontario have endorsed
harmonization. I will not refer to them all, but some of them are the
Canadian Health Care Association, the Association of Universities
and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian School Boards Association,
the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian
Manufacturers' Association and a range of other ones. For these
reasons I urge members to support the bill.
I would like to turn briefly to general tax reductions because
some political parties in Canada are advocating general tax cuts.
The government is saying that it would like to move to tax
reduction at some time. It has already made some targeted tax cuts
for those in need and in important strategic areas.
It would be irresponsible to make general tax cuts now. At the
very least we have to wait until the deficit is under control and we
have invested in our social programs to the extent needed.
I urge all members to vote in favour of Bill C-70.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and would like to ask
him a number of questions on some important issues he addressed,
in particular on improving the export potential of Canada.
Our standard of living is largely dependent upon our ability to
export. Competitiveness in export markets relies on lower taxes, a
strong educational system and a situation that decreases the
barriers to trade. Over the last 3.5 years the government has seen fit
to pursue a strategic economic course that has increased taxes 37
times. The most recent one is the increase in CPP which basically
took $10 billion out of the hands of consumers.
With respect to education, the backbone of our ability to be
competitive in the world, the government has chosen to remove $7
billion from transfer payments to the provinces. This has
significantly compromised the ability of students in Canada to get
the training they will need in the future to compete with students
from as far away as Tokyo and Moscow.
Barriers to trade are a significant deterrent to our
competitiveness. Why has the government chosen to nibble around
the edges of the issue of interprovincial trade barriers to such an
extent that today there are fewer barriers north-south than
east-west? It is absolutely essential for all companies in the country
be able to work in an environment free of egregious government
control. Interprovincial trade barriers are probably the greatest
deterrent to our companies being competitive.
How can the member can stand in the House and talk about
competitiveness when the government has done numerous things to
make Canadian companies uncompetitive?
Mr. Cullen: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for his comments.
I believe firmly that exports are a key to Canada's growth. Our
government has done an incredible job in this area. Our exports to
the United States have reached record highs.
To accomplish that we have travelled abroad with Team Canada,
which resulted in the landing of a huge number of business deals.
In addition, in terms of trade barriers the government has been
very active in breaking down trade barriers around the world and in
forming regional trading agreements with NAFTA, Chile and
Israel. There are more on the way.
The member mentioned a number of points including the CPP.
The government is investing in the Canada pension plan to make it
actuarially viable in the future. It is not unlike the pension plans of
many corporations that are out of date with respect to the age mix
and the demographics. The population is getting older.
As a government we are not doing anything different from what
many corporations are doing. We see on their balance sheets that
their pension plan is actuarially underfunded and they will build up
the fund over a number of years. This is the responsible course to
take.
(1150 )
With regard to transfer payments, our transfer payments to the
provinces after considerable warning have been coming down at
the rate of 4 per cent to 5 per cent per year while we have been
cutting our own programs by 8 per cent or 9 per cent.
If we look at federal transfers in Ontario they comprise 2 per
cent to 3 per cent of total government revenues. If Ontario is having
some difficulties in funding health and education, it has nothing to
do with federal transfers. It has everything to do with the
Conservative government's provincial tax cut. It has made those
choices and has set those priorities.
I agree with the member that we need to bring interprovincial
trade barriers down but not in the high handed manner proposed by
the Progressive Conservative Party. We have to be assertive but we
have to work co-operatively with the provinces.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-70 which deals with the
harmonization of the GST.
9252
I would like to discuss a number of issues concerning the
competitiveness of Canada's economy and the inability of
government to provide small and medium size Canadian
businesses, the economic backbone of our nation that employs
most people, with the tools to enable them to be competitive not
only within the nation but outside the nation.
It has been a great disappointment for me to see the government
repeatedly ignore constructive suggestions made by our party and
other parties, indeed by backbench MPs of all parties through
private members' bills. We have given the government
opportunities to make our country greater and stronger. It has
repeatedly played politics with the economics of the country.
Rather than trying to do the right thing, it has chosen to do the
political thing.
Competitiveness relies on a number of issues. It relies on a
strong education system. It relies on strong investment in research
and development. It relies on a taxation structure that does not hang
around the necks of Canadians and corporations like a noose which
is pulled progressively tighter and tighter until individuals and
companies cannot take any more. It also relies on a structure of
rules and regulations that do not inhibit the ability of our private
sector to function.
It is unfortunate that over the last 20 years a series of Liberal and
Conservative governments have taken it upon themselves to do the
exact opposite of what is necessary to make our economy stronger.
The government has chosen to eviscerate education by removing
$7 billion in transfer payments to education, health and welfare.
That is not the way to build a strong economy.
Our students do not only compete with students in Toronto,
Vancouver, Quebec City, Montreal and Moncton. They compete
against students in Tokyo, New Delhi, Cape Town, London and
New York. The world has a global economy. The traditional nation
state borders have virtually disappeared. The globalization that has
taken place has made it such that nation states are secondary to the
movement of capital and the rules and regulations among different
groups of countries.
It is imperative for the government to take a leadership role to
maximize the ability of students in secondary and post-secondary
institutions and of people in the workplace. They should have
access to the skills that will enable them to be competitive. We
have to continue to learn to keep our skills up and to ensure that
companies are competitive.
(1155 )
It is an unfortunate statistic the money invested in training
workers is among the lowest of OECD nations. I believe Canada
places 33rd of all OECD nations in its ability to train its workers.
That is an absolute embarrassment.
Over the last 15 to 20 years our competitiveness has repeatedly
and consistently gone down. Our competitiveness now ranks along
with that of Italy. This is an ignominious statistic and not one that
we should be proud of.
The solutions to these problems are not rocket science. As I have
said before, they have been repeatedly presented by members of the
House over the last 3.5 years.
With respect to research and development I congratulate the
government for putting $800 million into research. It is the first
time that has happened in a long time and I hope it continues.
Research is another underpinning of our economy and the ability
for us to be competitive.
With respect to taxes the government has done an absolutely
appalling job and the HST is but an example. I have demonstrated
in my questions that the HST will not provide for tax relief for
Canadians or for our companies. It will not do anything of the sort.
In many instances it will actually increase taxation levels and the
burden upon companies.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated
what it felt was important about harmonization and where the
proposal of the government under Bill C-70 actually failed. It
indicated that a properly harmonized system of sales taxes was far
more preferable to the mess we currently have. However, it
continued, properly harmonized is defined by the small business
community as having one sales tax system across the country at a
lower rate than would occur by simply combining the GST with the
respective PST with one set of rules and one set of audit
procedures, a single remittance requirement and one tax collector.
That does not occur here at all. That is quite unfortunate. The
government has had an opportunity. It must provide a harmonized
sales tax and decrease the inefficiencies in the system. We are in
favour of doing it in the manner in which the Canadian Federation
of Independent Business has put forward to the government and to
the finance minister. However it was ignored. It is essential, if the
government is to harmonize, to bring taxation levels down.
This again is just nibbling around the edges. If the government
were truly interested in eliminating that which compromises the
ability of our companies to be competitive, the taxation levels, it
would not have increased taxes 37 times since it was elected. It is
utterly disingenuous for the government to tell Canadian taxpayers
that it has not increased taxes. Just a few weeks ago the Minister of
Finance increased the CPP payments by 10 per cent over the next
few years. The contributions are akin to a tax increase that removes
$10 billion from the hands of companies and individuals. That will
cost jobs all over the country.
9253
On the one hand we have the government nibbling away on a
harmonized sales tax which will not do anything to increase
efficiency and reduce the tax burden. On the other hand, on a much
larger scale it has increased the tax burden on Canadians. Every
family has had its taxes increased by thousands of dollars since
the government was elected.
That is part of the reason we have an underground economy
which is growing by leaps and bounds. It is part of the reason why
when we talk to small and medium size businesses they say they
cannot hire anybody because all they do is work and give their
money to the tax man. That is what is happening.
In 1992 the government of the day chose to decrease taxes. What
happened? The economy was stimulated. Revenues to the
government actually increased. What did the government do then?
It started to tax wildly. This does not make any sense.
There are numerous examples from around the world to
demonstrate that there are ways in which to decrease our taxation
system. It can be done in such a way that government revenues will
increase and it will be a stimulus to the economy.
(1200 )
The other object in trying to make our companies more
competitive is the government getting its own fiscal and monetary
house in order. Three and half years ago we provided the
government with a concise, specific, detailed and logical plan to
bring our deficit down to zero and produce a surplus budget. Right
now we would not have deficit spending if the government had
chosen to take up our plans. But the government did not adopt our
plans and as a result we have a debt that is $100 billion higher
today than before.
We have a situation where instead of spending 25 per cent on the
moneys taken in by the government, the government now has to
pay 40 per cent, that is 40 cents out of every dollar it takes in just
on interest on the debt. That is the single greatest threat to all our
social programs. If we liken the situation to a pie, when we were
elected in 1993, only a quarter of that pie went toward payment of
interest on the debt. Now it is 40 per cent and soon enough it will be
50 per cent. As time time passes, as our debts increase, as our
interest payments on those debts increase, less and less money will
be available to pay for health care, education, welfare, the
guaranteed income supplement, old age security, all of those fine
social programs we have. All these programs that protect people
who do without, who have not, that are meant to protect them so
they do not suffer, are being compromised.
Government members like to claim they are the great white
knights, that they are the compassionate ones, that they are the ones
who are trying to protect the poor and the underprivileged.
However, they are actually doing an absolutely huge disservice to
Canadians, in particular the poor, by not getting our fiscal house in
order.
Fiscal irresponsibility, not getting our deficit down to zero which
would produce a surplus budget and bring down the debt, is the
single greatest threat to our social programs and the single greatest
threat to the poor and the underprivileged. It is the single greatest
threat to our ability to provide health care to Canadians in a timely
fashion. However, the government continues to play political
football with these issues and not lead from the front. It is leading
through polls and focus groups but it is not saying what it is going
to do.
Perhaps the flavour of what the government has been doing in
the last three and a half years can be summarized by an Italian
politician from the 19th century who said something like this:
``There go my people. I had better find out where they are going so
I can lead them''. In effect that is what this government has been
doing for the most part over the past three and a half years.
However, the government has done some good things. I
commend the government members on their ability to increase free
trade, in particular in the new Canada-Chile free trade agreement. I
applaud them in trying to establish links with other countries. This
is very important and they must continue to pursue that as part of
their agenda.
There are other issues the government has failed to do which
compromise all provinces. In particular, it has compromised the
people of Quebec on the issue of Quebec sovereignty. If we look
back at history we find that the issue of Quebec nationalism and
Quebec sovereignty is something like a sinusoidal curve with
public interest on the y axis and time on the x axis. Public interest
and political interest increases to a fervour at referendum time. As
soon as the referendum is over interest declines to a nadir.
Unfortunately the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, and the
Parti Quebecois are working very strongly to pursue an agenda for
separation. Given this very obvious fact, the government is doing
nothing to improve interprovincial relations, devolve some federal
powers to all provinces, not just Quebec, in a way that would
improve the efficiency services like housing, education, manpower
and training, health care, which provinces already have
responsibility for but which the government attaches strings to.
(1205 )
These are all issues from which all provinces can benefit. If the
government were to take a leadership role, it would sit down with
all the provinces and ask them what it does best as a federal
government and what they do best as a provincial government and
then devolve those responsibilities. The feds should do what they
do best and the provinces should do what they do best. This would
9254
increase efficiency and decrease the burden on the taxpayer
through decreasing costs.
Instead of taking this initiative, the government has done
absolutely nothing since the last referendum on this issue. Despite
what some people might say, the threat of separation and the threat
of a unilateral declaration of independence is causing great
uncertainty and is crushing the economic lifeblood out of Quebec.
It is a sad thing for me to see what a wonderful city Montreal
was-it still is-an incredible, lively, vibrant and economically
strong Montreal when I lived in Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s, a
place everyone looked to as being a magical place which had so
much to offer to Canada. Unfortunately the threat of separation has
gutted its economic ability and has decreased the moral of people
there. It is a very sad thing to see. It is compromising their ability to
get on with their lives and build a strong city not only for Quebec
but for all of Canada.
Furthermore, it is compromising the ability of all people of
Quebec to be socially and economically strong and stable as
individuals, families and communities.
I challenge members again to look at the proposals the Reform
Party put forward prior to the last election. They are sensible
proposals, fair proposals and proposals that are for all Canadians
across the country equally. They are not predicated on a distinct
society for one province. They are not predicated on providing laws
and regulations and privileges for one province over another. They
are based on giving an equal hand to all provinces and all
Canadians for the betterment of all people.
I encourage everyone to do this because if the government does
not take this issue seriously, if it does not address this issue now,
when the next referendum comes along the government will be
scurrying to put forth a plan and it will be too late. We will help put
forward a good plan for all Canadians. We will help build a
stronger Canada for all Canadians. However, we ask this
government's co-operation.
We also ask for the co-operation of all honest, well meaning
people in Quebec that if they are interested in building a stronger
province for themselves, their families, their children and their
communities, if they are interested in building a stronger nation,
they must join with all of us to do this.
It would be interesting for them to know, if this ever gets out to
the people of Quebec, that the issues, fears and aspirations that the
people of Quebec have, by and large, are very much the same as
those shared by Canadians in every single province.
I do not care whether someone lives in Cache Creek, British
Columbia or in Nanaimo, Victoria, Baie Comeau, Toronto, North
Bay or in Shediac, the aspirations and the fears of having a job,
living in a safe environment, having a future for oneself and one's
children and having a stronger future for everybody are shared by
all Canadians.
It is within that area of communality that we must come together
to build a stronger nation. If we continue to divide this country up
into areas, the west, central Canada, the maritimes, Quebec,
francophones, anglophones, immigrants, hyphenated Canadians, if
we continue to do that then we will have a balkanized nation and
we will be just but a shadow of what we can be as a nation.
(1210)
If, however, we lead from that front and come together in an area
of common interest, shoulder to shoulder to build a stronger nation,
indeed that is what we will have. We will rightly take our place in
the international community as one of its leaders.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for his very
considered comments. I would like to talk to the hon. member's
comments with respect to taxation and some of the myths he and
his party have been promoting about the government's increasing
taxes.
I would like to speak briefly on the question of skills, training,
research and development and how that is so important to
achieving our competitive position in the world and creating more
prosperity for Canadians.
While I would not say that in R and D and training we have and
are doing everything that we should as a government, we are
providing some leadership in these areas. For example, I attended
an award ceremony in my riding for 14 young students who had
just come through an internship program.
They had been offered internship positions in companies and
they were able to develop their skills on the job at Humber College.
They were then in a position to go into these companies full time.
The companies took the risk, gave them the chance to development
their skills and now they have a job. They have some experience
and they are employed. I am sure they will add value to these
companies. That is the kind of thing we should be doing more of
because young people today are in the dilemma of not being able to
find jobs because they lack experience.
In the last budget we introduced there were 19,000 new
internship positions created. This will allow young people to enter
the work force and create the skill sets that are going to be needed.
I am working on a project in my riding, the telecommunications
learning institute, which will create the skills that are going to be
needed by the telecommunications industry in the future. These
initiatives are very positive. We are doing much but we could be
doing more perhaps.
9255
In the area of innovation the hon. member graciously
acknowledges the $800 million the government has put into the
Canadian foundation for innovation. This is a hugely beneficial
initiative that will help to build our technology infrastructure and
allow us to be very competitive.
With respect to taxes there is a lot one could get into but without
the time I will not do that. I have not looked at the statistics lately
but it is my understanding that direct foreign investment into
Canada is still very strong and positive. If the tax burdens in
Canada were so bad for business why would they not stay away? I
find it mischievous to say the least that the hon. member and his
party talk about the government's increasing taxes. I do not know
how many times I have seen our finance minister stand up with his
budget and say the words no new taxes. I did not see the parties
opposite challenge him then.
I think they are playing on words with respect to indexing of
deductions and personal exemptions which are effectively in their
jargon or in their political rhetoric. We have increased taxes to the
banks. We have closed loopholes and we have a much larger tax
base because of a much stronger economy.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I commend my colleague from the Liberal Party for his
innovation and initiatives in his riding. It is a very important thing
to do. Canadian youth are looking for leadership in their political
leaders in pursuing that.
However, let us talk about taxes for a moment. There have been
37 tax increases and I will give a couple of examples. The last was
the CPP increase which is going to remove $10 billion from the
pockets of Canadians and is going to cost jobs, jobs, jobs.
Second, the increased gasoline taxes have spread across to all
Canadians. Those who hurt the most are those who are poorest
because they are on fixed incomes.
(1215)
I also raise the cold, hard salient fact that our country has been
burdened by the highest, consistent level of unemployment at10 per cent since the government was elected. Those are facts and
that is the state of affairs of our economy.
I am sure the hon. member goes into his riding to speak to
businessmen. He cannot get a message that is different from what
the rest of us hear. They must tell him that their greatest restriction
in their ability to be competitive is the taxation levels that are
crushing the daylights out of them. The government has done
nothing about it.
One need not look any further than at the underground economy
which is growing by leaps and bounds. Members do not have to
take my word for it. They can go into their own ridings to find out.
It is the palpable, factual evidence that we have to demonstrate the
economic proposals of the government have not improved our
economy but have crushed it.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
want to touch on the issue of the CPP as a tax increase. We all know
we are talking about semantics. Generically we refer to deductions
on someone's paycheque as payroll taxes.
As a chartered accountant I look at the income statement or the
revenue and expenses of a government. If Canada pension plan
contributions by employees and employers are collected by the
government, why it is that those premiums do not get added to
government revenues?
Let us look at the definition of a tax. A tax is something that
increases government revenues. The member will well know
Canada pension plan premiums do not increase government
revenue. They go into an investment fund for the future benefit of
those contributing to the Canada pension plan.
In order to sustain the Canada pension plan program for all
Canadians and put it on a stable footing forever premiums have to
go up. Today's pensioners are getting about $8 for every $1 going
in. If the premiums go up for individuals, all other things remaining
equal, it is a greater deduction on their personal tax returns. This
means they will pay less tax on the same level of income, which
again reduces government revenue.
Even corporations that have to match the employee's
contribution to CPP will be paying a little more over the years as
the premiums increase to make sure those benefits can be provided.
That means the deductions for businesses on employee benefits
will go up. Corporations will pay a little less income tax than they
otherwise would, all other things remaining equal.
On balance, we know the CPP premiums do not go into revenue.
We also know that individuals and corporations are paying less tax
because of the CPP increases, which means that the deficit actually
has increased for the Government of Canada simply by raising CPP
premiums.
The irony, though, is simply that CPP premiums do not go to
government revenue and do not reduce the deficit. I ask the
member to answer this question. If it does not go to government
revenue and it does not reduce the deficit, how can we call it a tax?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, I
am very glad my hon. friend actually agrees with me that CPP is a
payroll tax.
By an extension of his argument he would also have to agree that
employment insurance is a tax and employment insurance is
running a $6 billion surplus.
Mr. Williams: That goes into government revenues.
9256
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): That goes into
government revenues. The member cannot have it both ways.
Where the money is going is not the issue. The fact is that this
money has been yanked out of the pockets of individuals and
companies. It is a price they must pay.
(1220 )
Interestingly enough this is not the end of it. The chief actuary
has said that the CPP is actuarially unsound. This increase is not the
end. As the baby boomers start to retire it is quite likely it will
increase from 10 per cent to 14 per cent. As I said, it is money that
comes out of the pockets of individuals and companies.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-70, the Senate
amendment and the government's response to this Senate
amendment, on which we are being asked to vote.
At this stage of the game regarding Bill C-70, the GST bill, it
may be useful to review a bit of the history of the bill, so that our
listeners know exactly where things stand.
First of all, one must realize that Bill C-70, together with the
Senate amendment and the positive response from the government,
is the result of an election promise. That is how the GST bill got its
start.
In the March 11, 1996 edition of the Globe and Mail, the Deputy
Prime Minister was quoted as saying:
[English]
``I have already said personally and very directly that if the GST
is not abolished I will resign''.
[Translation]
We will recall that the Deputy Prime Minister made that
commitment precisely because a promise had been made to kill the
GST. The cost of this empty promise, at least inasmuch as it relates
to the Deputy Prime Minister's decision: $500,000. That is how
much the byelection in the riding of Hamilton East cost. Strangely
enough, although the Deputy Prime Minister had made a promise
to all Canadians and Quebecers, she let the people of Hamilton East
settle the issue on behalf of all Canadians.
During the 1993 election campaign, the current Prime Minister
said, and I quote: ``We will scrap the GST''. To scrap means to kill,
to eliminate, not replace the tax with more of the same, just by
changing the name of the tax, to make it look like the election
promise was kept.
On May 2, 1994, the Prime Minister made the following
statement about the GST: ``We hate it and we will kill it''. On the
basis of this election promise, as we know, the Deputy Prime
Minister was later forced to resign and run in a byelection.
The Minister of Finance has said openly both in this House and
outside: ``We should never have made such a promise. It was a
mistake''.
As for the Prime Minister, he maintains he never promised any
such thing. We have the videos, and the press clippings, in French
and in English, to prove he did, but he still maintains he never said
it. We now know what people think of this unfulfilled promise
about the GST. In fact, there are many unfulfilled commitments
made by the Liberals, including: tearing up the free trade
agreement that was signed; recognizing Quebec as a distinct
society and giving it a veto, something that was never done, as
Quebecers know; deprivatizing Pearson airport, and we are all
aware that this issue has become a real mess; creating jobs, but the
number of unemployed is just as high as it was when the Liberals
took office, while there are an additional 500,000 children living in
poverty.
These were promises made during the election campaign. I
remember taking part in a debate, in my riding of
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, with my opponents of the time.
People asked each and everyone of us what we would do with the
GST.
I remember that the Liberal candidate of the time, Normand
Biron, said the GST would be abolished, which was his party's
official position.
(1225)
I have no grudge against Mr. Biron, who is an excellent person.
He is also a good, intelligent and strong candidate, who is familiar
with the issues and who is very involved in the local community.
Strangely enough though, the Liberals are trying to get rid of him.
They have chosen someone from Quebec City to run againstMr. Biron for the Liberal nomination. That person will have to
resign in Quebec City to run against Mr. Biron. I find it sad that the
higher ups in the Liberal Party are trying to get rid of one of their
best people.
What did the Liberals have to say about the GST when the
Conservatives were trying to put it in place, and when they formed
the opposition? Here are some excerpts from the November 1989
Liberal minority report on the GST. These comments were made
when the Liberals formed the opposition. On page 283, and again
these remarks are from Liberal members, we find the following:
``The Liberal members of the finance committee maintain that the
goods and services tax proposed by the Tory government is bad and
that no 'repair job' of any kind will make it fair for taxpayers''.
What are the Liberals doing with Bill C-70, if not a repair job?
The GST remains the same and its rate remains the same. In fact, it
is the provincial tax that is being harmonized. The Liberals are only
doing a repair job on the Conservatives' GST and, if we are to
believe their own words, given that only the name of that tax was
changed, this new HST is as bad and unfair for taxpayers as the old
GST.
Here is another excerpt from the Liberal minority report of the
time. This one is from page 300, and I quote: ``Sales tax reform
cannot be undertaken independent from income tax reform, corpo-
9257
rate tax reform, social welfare reform or independently of the other
levels of government. Canada is in need of an overall tax reform
that encompasses all forms of taxation and all levels of
government''.
The fact is that no tax reform took place. The Bloc Quebecois is
the only party that tabled a comprehensive study on tax reform, for
both corporations and individuals, which is a first in Canadian
history. The fact is that on certain occasions governments have
proposed tax reforms, but it has never happened, in the whole
history of Canada, that an official opposition party has proposed
these reforms to the government, after studying them with the
resources available to the opposition for research, resources that
are meagre compared to the absolutely enormous resources
available to governments.
After these broken election promises, Bill C-70 was introduced
in the House, went to second reading, to committee, and then to
third reading, as a cover-up for the unkept promises. We know that
in many other cases, cover-ups have been the standard procedure.
There is the tainted blood inquiry, the Krever inquiry. There is
the Airbus affair, where top-ranking government officials sent
letters incriminating Mr. Mulroney, treating him like a criminal, to
Europe, when it is common knowledge that Canada has a very strict
law known as the presumption of innocence. This law says that
people are officially innocent-in the best sense of the word of
course-until proven guilty.
But these laws were ignored. In official letters from the
government, outside Canada, Mr. Mulroney was called a criminal.
There was the Somalia inquiry, which they are now gagging, while
the judge in charge of the inquiry says himself that they will never
get to the bottom of things if they are prevented from investigating
further.
The minister tells us that this inquiry has already been granted
two extensions and that they want to wrap things up. They were
nice, they allowed more time. But let it not be forgotten that the
reason a little more time was needed for this inquiry, or for those
conducting it, was precisely because for months and months and
months the army concealed documents that were being looked for
everywhere. If extra time was needed at one point, it was not
because the government was being nice, but because the documents
were not available because the army had hidden them.
Bill C-70 contains the amendments allowing harmonization of
the GST with three maritime provinces, and of course this is a
cover-up to help the pill go down more easily. They are sending a
billion dollars to the maritimes.
(1230)
What is the government's motivation in doing so? We know very
well. The Liberal government is, of course, embarrassed that the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage broke their
promise to scrap the GST, the tax they claim to hate.
So, in order to have more than just excuses when questioned on
this broken promise when the election comes, the Liberals want at
all costs to reach an agreement with the maritimes, in order to give
the impression that they have tried to do something about keeping
that promise. Even if this bad promise will cost Quebecers and
Canadians close to $1 billion, what counts for the Liberals is to get
the fat out of the fire, and to do so as promptly as possible.
This new harmonized sales tax, the HST, will be included in the
price, or at least that is what the government was proposing before
the Senate returned the bill with an amendment that states
otherwise.
To return to the 1989 Liberal minority report, what did the
Liberals have to say about this suggestion to include the GST in the
price? On page 298 they state as follows: ``If the GST is
camouflaged in the price, it will be far easier for the government to
raise it later on''. They put a serious damper on the idea of
including the tax in the price. Until just recently, they wanted to do
exactly the opposite of what they claimed in 1989 was not a good
idea.
What is more, some years ago the Minister of Finance was
saying the exact opposite of what he has done in his bill. The new
GST is hypocritical, because it is camouflaged in the price of goods
and services. On this subject, the 1994 Liberal majority report
stated, and I quote: ``It would simply be improper to ``hide'' from
Canadians the amount of tax they pay to their governments, and
hiding the tax interferes with the ability of taxpayers to make
government accountable for the taxes it levies and, to a lesser
degree, for how it spends the revenues''. That is what the latest
Liberal report said, yet they are about to do just the opposite.
In 1994, the Chamber of Commerce of Canada surveyed its
members, 70 per cent of whom were opposed to the idea of hiding
the tax in the sales price. This survey is still valid today. In
February 1996, the Chamber of Commerce conducted the same
survey again, just to realize that 76 per cent of its members now
held that opinion.
Through all the stages-second reading, committee study, third
reading-the Bloc Quebecois expressed a number of concerns
about this bill. We suggested the government should meet with the
people of the maritimes before imposing a harmonization they
clearly did not want. In spite of the work done in committee, and
repeated requests from the Bloc Quebecois, all our arguments fell
on deaf ears.
The Bloc also recommended that the HST not be included in the
sales price. This is another point made by the Bloc that the
government ignored until the Senate came up with this proposal to
9258
delay tax included pricing until 51 per cent of Canada's population
agrees to include the GST in pricing.
The changes proposed by the Senate are identical to those
previously proposed by the Bloc Quebecois and rejected by the
government. How will the government respond to the Senate? This
is what the motion before us today is all about. It reads as follows:
That this House, while disapproving of any infraction of its privileges or rights by
the other House, in this case waives its claim to insist upon such rights and privileges,
but the waiver of said rights and privileges is not to be drawn into a precedent-
They disapprove, but agree just the same.
(1235)
So, the government made sure to tell the senators: ``We accept
your amendment, even though we rejected the same amendment
when it was proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. We accept it,
provided you will not see this as a precedent''. But, as was pointed
out by my colleagues, it is very disturbing to see the government
accept a legislative amendment from a House whose members
were not elected, after rejecting the same amendment when it was
proposed by elected members of this House.
Unfortunately, the senators did not do as we did in this matter.
We in the Bloc Quebecois also demanded that the government
pay-and yesterday again we asked questions on this issue to the
Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister-$2 billion in
compensation to Quebec for having harmonized its own tax with
the GST, long before any other province. In so doing, Quebec
showed that it was perfectly able to get along with the federal
government, in fact more so than the other provinces. Yet, the
maritimes received $1 billion, while Quebec got nothing at all. We
are owed $2 billion, and the hon. member for Chambly clearly
explained why Quebec is justified in making that claim.
In the end, what was the cost, to Quebecers, of this whole
operation to cover up unfulfilled promises? Again, let us look only
at the costs which can actually be estimated. First, the re-election
of the Deputy Prime Minister cost $500,000. As you know, Madam
Speaker, 25 per cent of Canada's revenues come from Quebec,
which means that 25 per cent of federal spending in Canada is paid
by Quebecers. Therefore, the re-election of the Deputy Prime
Minister, who was forced to resign as a result of an unfulfilled
promise, cost Quebecers $125,000.
Let me explain, for those who are listening to us. We understand
what $25 represents. Billions of dollars is a lot of money: one
billion dollars is equal to 1,000 million dollars. So, 2,000 million
dollars is owed to Quebec for having harmonized its tax with the
GST, but it will not get one penny. So, $125,000 to elect the Deputy
Prime Minister, 2,000 million dollars that should come our way for
the GST, plus the $1 billion they are giving to the maritimes. Once
again, I repeat that 25 per cent of everything Canada pays out
comes from Quebec; of the $1 billion going to the maritimes, $250
million comes from Quebec.
This is common knowledge. It has come up in oral question
period. It is still getting a lot of coverage in the newspapers. What
is Mr. McKenna doing in Quebec? He is wooing away our own
businesses with money we provided that was transferred to New
Brunswick.
So, the total cost of this operation, of this broken promise to
scrap the GST, leaving us with a botched Bill C-70, is $125,000 to
elect the Deputy Prime Minister; 2,000 million dollars due Quebec
that it will probably not receive; and $250 million of Quebecers'
money going to the maritimes. All so that the maritimes can
conduct their corporate raiding in Quebec.
In the case of all bills tabled in the House, the Bloc Quebecois
has done the work it was elected to do, which was to defend
Quebec's interests ahead of all else.
It is extremely tiring in the long run to defend oneself daily, to go
after dribs and drabs of rights and powers, or to try to hang on to
dribs and drabs of rights and powers, when the only way out, for
Quebecers, is to have full rights and powers. For this to be possible,
we must become a country.
Each of the bills introduced here in the House-
[English]
Mr. Williams: You lost the referendum.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: I will come back to that. That is what I was
going to reply to my colleague.
(1240)
In fact, we lost the last referendum and I have often heard my
colleagues in the Reform Party wondering why we did not respect
the decision of Quebecers.
The Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are political parties
advocating the sovereignty of Quebec. We are not the ones who
decide, of course; that is up to the people of Quebec. To this end,
we must hold referendums in Quebec. We cannot, however, hold
referendums unless we have been elected to do so. In the end,
therefore, it is the people of Quebec themselves who decide
whether or not they want referendums by electing or by not electing
the Parti Quebecois, which alone, of course, can make this
proposal.
We therefore have great reservations about this bill, another
promise not kept.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
Bloc separatists keep saying that the people of Quebec want all
9259
these things, that they want to separate, but they did lose the
referendum. The people in Quebec said they do not want to
separate. If this government had done its job, of course the margin
would have been far greater than it actually was; however, we will
leave that debate for another day.
They always seem to get back to the issue of money and how
they have missed out on the billion dollars that has been given to
Atlantic Canadians by the Minister of Finance. They feel that they
are entitled to the same or more because they are in Quebec and
have harmonized voluntarily with the GST. They feel that shucks,
why do they not get money as well?
Let us look at it. The Prime Minister signed an agreement with
the province of British Columbia a few weeks ago to pay it more
money for immigration. I do not exactly have my numbers right but
I understand a lot more new immigrants are going to British
Columbia than are going to the province of Quebec. However, the
province of Quebec is getting a lot more money to handle
immigration than the province of British Columbia. I do not hear
Quebec members saying that it seems they are getting too much
money and maybe they should give some of that money back. We
do not hear that.
The great equalization program has been part of our Canadian
way of working with the provinces and has been around for about
40 years. The provinces that are more prosperous pay money to
those which are less affluent. As Reformers we do not disagree
with that philosophy.
The province of Quebec has always been one of the have not
provinces and the money has been flowing to it. The have
provinces are primarily Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
Quebec and Ontario are right next to a fabulous market with 100
million people on the eastern seaboard of the United States. Across
the Atlantic, there are 250 million people in Europe, a phenomenal
market for the manufactured goods of the provinces of Quebec and
Ontario. Markets are opening up around the world but Quebec is
still a have not province. It is a perennial have not province.
The politicians in Quebec should say that they want to be part of
this great country Canada and that they want to play their part in
creating jobs for the people of Quebec and trade with the eastern
seaboard of the United States through the free trade agreement.
They should say that they want to trade with the rest of Canada and
bring down the barriers that have been built between provinces, so
that they can expand jobs, create jobs, create wealth, create
opportunity and create hope for their children, rather than just
saying that they want a subsidy too.
When will the Bloc and the separatists start to see that there are
far greater opportunities within Canada through participating in
economic development rather than keeping the old, old story that
they have been hard done by and please send them more money.
That story will not work. I think the people in Quebec and the rest
of the country want jobs, an opportunity and an education. They
want to prosper. That is what they want.
(1245)
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Madam Speaker, first I would like to say to my
colleague that we are not the only province, we are not alone in
asking for compensation, since three provinces agree with us on
this, and the BC premier acknowledges that Quebec should be
compensated.
I was listening to a colleague before me say, in response or in a
question to another member who spoke before me, that the Reform
Party's position is that the maritimes should never have been
compensated.
Had the maritimes not had any compensation, Quebec would not
be asking for any. What we want is fairness. If a thousand million
dollars are sent to the maritimes, we in Quebec are entitled to ask
for the $2 billion due us, which the Liberal Party is denying us.
As far as the sovereignist movement is concerned, I would
remind my colleague that Quebec's demands have been known,
clear and simple for 40 years. All Quebec politicians, whatever
their party, have said the same thing. In the mid-1950s, Mr.
Duplessis demanded his share of the spoils. Mr. Duplessis was a
member of the Union Nationale party.
He was followed by Mr. Lesage, a Liberal and a federalist, who
talked of Quebecers being masters in their own home. Next came
someone else from the Union Nationale, Daniel Johnson Sr., who
called for ``equality or independence''. Then came René Lévesque,
who said: ``We cannot go on fighting endlessly like this for 30
years; what we want is Quebec's sovereignty''.
Through all these movements and all these premiers, Quebec
continued to make the same clear and simple demand. These
people were federalists. Quebec has always asked to be recognized
for what it is-a nation-with certain privileges in the Constitution
enabling it to defend itself as a nation. Nothing more, nothing less.
The refusal by the Canadian government and the Canadian
establishment to accept this fact will mean that Quebec will
become a country, in the long term. A look at the sovereignty
movement in Quebec leaves no doubt that it is a growing
movement. The Parti Quebecois was born in 1968. There were
hardly any sovereignists in the early 1960s in Quebec. In 1968, the
PQ was born. That was less than 30 years ago.
In 1976, the Parti Quebecois was elected for the first time and
formed the government in the National Assembly. Three
referendums were held. In the first, in 1980, the no vote was 60 per
cent and the yes vote, 40 per cent. In the Charlottetown
referendum, it was the reverse: 60 per cent voted against the
Charlottetown accord. Canadians voted against the accord too, for
reasons differ-
9260
ent from ours: they thought we had too much already. In the last
referendum, it was 50-50. So it is clear that the sovereignist
movement has grown in the past 28 or 29 years.
The government could stop this movement tomorrow, if it
wanted. It would be very easy to do, by recognizing in the
Constitution that the people of Quebec form a nation and,
therefore, have the right to protect themselves and this concept of a
nation.
That is all Quebecers are asking for. Not me. Personally, I am an
unconditional sovereignist, in that I fail to see any point in a nation
living as a minority within another nation, because as a minority,
you then have to do as you are told; you do what they want, when
they want.
I want to be independent. I want to make my own choices, speak
on my own behalf and take my own responsibilities. That is how it
should be.
But that, we will never get from Canada. I will never be a true
federalist, but if this kind of recognition was included in the
Constitution, most Quebecers would go for it. They would sign the
Constitution they have never signed, and I would democratically
fall in with the people's will and stop fighting for sovereignty. But
that will never happen because this Prime Minister and his
predecessors have never stopped attacking Quebec.
(1250)
Remember the long knives stuck in the back of René Lévesque
by Trudeau and the little guy from Shawinigan, who will soon be
calling an election and whom we will beat in his own riding.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
member from the Bloc moved this debate into a very interesting
area but not entirely on topic since we are discussing Bill C-70, the
HST tax proposed by the Liberal government.
I would like to say a kind word about the member. I noticed he is
wearing a daffodil on his jacket. I want to mention, and I will be
mentioning again later today, that the daffodils come compliments
of CKNW-98, a radio station in Vancouver. This is a tradition it
does every year at this time for the first day of spring. I thank the
member for wearing that daffodil. I notice a few other members
have them as well. They are set out nicely in vases in our lobbies as
well.
I would like to refer back to a government member who gave a
speech approximately an hour ago. I had wanted to question him
but unfortunately we ran out of time. During his speech he said
what a wonderful job the Liberal government had done. He
mentioned that exports were at record highs. He forgot to mention
of course that is due to NAFTA which was one of those things the
Liberals said they would oppose. They were going to renegotiate
NAFTA, scrap it if necessary and here they are now trying to claim
credit for something they did not want anything to do with.
In addition, we have low interest rates that they constantly claim
credit for and what a wonderful thing it is. And yet it was the low
inflation policies of the Bank of Canada that gave us low interest
rates, not the Liberals. They are very happy to take credit for all
these things that they did not do and that they have even opposed.
When they were in opposition they opposed the interest rate policy
of the Bank of Canada and now here they are wanting to take credit
for it.
Through all of that they will not take any credit for the
unemployment figures or that for their entire time in office the
unemployment levels have remained at unacceptably high levels,
10 per cent to 11 per cent through their entire mandate, making 77
straight months now of unemployment levels, as high as the last
depression.
When we question them in question period the finance minister
gets up, takes his glasses off and says ``we have the lowest interest
rates in the whole world and it is wonderful and people are saving
so much money on their mortgage''. Of course that is Liberal
thinking. In order to get a benefit you have to borrow money.
What happens to people who do not have a mortgage and are
struggling to actually get into a house? What happens to the people
who do not have a car and are struggling to get a car or other
things? According to the Liberals the only way to save money is to
actually borrow money and that is typical Liberal tax and spend
type thinking which put us in the problems we are in today where
we need a GST and now some sort of HST in order to help pay for
all these bad decisions of the past, mostly by Liberal governments
where they have borrowed, taxed and spent trying to make Canada
prosperous. All they achieved in the end was a lot of misery and
terrible problems we are facing now and trying to deal with in the
budgets that come before the House.
The HST we are debating today would not even be necessary if
this government had followed Reform's zero in three plan that was
proposed in 1993. We would be spending surpluses instead of still
discussing these massive deficits.
Two months ago I was dialling into the Internet via Sympatico,
the service I use in B.C. It has an introduction page when you first
dial in and it said: ``Question of the day: Now that the government
has its deficit down to an excellent $19 billion should it begin
spending again?''
(1255 )
I almost blew a gasket. Excellent $19 billion deficit? A $19
billion deficit is not excellent. A $19 billion surplus would be
9261
excellent but a $19 billion deficit, excellent it is not. You can be
sure I very quickly put my comments on that chat line.
If we had been following Reform's zero in three plan, we would
be like New Zealand is today. It is running massive surpluses and it
is able to give people terrific tax cuts instead of trying to introduce
an HST, hiding the government's tax grab in a newly constructed
tax that was only obtained by bribing Atlantic premiers with $1
billion taken from other taxpayers throughout the country to
subsidize the people in Atlantic Canada with this new HST which
will end up being the worst tax of their lives. If we think the GST
was bad, wait until they experience the HST.
I mentioned that New Zealand is running surpluses. Many
members know I am originally from New Zealand. I have watched
with interest some of the developments there because New
Zealanders have been through many of the fiscal problems that
Canada still has to face. For the past three years New Zealand has
run very healthy surpluses. Remember its economy is only about
the size of British Columbia's economy, but this past year it ran an
$8 billion surplus. As a result of that, the New Zealand government
was able to give the average wage earner in New Zealand a tax
decrease of $200 a month.
Imagine if Canadians were offered today a $200 a month tax
break instead of a new HST which would strip them of tax money.
Think of the boost that would be to the economy. Think of the jobs
it would create if people in Atlantic Canada had an additional $200
a month in their pockets to spend instead of another tax grab of
HST.
This government should be ashamed of itself. We know that
what we are going through today is a big hurry up on this bill to try
to force it through by April 1 because it is the deadline. The
government is trying to ram this bill through against the wishes of
many retail groups that have already said that the HST will result in
lost jobs because of closed businesses right across the province.
The Retail Council Canada, independent retailers and many
large national companies have complained that the tax inclusive
provision of the legislation would create confusion and add
additional costs. For example, Woolworth Canada estimated that it
would consider closing one-quarter of its 126 stores with a
resulting loss of 300 jobs.
We have consistently heard from the finance minister who
admits that high taxes kill jobs. So it is reasonable to ask, if that
admission is there, why are we not working to get rid of the GST, as
was promised by this government. There is a whole list of ministers
and members on that side of the House who made the promises
during the election campaign that the GST would be gone, history,
toast. The most hated tax would be gone. They used the emotion of
the GST to win power in this place and then let people down by
breaking the promises.
There is a court challenge going on in British Columbia against
the NDP government for breaking its promises. The court
challenge is going ahead and will be heard very soon. If the
government there is found guilty of deceiving the voters by
breaking its promises, by telling lies in effect, it will be thrown out
of office and the election declared void.
What a healthy thing it would be if we could have similar
provisions at the federal level. This would force these people to tell
the truth in their election campaigns. Then they would not say they
will scrap, abolish, make the GST history, toast, gone forever in
order to get elected. They would not fiddle around and change the
rules and say ``all we really meant was to harmonize, to change it,
not to give any tax relief to Canadians at all, not one cent of tax
relief, but simply to increase taxes and invent this HST'', the
horrible sales tax. That is exactly what it is. It is a horrible sales
tax. It is worse than the GST that preceded it. Certainly constituents
in my area of the country are very unhappy their tax dollars are
being used to subsidize this change in the taxation process.
(1300)
In terms of harmonizing and tax inclusive pricing, the average
person by having a tax inclusive price loses the ability to see what
portion of that price is government taxation. That is a very serious
problem. Although it may be printed on the cash register tape, it
requires a person to examine the printout to see what the taxes are.
Maybe it will be printed there. That is fine. However when people
look at the price of an item on the shelf, go to the cash register,
hand the money over, accept the receipt, put it in their pockets and
throw it away with the garbage later, they are not concentrating on
what portion of the price is actually sales tax.
It is very important for them to see when they are actually hit
with the sales tax at the cash register which takes the price up from
maybe $320 to $395 what the government is taking out of their
pockets.
For taxation to be fair it should be visible. People should know
what they are paying to the government in terms of taxation. It is a
bad precedent to have harmonized sales tax that hides the GST in
tax inclusive pricing.
Many retailers and small businesses are very upset that anything
like this could be proposed. There has been a lot of opposition to
the bill. Many groups are opposed to it.
The Reform Party did a minority report as a result of the finance
committee hearings on GST harmonization. They were the usual
type of sham as most committee hearings are, dare I say all
committee hearings are. Just like debates and votes in this place,
we know before committee hearings start exactly what the outcome
will be. That is a very unfortunate fact of life.
9262
Recently I was visiting New Zealand where there have been
some quite dramatic parliamentary reforms which make it more
democratic to work in its house. All committees of the New
Zealand parliament must report back within six months on every
piece of business that goes before them. They are not allowed to
do what happened with the private members' bill that went
through this place to get rid of section 745. That cannot happen
under the revised rules in New Zealand. It would have to be
reported back to the House and action would have to be taken.
In addition, every private members bill is votable. The
assumption is made that if people are intelligent enough or
responsible enough to be members of the House they should be
trusted to be able to bring forward pieces of legislation that would
be voted on. If they have made an error in judgment and introduced
a stupid piece of legislation, it will be cut down in the vote.
Combined with that, there is now proxy voting for members in
New Zealand. Members who are legitimately in their ridings on
riding business or away on committees or other legitimate business
associated with their activities as members of Parliament may vote
by proxy. They call in their votes to the party whip who during the
vote in the House stands and says that there are x number of proxy
votes for or against an issue. That is a very civilized way to conduct
business.
Many of us in these modern days of easy travel and
communications have to be away from this place doing other
official duties that prevent us from being present on every vote. We
are always following the debate because we have access to
television and news wherever we are. It would certainly be very
civilized to be able to call in a proxy vote on issues of importance
to us and to our constituents.
(1305)
In addition the committees of the house in New Zealand, ones
like the one that considered the HST, are structured to be much
more democratic. Approximately 10 per cent of all chairs are
selected from opposition parties based on a free vote. The
vice-chairs of all the committees are selected from the opposition
parties in proportion to the number of seats they have. That
division of vice-chairs is arranged between the opposition parties
according to the particular committees they would like to be
vice-chairs of.
There have been a lot of changes to the rules in that house that
have made it much more democratic. Cross party voting is actually
encouraged and not frowned upon at all. On a regular basis
members vote with the other side.
What a tremendous, refreshing thing it would be if we could see
those sorts of reforms in this place. Then we would not be facing
the situation we are today with time allocation. A bill is being
rammed through this place. Our debating time is being cut off.
That would not be happening if this place was more democratic.
If the government side was responsive to the input, if it truly
cared about the feedback it was getting and if it allowed its
members the freedom to truly vote according to the representations
in front of them, we would not be faced with the time allocation
problem we are faced with today.
Some of the points that were made by our minority committee
relating to the debate on legislation to harmonize and streamline
the GST concerned integrity. The member for York-South Weston
who was responsible for the private member's bill on section 745
of the Criminal Code was banished from the Liberal Party caucus
by the Prime Minister for voting on a matter of principle, on a
matter of integrity, on a matter of promising to get rid of the GST.
What a terrible shame to see such an infringement upon
democracy. Members are not free to represent their constituents, to
truly represent them or to vote on principle without suffering total
banishment from his caucus. Their riding associations are stripped
of money and virtually put out of party business. It is an awful
thing to happen. It leads to the situation of today where members
are afraid to vote against the government, if they are on the
government side. They are afraid they will lose the nomination,
lose all their funding, lose their riding association and somebody
will be parachuted in to take their place.
What an appalling comment on how our system is run. It has
degenerated from the original idea of what Parliament should be. It
should be a place where people come to debate and discuss the
issues, come to a conclusion and tell cabinet what it will do. It has
degenerated to a house of the parties, a place for fulfilling the party
agenda. The government side of the House thinks that it owns the
chairs we sit upon, that it owns the desks we sit at and that it can
dictate to us how we vote.
My constituents can be sure that the chair I sit upon and the desk
I sit at belongs to them. They pay my salary in the House. They are
entitled to have me represent them. Whenever they can show me
they have a majority position that is against my party, against my
personal beliefs or agrees with the government, they can be sure I
will vote to represent them. I have proven that on three separate
occasions when I voted against my party line. Once I voted against
my own beliefs to represent my constituents.
I did not get thrown out of my caucus. I did not get my riding
association banished from the face of the earth. Democracy
prevailed. In the event it is clear a majority of my constituents want
me to vote in a certain manner I am obliged to do so by the
constitution of the Reform Party. It actually requires me to do that.
9263
That is a major break for democracy which I hope will gradually
spread to other areas of the House.
(1310)
I realize that my time has run out at this stage so I will deign to
sit down. This was my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-70. I look
forward to hearing more speeches later in the debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. There have
been discussions among the parties, which have agreed to let the
Minister responsible for Francophonie make a ministerial
statement on this day celebrating la Francophonie known as the
Jounée internationale de la Francophonie, followed by the hon.
member for Verchères, speaking on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois,
and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, on behalf of the Reform Party.
So, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous
consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. Normally my speech would be followed by a short
question and comments period. Will that be taken after the question
period today?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member will have 10 minutes of questions and comments.
_____________________________________________
9263
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): It is an
honour for me as Minister responsible for Francophonie and as a
French Canadian from eastern Ontario to address the House in
order to call attention today to the Journée internationale de la
Francophonie.
This event is celebrated today in the prolific web of 49 countries
and governments that share the use of French.
We know that La Francophonie is very much alive in Canada, but
it is as well in Eastern and Western Europe, Africa the Middle East,
Asia, the Indian Ocean region and the West Indies.
The Government of Canada has participated in La Francophonie
since the outset, thereby saluting the importance of the French fact
in Canada. For this reason, it makes the international francophone
community an integral and essential part of its foreign policy. We
wish to demonstrate in this way our desire to highlight the
contribution of the various Canadian francophone cultures in our
great country. Whether in Moncton, St. Boniface, Hawkesbury, in
my riding, or Ste. Marie de Beauce, in Quebec, French is alive and
well in Canada.
Canada is also a member of La Francophonie because it believes
in the virtues of multilateral relations based on cooperation and
exchanges. It is no accident that Canada belongs to a great many
multilateral organizations; from the G7 to the Asia-Pacific Forum,
from NATO to the Organization of American States, from La
Francophonie to the Commonwealth, Canada's geography and
linguistic make-up virtually invite such participation.
There are other reasons as well for Canada's very active role in
La Francophonie; the participating government status enjoyed by
the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick enables them to share
fully in the activities of the francophone world and provides them
with a way exhibiting their vitality and expertise.
In addition, next May 19 to 21, an important conference on
information highways will bring together in Montreal all the
ministers of La Francophonie responsible for the information high
way. This conference, jointly organized by the Agence de la
Francophonie, the Government of Quebec and the Government of
Canada, bears witness to the desire to enable the developing
countries to participate in the modern world by putting the means
of communication at their service.
The Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien,
will go to Vietnam next November to participate in the Hanoi
Summit and to help make La Francophonie an increasingly
integrated community. It should not be forgotten that Canada
hosted the 1987 Summit in Quebec City.
(1315)
Need I add, especially in your presence, Madam Speaker, that in
Hanoi, we will once again put forward our candidacy to host the
Eighth Summit in 1999, this time on Acadian soil in Moncton, New
Brunswick, a part of the country you know well.
I would like to conclude by wishing the 8.5 million francophones
and all the francophiles from one end of Canada to the other a
happy Journée internationale de la Francophonie.
I must also ask to be excused-I apologize to my hon. colleagues
across the way-because, as they know, as we speak, there is a
reception under way for key figures of the Canadian and
international francophone community, which I am hosting.
9264
My hon. colleagues are invited of course, when their duties in
the House of Commons permit, to join me there so that we can
celebrate all together this great day, not only for the Canadian
Francophonie, but for all of Canada and all Canadians.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to assure the minister that I gladly excuse him, on behalf
of the political formation I represent here in the House of
Commons. I understand his obligations, and I certainly have no
objections, since I know he will read our speeches carefully when
he gets back to his office a bit later on.
First of all, I would like to thank all of my House colleagues for
allowing us to have this exchange on the Journée internationale de
la Francophonie. It would, I think, have been terribly unfortunate if
we were to let the day go by without marking the Journée
internationale de la Francophonie.
I am also extremely pleased to speak in this House today on the
occasion of the Journée internationale de la Francophonie. To begin
with, however, I would like to qualify what the minister has just
said. Quebec was the one to initially show interest in the
Francophonie, in the early 1960s, via its special relationship with
France and its subsequent membership in 1971 in ACCT, the
Agence de coopération culturelle et technique. Moreover, it
managed to become a full-fledged member of ACCT as a
participating government only after a great struggle with Ottawa.
The federal government then thought up ways to trivialize
Quebec's presence within the institutions of the Francophonie,
going so far as to fund New Brunswick's participation in order to
show the international community that Canada's membership in
the Francophonie was not solely related to the French character of
Quebec.
Be that as it may, the Francophonie has undergone numerous
major changes in recent years. The last was in 1996, when the
ACCT finally became the Agence de la Francophonie. From that
moment on, the Francophonie became a political body, with a
Secretary General to be appointed at the Hanoi Summit later this
year. In this connection, the name of former UN Secretary-General
Boutros Boutros-Ghali is being circulated at the moment as the
potential first secretary of the Agence de la Francophonie.
This political tack which the Francophonie has taken shows how
it has matured politically into an internationally recognized forum
whose membership discusses vital issues. This new vocation also
requires of us a greater solidarity, cemented together by language
and culture.
At the very moment we are celebrating the great francophone
family, I find it hard to understand the government's guilty silence
concerning the catastrophic situation that currently prevails in
Zaire, where civilian populations are the primary victims of the
raging conflict. How can we celebrate this day joyfully, when the
values which we hold dear and defend, the respect of human rights,
democracy and of the rule of law, are being trampled upon daily in
a number of the member countries of the Francophonie?
(1320)
Next fall, the Sommet de la Francophonie will be held in
Vietnam. Canada has always given precedence to multilateral
approaches for advancing causes it holds dear. Will it take
advantage of this important occasion to raise certain points,
including human rights, child labour and excessive defence
spending in developing countries?
Canada could also easily raise the case of Trân Triêu Quân, the
Canadian citizen who has been unjustly imprisoned in that country
for far too long already. Like the Commonwealth, the
Francophonie is an important tool with which we can make the
world a fairer and a safer place.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me,
as Canadian, to address this House on the Journée internationale de
la Francophonie.
I would like to say a word on the importance of multilateral
relations. The benefits of such relations are the reasons why
Canada belongs to a number of international organizations. The
G7, NATO and the Commonwealth are all important structures for
the promotion of our foreign policy. The Francophonie includes 45
countries and a few other entities, including Quebec, for example,
which have in common the use of the French language.
[English]
Membership in international organizations should be based on
enlightened self-interest. It is to our benefit to help maintain
international stability, but I have some fear that our financial
contributions through CIDA to certain members of la Francophonie
represent a disproportionate share of our foreign aid budget.
Historically we have helped to prop up some very nasty and corrupt
regimes for no apparent reason other than that the recipients speak
French. We should perhaps be more careful with our national
chequebook.
[Translation]
Since 1970, Canada has been a leader in the development of the
Francophonie. It is also a founding member of the Agence de
coopération culturelle et technique. Thursday, March 20, is the
Journée internationale de la Francophonie. Happy Journée
internationale de la Francophonie to all francophones and
francophiles who have made Canada a better place.
9265
9265
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We will now
resume from where we left off with questions and comments with
regard to the speech made by the member for North Vancouver.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member was talking about his birthplace of New Zealand and
all the wonderful things that have been done there.
My recollection of the New Zealand situation after it virtually
went bankrupt was that it brought in a harmonized consumption
tax. I believe it was 12 per cent and was applied to all goods and
services, including food and prescription drugs, absolutely
everything. I am also aware that some changes were made to the
income tax structure as well which amounted to massive tax
reductions to high income earners in New Zealand and shifted the
burden of tax down to the low and middle income earners.
I have read analyses of the impact in New Zealand. That scorch
and burn approach used in New Zealand seems to be the kind of
approach the Reform Party has been proposing in its budgets and in
its false start program. It is the same kind of thing where the road
kill of its citizens is increased poverty, poorer health care or quality
of health care, poorer social services, higher suicide rates and
higher family breakdown, all as a result of what the member
describes as progressive government. Would the member like to
reassess his position on the wonderful actions in New Zealand and
maybe recant here and now?
(1325)
Mr. White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I can tell
by the comments from the hon. member that he has not visited New
Zealand because if he had, he would know how foolish his
comments are. Unfortunately, he has been listening too much to
Maude Barlow who also has not made any logical analysis of what
has happened in New Zealand. I can understand why she is opposed
to it; her special interests are greatly threatened by the things that
have taken place in New Zealand.
In any debate on this issue I always say to people that if they can
afford to go, please visit New Zealand. When they come back I
know they will say to me that I was telling the truth and that those
on the other side who have discredited it really were not.
The member mentions such things as a higher teenage suicide
rate. It is wonderful how figures can lie and liars can figure all of
that stuff. I am not applying that to the member; I am applying it to
the people who have used these figures.
In one year in New Zealand a mass suicide took place in a Maori
community. They were sniffing some sort of petroleum product.
That bumped the suicide rate so high for one year because New
Zealand has a relatively low suicide rate among youngsters. It was
used as a basis for claiming that the suicide rate had gone up in
New Zealand. It is a massive distortion.
In addition, there are the crime rate statistics that are used by
people like Maude Barlow. If the New Zealand police are asked
about it they say the reason for it is that they changed the computer
system and the way crimes were reported. Everything that comes
over on the phone lines is now reported rather than under the old
manual system when only actual convictions were reported. It
looks as if there has been a crime rate increase, but there are many
other things there.
The hon. member mentioned the GST in New Zealand. It is true
that when New Zealand went bankrupt a GST was introduced. That
had to be done because it was an emergency situation. The
International Monetary Fund was controlling things.
I have had the benefit of sitting down for an hour and a half with
former prime minister David Lange who was the labour prime
minister at the time New Zealand went bankrupt. He was gracious
enough to give me some of his time about two years ago. I never
thought that I would have deep respect for somebody who was a
labour prime minister.
It was a very interesting and quite impressive discussion. He
described how his philosophy took a 180 degree turn. He had to
make a 180 degree turn with respect to what he had believed all of
his life in terms of socialism. He came to the position that without a
robust, healthy investor and private sector you cannot have social
programs. What you end up doing is destroying your country. What
a massive turnaround that was for him.
He told me that once they began the cuts in New Zealand the
people were so solidly behind them because just like here, they had
seen the government waste for so long. They could not believe the
government was actually doing something. It gave such
tremendous impetus that the government went faster and faster. It
got the job done so very quickly that very rapidly the recovery
began.
I was down in New Zealand about a month ago. Unfortunately it
was not on pleasant circumstances because my mother-in-law had
had a heart attack. I can assure this House that had any members
been down there with me they would have been really impressed
with the feeling of vibrancy, the really good feelings that are there.
9266
People feel good about what has happened to their country. It has
become competitive internationally. Certainly there was a GST
introduced and it is still there today.
(1330)
What has happened is that there is a consumption tax. That GST
is a consumption tax, which is very easy to do in a country that is
isolated from other countries.
In terms of income tax, there have been massive reductions in
income tax in New Zealand. It should be across the board because
New Zealand has recognized something that these members
opposite do not recognize. It is the successful people who create the
jobs and create the wealth for the country. If they are taxed to the
point that they leave, their country is destroyed, their jobs are
destroyed along with everything they stand for.
I welcome the question. I am very pleased to have replied.
Perhaps I was a little harsh on him at the beginning by saying he
was foolish. That was unfair. I voluntarily retract that even though
he has not asked me to.
I would invite him any time to take a trip to New Zealand,
hopefully not with a committee because that really is not fair.
Sometime he should pay for his own trip to New Zealand. There are
some wonderful deals to go there. Take a look for himself.
As soon as he gets back, he can pick up the phone, call Maude
Barlow and tell her she is completely out of line.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened enthusiastically to the member's statement. I was in the
lobby for part of it. Then I came into the House and listened to the
rest here. It is interesting to hear the New Zealand experience. It is
important to express that time and time again.
It is really interesting to see how this whole business of
harmonization came about. I want to put this to the member for
North Vancouver to address. It is a series of defaults on the part of
the Liberal government that led up to this point of harmonization.
The Liberal government was put into a corner, if you will. It
started out in part by the heritage minister when she was forced to
resign and seek re-election at a cost of over $500,000 to the
taxpayer. It is all over this GST issue.
The second point is the finance minister publicly begged
forgiveness in his statement ``we made a mistake for misleading
Canadians on the Liberal GST policy''.
Then there was another row when the member for York
South-Weston resigned. I should say he was banished from the
Liberal caucus. Then the member for Broadview-Greenwood
temporarily went into self-exile. All this happened over the GST
issue.
I would like to put this forward to the member and seek his
comments.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, before I make
comments about the defaults on the part of the Liberal government,
while my colleague was speaking a member opposite was yelling
out that the Deputy Prime Minister was not forced to resign, that
she did it herself.
As soon as my colleague said that it cost $500,000, the very
same member yelled out: ``That was your fault. You forced her to
resign''. They cannot have it both ways.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I wish to
inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement,
Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
indeed it is a privilege to debate this topic on GST, specifically the
harmonization aspect.
It was a very key issue in the last election, the hated GST and
what was going to happen to it. Of course there were promises
made by the Liberal government to scrap the GST. We heard the
government's mandate as to how it would deal with it. It has built
up to this point and again, looking toward the next election, it is
still an issue. In fact, it is more of an issue now for some. It will
directly impact the lives of people in Atlantic Canada.
(1335)
All kinds of comments have been made and studies done on this
particular tax. Is it a good deal or is it a bad deal? I will take the bad
deal side because it is a bad deal. I have not heard much good about
it. When we consider what business has said and many of the
comments made by government leaders, it is a bad deal. The
resignation of Premier Savage of Nova Scotia no doubt was
partially due to the harmonization fiasco. Many call it the BST or
the blended sales tax. That is how it is colloquially known in many
areas. It is a bad deal.
The Atlantic premiers were bribed into signing the deal with a $1
billion shot in the arm from Canadian taxpayers. The harmonized
version will amount to 15 per cent as opposed to the 18 per cent
which the provincial sales tax and the GST amounted to.
The tax will have a broader base. People who pay utility bills or
who make any other purchases will now see the tax hit their
pockets. It will cost them more. That is how it will impact on the
average person. The tax will take away from their income.
We are living in an age of high taxation. In Canada there is one
tax after another. The so-called harmonized tax was promoted as a
tax which would alleviate problems. However, the base is so broad
that it is costing taxpayers even more.
9267
How can one justify adding another tax to the already depressed
area of Atlantic Canada? The tax will not bolster its economy, it
will do the opposite.
What does business say about the tax? Three major retailers in
Atlantic Canada have stated that their net annual retail deficit will
total $27 million once harmonization is implemented. Is that not a
warning sign?
One private retailer in the Atlantic region was contemplating
opening two stores in 1997 but has decided against it as a result of
increased costs associated with harmonization. Instead of
expanding and looking at the tax as alleviating some of the
problems, that retailer is backing off.
If someone is going to invest a dollar into business, they want a
return on that dollar. They want to know that the investment will
yield a return. That does not seem to be happening. The message
that the retailers are getting from harmonization is the opposite.
They are being very cautious about expanding their operations.
They are being very cautious about investing in business.
There are warning signs, but the government plods along and
will impose this tax on a region which wants nothing to do with it.
Both privately owned and publicly owned, traded stores are
reluctant to explain the problems they face as a result of
harmonization so as not to jeopardize consumer confidence and the
value of their stock.
(1340 )
What does that say? It says that this discussion is not as as open
and as public as they would like it to be but they fear that people
will withhold, that they will not patronize them, that they will not
buy their product or that they will look at the operation as
struggling or as having some significant problem in their affairs.
That will directly impact on their profit line. It is the profit line that
we talk about because businesses are only in business to make a
profit; let's face it, the bottom line.
The Retail Council of Canada submitted its findings which
included this statement: ``By forcing stores to bury the new tax in
prices, the harmonized tax regime will cost retailers at least $100
million a year''.
An hon. member: It is gone.
Mr. Hanger: Okay, if it is gone, it is gone. These items are very
important. They show there is a concern expressed by many. Of
course the retail council submitted those submissions and I agree.
An hon. member: It is happy.
Mr. Hanger: It is not totally happy, but I agree that as a result of
its pressure some things have been done. That still does not take
away from the fact that the tax is hitting a broad base of goods in
that region. It will impact directly on the pocketbooks of the
consumer.
The Halifax Chamber of Commerce had meetings with the
committee. It made predictions. One of its predictions was that the
tax would push up new house prices by 5.5 per cent as well as force
municipalities to raise property taxes. If the chamber is saying that
in Halifax obviously that view will be shared by other regions of
Atlantic Canada. It will impact directly on housing costs and lead
to increased taxes which will be imposed on the consumer.
As this effort continues to impact on the consumer, where is that
going to put him? Is it going to create more jobs if housing goes
down? Is it going to encourage those who have finances to go and
spend? No, it is not. He will have less money to spend in the first
place because his taxes are going up and house prices will
definitely impact in that same region.
The Canadian Real Estate Association says that harmonization
will increase the cost of a new house by $4,000 in Nova Scotia and
in Newfoundland to the tune of $3,374, and in New Brunswick. As
any family would desire in terms of its own comfort to have a
house, the opportunities will be slim because $4,000 is a lot. It will
impact on the down payment. Regardless of how low interest rates
are the cost of this is impacting right at the consumer level. It is just
as I mentioned earlier. When you pay your utilities you will see that
extra hit right there, a broad based tax that did not exist before.
The GST harmonization is responsible for the closure of five
Greenberg stores and the loss of 79 jobs in approximately five
different locations. There are closures. This will not be the only hit
in that region but it is one. Woolworth Canada also estimates that
because of the tax inclusive pricing it might consider closing 126
stores in the Atlantic region, which means a loss of approximately
300 jobs.
(1345 )
Another smaller but just as significant retail business, Carleton
Cards, predicts that it will close 19 of its 37 stores in the region,
throwing approximately 116 people out of work.
It is government's business not to create jobs in the sense that
they have to be government jobs. It should certainly create jobs by
creating an atmosphere so business in turn can create jobs. The
small businessman is the job creator and the engine in society that
should be creating the jobs. I do not think this is the mandate of the
government. The harmonization aspect of this tax is yielding other
concerns. It will certainly impact directly on the whole job market.
Management of Carleton Cards also indicates that there is a
50:50 chance of further store closures and a loss of 71 jobs in eight
different cities across Atlantic Canada.
I have a question for the Liberal government. Why have these
concerns not been addressed directly? Why have the fears of the
9268
business community not been put at ease by the government saying
this is not happening and the information is to the opposite effect?
The bottom line is that consumers will pay more for funeral
services. They will pay more for children's clothing. They will pay
more for books, auto repairs, electricity, gasoline, home heating
fuel, haircuts and myriad other things.
In closing, this tax will certainly impact directly on the
consumer. We are now looking at unemployment rates that are
unacceptable. They will be a lot higher.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want
to point out one small matter and ask my friend a question as well.
The debate over burying the tax in the shelf price or not is by no
means unanimous. In the riding I serve a large number of retailers
have begged us to proceed with harmonization. They actually want
the tax buried in the sticker price and shown on the cash register
receipt. The member should be aware that this is not unanimous.
If a harmonized sales tax is such a bad deal, why are chambers of
commerce coming to me asking why it is not in Ontario, when it is
coming and who is holding it up? I have to explain to them the offer
is open to Ontario to harmonize at any time. The provincial
governments held harmonization in great favour before the were
elected have since reversed themselves and are not proceeding with
the harmonization the business community really wants.
If the business community wants it, why is it such a bad deal?
Mr. Hanger: Madam Speaker, there may be some that seek it in
the business community. I have heard that reflected from my
colleagues during the debate. The bottom line is whether
consumers want the harmonized tax and how it will impact on
them. That is the important issue. The big retailers certainly do not
want it.
(1350)
The member keeps speaking about Ontario businessmen running
to him wanting to know when it is coming into Ontario. Alberta,
Ontario and British Columbia are not even willing to discuss this
federal proposal. They know they will have to pay the shot for the
provinces that cannot make up the difference like Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. They know they will bear the
brunt of the difference when it comes to supporting weaker
provinces.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): 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 (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division stands deferred until 5 p.m. this afternoon.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, would seek unanimous consent of
the House to suspend until the call of the Chair at 2 p.m.?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.56 p.m.)
_______________
(The House resumed at 2 p.m.)
9268
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, preventive
medicine is very popular in Canada these days. With many acute
care facilities closing it makes only good sense to do what we can
to stop disease before it starts. Health foods, vitamins, nutritional
supplements and alternative medical practices are tools to prevent
disease. These are employed by many thoughtful citizens.
The health protection branch and international Codex proposals
threaten those choices in Canada. For example, melatonin has now
been banned. Is there any proven harm? No. Is there any proven
side effect? No. Is there any proven impurity? No.
Reform's position on this issue is clear. An informed consumer
is a far better judge of their health care needs than some distant
bureaucrat in Ottawa. Our message is also clear to the health
protection branch and to Codex. Get out of our faces.
9269
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
December 1994, Stephan Zbikowski, a Canadian citizen, was
arrested for drug trafficking and is still in jail, in Tocyito,
Venezuela. This maximum security penitentiary houses the
country's most dangerous criminals, which raises concerns about
the personal safety of Mr. Zbikowski, who has no criminal record
in Canada. Moreover, no guilty verdict has yet been rendered in
Venezuela.
Close to 2,500 people signed a petition asking the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to make
representations to Venezuelan authorities, so as to bring this most
preoccupying situation to a positive conclusion. At the request of
Mr. Zbikowski's mother, I sent the petition to the Prime Minister's
office.
We do hope that, given the concrete support shown by all these
signatures, the Prime Minister will give this issue all the attention
it deserves.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the endangered species legislation is currently being
studied by Parliament but there is one endangered species that is
being ignored, the Canadian middle class.
First, more and more Canadian families are slipping into poverty
and more families cannot escape poverty.
Second, wages have stagnated or declined in Canada over the
last two decades at the same time as taxes have been consistently
raised. Wealth and income in Canada has become increasingly
concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people and the gap
between rich and poor is at 19th century levels. In other words, the
middle class has all but disappeared.
I urge the government to include the Canadian middle class as an
endangered species in the legislation currently before Parliament.
Maybe if we can do that we can save the middle class from going
the way of the dodo bird.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on March 7, I had the pleasure of participating in the
official opening of the Peel Regional Police community station in
the Westwood mall in Malton.
The opening ceremony was organized by the regional
municipality of Peel, the Police Services Board and the Peel
Regional Police. The community station concept, which was first
developed in Japan, allows for more accessible, less intimidating
interaction between police officers and the general public. Not only
will this station increase citizens' sense of safety and security, it
will also enhance the current level of police enforcement in the
region.
I encourage the community of Malton to lend its full support and
cooperation to officers working at the new station. Only by
working together can we continue to maintain good law and order
in this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to announce that Richard Gauthier was recently named
president of the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations. He
replaces Ken Graydon, who decided to retire after 25 years of loyal
service.
Mr. Gauthier brings to FADA over 27 years of experience in the
automobile industry, including 14 years as president of Gauthier
Pontiac Buick, in Montreal. In 1993, Time Magazine named Mr.
Gauthier top dealer in the Montreal region.
FADA represents over 3,000 automobile dealers across Canada,
10 of whom are in my riding of Vaudreuil. As small businesses,
they provide jobs for over 100,000 Canadians.
On behalf of all members, congratulations and good luck to Mr.
Gauthier.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 25 Canadians of Hellenic descent will be celebrating the
anniversary of the liberation of their former homeland from the
Ottoman Empire. In 1821, after 400 years of oppression from the
Turkish regime, the Hellenes, with the help of heroes such as Lord
Byron of England, helped restore freedom to Greece, the birthplace
of democracy.
It is my hope that as we enter the next millennium the current
provocations and tensions in this region will be completely
eliminated. It is my suggestion that both nations should now
concentrate on infrastructure and economic development.
The energies of their people, particularly their youth, should be
focused on creating a peaceful environment which, in turn, will
lead to a prosperous future.
9270
As John Lennon of the Beatles once said, please give peace a
chance.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Greek.]
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next
week, Canadians of Greek origin will be celebrating a very special
event, the 176th anniversary of Greek independence, and the
establishment of modern-day Greece.
[English]
Canada has recognized the importance Canadians of other
origins place on their cultures and traditions and has encouraged all
Canadians to take pride in their heritage.
In Montreal, where Greek immigrants began settling at the turn
of the century, 1997 marks the 90th anniversary of the
establishment of the Hellenic Community of Montreal.
Tens of thousands of Canadians of Hellenic origin as well as
other Montrealers will converge in Saint-Denis on Sunday, March
30, in a show of ethnic pride. It will be my honour this year to serve
as a co-grand marshall of the independence day parade along with
the Mayor of Athens who will be in Canada to finalize plans for the
twinning of Montreal and Athens.
[Translation]
On March 25, I invite all members of the House to wish
Canadians of Greek origin: Zito i Ellas! Zito o Kanadas!
* * *
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow,
March 21, is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination. Proclaimed in 1966 by the UN, this day
commemorates the massacre in South Africa of a group of black
demonstrators during a non-violent anti-apartheid protest.
I hope that Quebecers and Canadians will take part in this day to
combat racism by developing the values of equity, justice and
mutual understanding.
I would like to underscore the exceptional contribution made by
ethnocultural communities to Quebec and Canadian society. The
riding of Bourassa, which I am proud to represent in the House of
Commons, is a good reflection of the pluralistic nature of Quebec.
This day should be an incentive to us to show greater tolerance,
open-mindedness and respect for differences.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is essential that members of the House of Commons be
free to attend their duties and represent their constituents without
influence from any outside body or group.
It has been my experience while appearing before the justice
committee to witness a letter sent to the chair of the committee and
copies distributed to members, apparently for their information,
immediately prior to the calling of witnesses speaking in favour of
the bill.
This letter bore the letterhead of the Canadian Bar Association
and the signature of a lawyer who was the chair of the national
family law section.
This letter gave misleading information to the committee
members and strongly urged the members to defeat the bill. I know
that this was not an isolated circumstance.
My concern is the influence the Canadian Bar Association
appears to have on legislation in this House. In this case, for
example, I believe that since most of the justice committee
members were also members of the Canadian Bar Association, they
were placed in a questionable position, maybe even conflict of
interest.
Who is in charge of this country, elected members of Parliament
or the Canadian Bar Association?
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the Canada Council for the Arts on its
40th anniversary. Over these last 40 years the council has provided
funding for artists and arts organizations throughout the country in
all fields of creative work.
Through its programs and funding the council has helped this
country to grow and flourish. Canada is now renowned
internationally for its cultural excellence, and its artists and arts
organizations compete favourably in markets abroad.
The arts community is a dynamic force in Canada's social and
economic life. It is the basis for our film, sound recording,
publishing and broadcasting industries.
Several of Canada's artists who have enjoyed support from the
Canada Council for the Arts are in the House audience today.
I acknowledge and salute them and all other artists in Canada
who have made and are making an enormous contribution to the
great nation that Canada is today.
9271
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to say that today, March 20, Canadians and
thousands of other people throughout the world are celebrating the
French language.
The Francophonie plays a vital role in Canada. One Canadian in
four has French as his or her mother tongue, while one in three can
speak that language.
Because of its linguistic duality, Canada is one of many French
speaking countries, while also a member of the Commonwealth.
For that reason, Canada, in co-operation with the participating
governments of Quebec and New Brunswick, maintains a special
relationship with close to one hundred countries, half of which are
French speaking nations.
As a member of the Francophonie, Canada is proud to show its
national identity at the international level.
I would like members of this House to take this opportunity-
The Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up. The
hon. member for Essex-Windsor has the floor.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, March 21, is the international day for the elimination of
racial discrimination.
The multicoloured bow that I am wearing, the harmony ribbon,
is the symbol of the international day for the elimination of racial
discrimination, designed by the Multicultural Council of Windsor
and Essex County. The harmony ribbon is worn as a visible symbol
of the mutual respect and understanding that we have for one
another and as a sign of our desire to live in a community that is
free from racism and discrimination.
The colours of the ribbon, green for the land and blue for the sky
and ocean, represent our unity as citizens of earth. Red roses
represent love, respect and courage. Together they symbolize the
beauty and harmony created when our diverse community comes
together.
The Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County has
played a long and active role in working to ensure a society that is
multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-faith and free from all forms of
racism and discrimination.
Each year the multicultural council hosts the Carousel of Nations
Festival celebrating the diverse multicultural character of Canada.
I encourage all Canadians to get involved. Working together, we
can eliminate racial discrimination.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today,
March 20, is the Journée internationale de la Francophonie. The
Francophonie includes 134 million French speaking people living
in 49 countries, on all five continents.
French has been celebrated for 20 years. It all began when the
ministers and chiefs of French speaking delegations attending an
extraordinary session of the General Conference of the Agence de
coopération culturelle et technique, in Paris, proclaimed March 20
the Journée mondiale de la Francophonie.
The Francophonie is, to use a line coined by Léopold Senghor,
``this integral humanism which is being knit around the world; this
symbiosis of dormant energies from all continents, all races,
waking up to the new warmth''.
The Francophonie is a human force which lives and flourishes on
every continent. Let us pursue our efforts to make the
Francophonie a haven for peace and solidarity.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today, as
I hope all members realize, is the first day of spring. Of course,
spring always starts in the west where nice weather has ensured that
Vancouver's daffodils are already in bloom.
This has made it possible for B.C.'s most listened to radio
station, CKNW-98, to provide members with close to 300 of those
beautiful daffodil blooms.
Yes, that is compliments of CKNW. Canadians know good
weather and it is all on the west coast, which also happens to be the
leader in federal political trends, good common sense and fresh
starts.
Members of the House have probably already received their
blooms from the Sergeant-at-Arms. If they have not, there is plenty
more in the lobby.
To the House, a happy first day of spring from Vancouver, from
CKNW and from co-sponsor General Paints.
9272
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the PQ convention in November 1996, the hon.
member for Argenteuil-Papineau spoke in support of a resolution
asking the PQ government to support the restoration of all national
and international flights to Mirabel, and to complete its
transportation infrastructure.
Quebec minister Serge Ménard opposed the Bloc member for
Argenteuil-Papineau, and the resolution was readily defeated.
Last weekend, the same Bloc member submitted to his party's
convention an emergency resolution so watered down that it
represented no threat or obligation for the PQ, which meant that it
readily passed.
The hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau was justified last
November in calling for the PQ government to come out in favour
of Mirabel. With the response he received at that time, he now
knows who is blocking the development of Mirabel airport.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 94 years
ago, the Ottawa Silver Seven won the city of Ottawa's very first
Stanley Cup.
(1415 )
In the deciding match, the Silver Seven defeated the Montreal
Victorias eight to nothing. That memorable game was played in my
riding at the former Dey's skating rink. In all, the Silver Seven
played seven Stanley Cup series at the Dey's between 1903 and
1906.
Today in Ottawa Centre a monument will be unveiled to
commemorate the cultural and sporting significance of the Dey's
skating rink. In 1905 a team from Dawson City travelled nearly
4,000 miles to challenge the Silver Seven for the cup. Members of
a Dawson City team re-enacting the adventure will be present at the
unveiling.
I congratulate the organizing committee for making this
historical commemoration of Canada's greatest sport a big success.
Now we can look forward to another Stanley Cup coming to Ottawa
in the near future.
9272
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we read in
The Gazette today that the Department of
Canadian Heritage has once again wasted taxpayers' money on
propaganda activities. Option Canada, an obscure branch office of
the Council for Canadian Unity, obtained $4.8 million between
September 24 and December 20, 1995 right in the middle of the
referendum campaign.
Can the Prime Minister tell us just what this money was used
for?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is certainly
aware of the fact that the Government of Quebec-and I have in my
hand a copy of the October 11 order in council-gave a total of
$4.8 million to the Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec headed by
Yves Duhaime, the great friend of the new leader of the official
opposition.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: And the Government of Quebec declared in this
document: ``Whereas the government's objective and mission is to
advance the cause of Quebec's sovereignty with the people of
Quebec-'' This was how the government justified spending$4.8 million during the referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Quebec hid nothing. If the member for
Hamilton East would like to ask her friend Daniel Johnson to put
these questions to the Government of Quebec in the National
Assembly, let her do so.
She is the Minister of Canadian Heritage. She manages the
public's money. If she could just answer a question from time to
time.
Option Canada was incorporated on September 7, 1995. On
September 24, 17 days later, the Department of Canadian Heritage
gave it $1 million. The following October 2, the day after the writ
was issued, with the referendum in full swing, Option Canada
received another $2 million from Ottawa.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Duceppe: It is rare to see the federal bureaucracy act so
quickly. Tell that to the artists who are still waiting to hear from the
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Three million in four days is quite something. Does the Prime
Minister not find it strange that his government gave millions of
dollars in grants to an agency that had just been incorporated?
9273
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to stress
the fact that, during the referendum, in an order in council dated
October 11, 1995-and later we saw that there were other orders
in council-the Government of Quebec handed over a total of $4.8
million to Yves Duhaime to promote the sovereignty of Quebec.
This was by order of the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, once again, nothing was concealed in Quebec City. That
does not seem to be the case here, however.
Mr. Loubier: It is hypocritical.
Mr. Duceppe: We ask the minister one question and she answers
another; it is always the same. She is unable to carry out her
responsibilities. Besides which, everything the Conseil de la
souveraineté did, it did before the referendum period.
(1420)
But in this case, we do not know. And these grants in 1995-96
from the Department of Canadian Heritage to the Council for
Canadian Unity, and its branch office Option Canada, represent22 per cent of the total envelope that was supposed to be set aside
for organizations representing official language minority
communities.
Does the Prime Minister not find it shocking that money set
aside for assistance to official language minority communities in
Canada was diverted like this to secretly fund the federalist forces
in the no camp during the last referendum campaign, because these
expenses were never declared? Even the president of the Council
for Canadian Unity was unaware of the existence of Option
Canada. It is hard to believe.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, its existence was so secret
that it appeared in the public accounts under the name Option
Canada. Big secret.
But if the member wants to focus on spending, when we see the
difficulties of the Quebec economy right now, we would just like to
point out what was spent by the Government of Quebec in
connection with the referendum: secretary for restructuring, $9.4
million; regional commissions on the future of Quebec, $8.5
million; grants to the Conseil de la souveraineté, $4.8 million;
mailings to all Quebecers during the referendum, $2 to $3 million;
hiring firms of lobbyists, $0.5 million; money spent by the office of
the chief electoral officer, $57.8 million. This comes to a total of
$82.7 million, according to Le Soleil, which published this article
when the referendum was over.
So, when a government has financial difficulties and spends a
minimum of $82 million on a referendum, they could have put this
towards improving the economy, something Quebec really needs.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
An official spokesperson for Heritage Canada said he had no
idea what use was made of the funds the federal government gave
to Option Canada. Claude Dauphin, one of the founding presidents
of Option Canada and the Liberal candidate approached to run in
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce indicates that these funds were not used to
fund the no side of the referendum campaign.
What guarantees can the Prime Minister give us that the federal
subsidy to the phantom Option Canada were not used in some way
to subvert the Quebec referendum act?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we followed the same
route as the Conseil pour la souveraineté du Québec, which
received $4.8 million from the Quebec government, but did not
spend this money for referendum purposes.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, oddly
enough, in addition to Claude Dauphin, the founding members of
Option Canada also include three members of the Council on
Canadian Unity: Michel Vennat, Jocelyn Beaudouin and René
Lemaire.
Is this incest, to say the least-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Loubier: Yes, ladies and gentlemen.
Mrs. Venne: -the real reason Option Canada obtained millions
of dollars barely a few days after its incorporation, without having
to provide any accounting of the use it made of this money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the extended family of
the new leader of the Bloc Quebecois includes Yves Duhaime, who,
obviously, with his sovereignist option received directly a total of
$4.8 million before and during the referendum period for these
purposes. It seems to me, that if we follow the same route as the
Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec, we are acting according to
the same rules as Mr. Duhaime.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are fed up with the revisionist numbers the finance
minister uses to put a pretty face on the ugliest job creation record
since the dirty thirties.
9274
(1425 )
Here are the facts: There are 1.5 million unemployed Canadians,
just like with Mulroney, and 800,000 people are moonlighting just
to make ends meet. Our largest trading partner has an
unemployment rate half of what ours is. Despite the $6 billion
infrastructure program, employment in construction actually has
dropped by 40,000 jobs. Canadians have had a $3,000 pay cut
because of the 37 separate tax hikes by this government.
When is the light going to go on for the minister? When is he
going to understand that taxes, taxes, taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the hon. member would be interested in some of the
economic indicators that came out this week.
Real merchandise exports increased 4.3 per cent in January.
Manufacturing shipments rose 2.2 per cent in January. Retail sales
increased 1.4 per cent in January. The help wanted index rose 1 per
cent in February. Real gross domestic product and market prices
grew 2.9 per cent annual rate in the fourth quarter. The fact is that
Canada is on a roll.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the sad
fact is that many Canadians are on the dole.
Let us look at those job growth figures the government loves to
boast about. There has been a 25 per cent increase in temporary
jobs since 1989. For half of those entering the workforce since
December 1995 the only job they could get was a part time job.
Fifty-five per cent of the people who did find a job are
self-employed and they are the ones the government is going to hit
hardest with the massive CPP tax increase.
Can the minister explain how sucking $3,300 out of the pockets
of the self-employed creates jobs? Why does he not admit that what
he is really doing is killing jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
how can the hon. member complain about the 9.9 per cent CPP
premium rate that was arrived at by the federal government and
eight of the provinces which have joint stewardship over the plan
when the plan put forth by the member's party called for a rate of
13 per cent to 14.2 per cent? How can the hon. member stand up
here and complain about the Canada pension plan?
Will he say what his party's super RRSP will do for Canadians
who have an automobile accident and are suddenly disabled? I will
tell him. It will do nothing. It will put that person on the dole. What
will Reform do for parents who need maternity leave? Our Canada
pension plan protects them; Reform abandons them. What will the
Reform do if there is a market crash? The Canada pension plan will
protect them; Reform will abandon them. That is the problem:
Reform abandons Canadians.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact
is that Reform's plan will give all Canadians better benefits at
lower costs than the Liberal plan. The numbers the finance minister
was quoting are probably from Liberia or Panama or somewhere
else.
The government's jobless record for youth is absolutely pathetic:
16.9 per cent last month, up from 11.9 per cent in 1988, 12.7 per
cent in 1990, a 40 per cent increase in joblessness for Canada's
youth. As the last hired and the first fired they know the effects of
job killing policies.
To quote the finance minister, payroll taxes are a cancer on job
creation. Can the finance minister explain again how his $10
billion annual payroll tax hike is going to encourage jobs among
our youngest Canadians? Can he explain how his job killing payroll
tax is going to encourage businesses to hire more young people?
We want an answer.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the Reform Party is so concerned about jobs, why did the leader of
the Reform Party say in 1993 in Penticton that it would bring forth
a financial plan that would cost the country jobs, not add jobs. That
is what Reform members are prepared to run on. We have created
795,000 jobs in the private sector since we have taken office. That
is 795,000 jobs more than Reform said it was capable of doing.
Look at the state of the country when we took office. Interest
rates were going up, taxes were going up, the country was
dispirited. As a result of the actions of this government and of
Canadians, our interest rates are at an all time low. There is no
longer a debate about rising taxes; the debate is about lowering
taxes. The fact is there is hope in this land. Our exports are up, our
inflation is down. Canadians know full well it is because we have
confidence in them and Reform has confidence in nothing.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, in response to my question on the compensation owed
to Quebec for harmonizing the QST with the GST, the minister
finally admitted that the compensation formula used is not
designed to provide harmonization assistance but rather assistance
to the Atlantic region. This clearly shows that his bad decision is
politically untenable.
How can the Minister of Finance tell us today that he has found
nothing better to do, to provide assistance to the Atlantic prov-
9275
inces, than to dig into the pockets of Quebec taxpayers to subsidize
the maritimes and help them better raid Quebec businesses?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
stated unequivocally yesterday that mutual assistance between
regions was an inherent part of the Canadian confederation. And,
yes, helping a province or region through difficult times involves
using taxpayers' money.
Let us not forget that Quebec's equalization payments come
from the taxes paid by Canadians, as does the financial support to
Quebec's aviation industry.
Looking at how Canada builds its strength, the hon. member
should know that the regions are there to support one another.
Therein lies Canada's strength, and it will continue to be a building
block for Canada.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am always baffled when I listen to the Minister of
Finance talk about what he has given to Quebec. We are paying $30
billion per year to the federal government. We are asking for what
is ours. Nothing more.
Why does the Minister of Finance not take the advice of the three
premiers who support Quebec on this? Why not, for once, be fair to
Quebecers and give them the $2 billion he owes them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have explained time and time again in this House that
compensation was offered to those provinces whose loss in
revenues resulting from tax harmonization exceeded 5 per cent.
I would like to quote some statistics now. In Quebec, in 1989-90,
the sales tax brought in $5.1 billion in revenues. In 1990-91, the
first year of the harmonized tax, $5.3 billion; in 1991-92, $6.1
billion; in 1992-93, $6 billion; in 1993-94, $5.5 billion; in 1994-95,
$5.4 billion; in 1995-96, $5.6 billion.
Each year following harmonization, Quebec has brought in more
money that before harmonizing. That is why, like some other
provinces, Quebec is not getting any compensation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for 77
months the unemployment rate has been over 9 per cent in this
country, which is the highest rate for the longest time since the
great depression. People are going bankrupt in record numbers.
One number the Minister of Finance did not trot out in his long
diatribe was the fact that 100,000 people's lives are in tatters in this
country because they have gone bankrupt under the Liberal
government's policies.
What did the minister's parliamentary secretary say when the
unemployment numbers were announced? He said: ``It is
disappointing''. It is not disappointing, it is a tragedy. It is an
absolute disgrace for people whose lives are being left in tatters
because of the policies of this Liberal government. Will the
Minister of Finance tell us when he is going to make a real
commitment to job creation and family security by reducing taxes?
(1435)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the fact is that in our budget we dropped taxes by $2 billion over
three years. We did it directly to help those Canadians who need the
help.
We should understand that the debate between the Reform Party
and ourselves is not over a desire to reduce taxes. Every single
Canadian in this country, including every member of this caucus
and this government, wants to reduce taxes. The issue is when and
under what circumstances and at what cost.
Let us understand what Reform would do to reduce taxes. In
order to reduce taxes and justify its tax cut, Reform will cut old age
pensions by $5 billion. That is the difference between Reform's
projections in its original budget and the projections it is making
today. Reform members will cut equalization payments by $3
billion and will cut all kinds of people off in the seven receiving
provinces. Reform has essentially said that it will cut the Canadian
health and social transfer by $3.5 billion in order to justify its tax
cuts.
In other words, the tax cut Reform is offering is a tax cut for the
rich and it will eviscerate the programs that help the poor and the
middle class in this country. We will not do that.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if you
would give us the time, we could refute each and every one of those
statements because they are not true.
The minister has no concern for the people who are worried
about a missed mortgage payment and the desperation they feel
when they go another month without a job. He has no concern for
the pain of a taxpayer trying to explain to his children that the
government can take his taxes but it cannot give him a job and that
his little kids have to go without their soccer and hockey practices
because they cannot afford it.
Canadians are feeling a lot of pain and the minister has nothing
new to offer to them. In all good conscience, how can he preach
about an improved economy and how his policies are going to
deliver a better life when 1.5 million Canadians have no jobs and
millions more are struggling to put food on the table and trying to
make ends meet?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is nobody in this government, in fact there is no right thinking
person in this country who is happy with the level of unemploy-
9276
ment. The fact is that there is great pain and suffering out there.
Young Canadians are looking for jobs.
We ought to understand the different approaches the respective
parties are taking. We have created over 790,000 jobs in the private
sector. At the same time it is important to understand that since we
have taken office we have created 550,000 full time jobs.
I can tell this House exactly what Reform policies would lead to.
Now that we have seen very clearly that the Conservatives are
battling the Reform for bragging rights over the extreme right
wing, let us look at what happened under its administration.
Reform policies as practised by the Tory party: compared to the
550,000 jobs that we have created, in the last Tory mandate it lost
150,000 full time jobs. That is what these guys would do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Transport.
On February 6, I asked the minister about replacing the
Magdalen Islands ferry, but he would only say that the ferry service
between the islands and P.E.I. would be maintained, without
specifying what he will do with the $30 million budget that he has
had available for more than two years, but has yet to use.
Will the Minister of Transport confirm, without beating around
the bush, that his government is about to replace the Lucy Maud
Montgomery with the old Princess of Acadia to provide ferry
service for the Magdalen Islands, and that his government has
therefore decided not to buy the Irish ferry Island of Inishmore?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's position is very clear. It is the position
which I explained to the hon. member a few weeks ago. We will
replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery as soon as we find another
ferry that will not cost the taxpayers anything over and above the
$30 million mentioned by the hon. member.
(1440)
The Lucy Maud Montgomery has undergone safety inspections,
as well as maintenance and repair work. It will be ready to serve the
people of the Magdalen Islands when service resumes, in April.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Transport is currently assessing the condition of the Princess of
Acadia and it is no secret that he is about to try to dump that ferry
on the people of the Magdalen Islands, with a big red ribbon, on the
eve of the election.
An hon. member: It is an old tub.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Is the minister waiting for the election
campaign to finally find a safe and lasting solution, or is he waiting
until after the election to give the bad news to the people of the
Magdalen Islands?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I just said to the hon. member, we want to replace the
Lucy Maud Montgomery with a boat that will cost less than the $30
million we set aside.
We are indeed looking at various options, but a decision has yet
to be made. In the meantime, I can tell the hon. member that the
Lucy Maud Montgomery is in good shape and that it has been
properly maintained.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the media report today that one of my constituents has
again confirmed that the Governor General of Canada, the
Commander in Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, pays no taxes
but our troops serving under the Governor General have had their
pay frozen and have suffered 37 tax increases by the government.
Why will the Minister of National Defence not treat our troops
properly, fairly and with respect? Why will he not give them their
long overdue pay raises? Why will he not do what is right?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon.
member does not do his party any service in the preamble to that
question. No doubt the fate of the Canadian forces and their
appropriate requirements to be cared for in an adequate way are
some things that we have under active consideration.
The hon. member will know that we have asked the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to look into
the people needs of the Canadian forces. There will be an in depth
study over the next few months to ensure that we respond to those
needs.
In the interim I can tell the hon. member that I will be
announcing some improvements in the situation for the Canadian
forces next week. I only regret the Reform Party has not made any
contribution to the process of reviewing the future of the Canadian
forces.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, once again the minister is spewing forth typical
Liberal rhetoric: strike up a committee, make a study, spend
millions of taxpayers' dollars and wait for a report. That is the
Liberal way.
Currently there are Canadian Armed Forces pay and benefit
recommendations before Treasury Board. The defence minister is
letting them collect dust while he drags his feet.
9277
Why is the minister refusing to act on these recommendations?
Why will he not give our military its long overdue pay increases?
Why will the minister not just do what is right?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): This is pretty scary stuff, Mr.
Speaker. I fear the hon. member speaketh with forked tongue.
Yesterday the hon. member and his party refused to co-operate in
arranging for the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs to travel across the country to meet with members
of the Canadian forces to be able to see exactly what the people
needs are in the Canadian forces. That is something I have done
from coast, to coast, to coast. I have visited with the Canadian
forces. They know there are needs they would like to have
addressed.
Instead of spewing whatever it was that the hon. member has just
got finished with, it is too bad he would not spew the truth some
time and support the Canadian forces instead of yap about it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The new human rights commissioner tabled her first annual
report this morning. She criticizes the government's lack of
constructive action in a number of areas, including the lack of
follow up to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples.
(1445)
As regards foreign policy, does the Prime Minister, who still is
refusing to raise the issue of human rights publicly on Team
Canada trips, acknowledge that his government is much better at
high-sounding rhetoric than practical action, as the Canadian
Human Rights Commission argues?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the member has said is totally wrong. Each time I
went to countries where there were human rights problems, I raised
them-in China, in Indonesia and elsewhere. He cannot say we did
not raise these issues abroad.
Today we received the commissioner's report, and we will note it
carefully. We received a 4,000 page report from the commission on
aboriginal peoples. The minister has already put a number of
recommendations into effect. He was doing so in fact even before
the commission report came out, because he was in contact with the
heads of the commission.
The report has just come in. It is a very important report, and we
have said it requires consideration and consultation, before a full
policy may be proposed. We had already implemented several
recommendations, before the publication of the report.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the least we can say is that when the Prime
Minister raises human rights issues he makes few waves abroad.
We will come back home for my supplementary. The
commission strongly criticizes the government's inaction in 1996
on the issue of people with disabilities. Perhaps the Minister of
National Defence would care to pay attention.
It stressed the fact that, apart from a few isolated breakthroughs,
1996 was for many of them-persons with disabilities-a year of
almost total stagnation, with certain hard won gains actually being
lost.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the election goodies
he offered people with disabilities do not make up for all the many
cuts he has made, which are behind the deterioration in the
situation of people with disabilities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find that particularly deplorable, because the
government made provision in its budget to help people with
disabilities deal with their specific problems, as was recommended
by a committee of the House of Commons. The hon. member
probably does not want to recognize it, but we acted immediately in
the latest budget on the recommendations of the committee.
In society, there are always problems to be solved. We solve a lot
of them, but I know they are interested in only one thing-a form
of destruction-while we are trying to build a society to everyone's
benefit. That is why we did something in the latest budget for
people with disabilities.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Health.
The Canadian Polar Commission held a conference on
contaminants in the Arctic environment last fall. Because of the
potential risk to human health the Department of Health was
invited to participate.
Since the minister is concerned with the health of all Canadians
including northerners, could he tell the House why not one official
from his department participated in this important Arctic
conference?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for recognizing
that Health Canada is concerned about the health of all Canadians.
9278
He will also recall that Health Canada is actively involved with
aboriginal people and other sister agencies at the federal and
territorial levels in matters that concern the environment through
the Arctic environmental strategy and the international Arctic
monitoring and assessment program.
The member will also recognize that the Canadian Polar
Commission is actively in receipt of resources from the federal
government. In fact the conference received supplementary
benefits from the government.
In the spirit of co-operation, when the specific health officials
who had been invited found that they could not meet the timetable
required they contacted the lead health agency in the area, the
Northwest Territories department of health, and arranged to have
the health sector represented by health officials from the territories.
(1450 )
They did an admirable job. I thank the member for recognizing
the health concerns of Canadians were well represented.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, biker
gangs are a scourge and a blight on our society. Gangs like the
Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine exist for one reason only and
that is to commit crime.
In Quebec the biker gangs are killing for control over the
lucrative drug trade and prostitution. The same thing is happening
in Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg. In fact it is happening in
every major city in the country.
It is pretty strong evidence that the government's soft on crime
approach to criminal justice is an unqualified failure. To make
matters worse, the justice minister refuses to debate the benefits of
anti-gang legislation.
If the minister will not allow Parliament to consider anti-gang
legislation, what specific steps will he take to crush the criminal
activities of the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine not only in
Quebec but right across the country?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question.
As he is aware, the Minister of Justice is meeting in Quebec
today with provincial counterparts, mayors and police agencies. He
has indicated that as a result of meetings held last fall a number of
changes were being considered to the Criminal Code of Canada.
These changes would give the police the tools to crack down on this
type of organized criminal activity.
You were in error to suggest that the door was closed on
considering measures to deal with anti-gang legislation. It is
possible, and the minister indicated that this request would be
reviewed.
The Speaker: I remind members to always address their
remarks through the Chair.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all
the Liberal government seems to do is review, review, review. In
the meantime the lives of Canadians right across the country are in
jeopardy. Canadians are living in fear.
The only way to deal with organized crime is to rip the heart out
of its operation. It exists to make a profit. The government has had
3.5 years to do something about it and has failed to do so.
Canadians want safe streets and clean neighbourhoods. They
will not tolerate having their lives held hostage by a few lawless
people.
If the justice minister is serious about cleaning up biker gangs,
will he enact legislation giving the RCMP and the prosecutors
special powers to wipe out organized gangs like the Hell's Angels
and the Rock Machine?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government introduces and deals with legislation through
the Criminal Code. The administration of justice is the
responsibility of provincial governments. It is the responsibility of
municipal officials and their police departments to enforce the laws
that are in effect.
Murder is a crime. Bombing is a crime. Drug trafficking is a
crime. What is needed is strong enforcement at that level. The
federal government, provincial governments and municipal
officials need to work together to solve the problem.
This has been a problem for a considerable period of time. It is
amazing that finally the Reform Party has figured out that it is a
problem.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
A rare occurrence: last Friday the Minister of Transport
managed to gain unanimity, but it was against him. When he
announced the federal withdrawal from police services in ports
from Vancouver to Halifax, including Montreal and Quebec, there
was a general hue and cry against his method of unilaterally
announcing, without any impact study, that this withdrawal would
take effect before next fall.
9279
How could the minister have presented a so-called new model
of port policing without reaching any agreement with the
provinces concerned?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ports police issue was examined in great detail by a
Coopers & Lybrand study. It proposed a new model for the policing
of our major ports.
(1455)
To make sure the study done by Inspector Mann was confirmed
we had another study done by the former chief constable of the city
of Vancouver, Mr. Stewart, and the former head of the RCMP
detachment for North Vancouver, Mr. Gill Yard. They came to the
same essential conclusion that more effective policing could be
done. More effective means more security for the Canadian public.
As the hon. member mentioned Vancouver, I have to mention
that British Columbia did not take part in that study although every
other affected province did. We therefore waited until a study was
done by Superintendent William Neill, the former Saskatchewan
RCMP head. He did a study for the province of British Columbia
which came to the same conclusions.
There have been three studies by senior police officials which
say we can get more security for the Canadian public by a new
model that uses municipal policing, customs services, immigration
and security services. That deals with criminal problems much
more effectively than the existing model we are using now.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, many Canadians
use health foods, nutritional supplements, as a preventive measure.
We have health police in Canada who are going after them. That
crew over here fights cigarettes with more nicotine while attacking
60 common products like camphor and mineral oil.
Will the government admit that the Food and Drugs Act requires
amendment to create a category for nutriceuticals so that these
products will continue to be available for all Canadians?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being irresponsible
by highlighting a couple of instances that hide the fact that Health
Canada is being extremely responsible and diligent in the exercise
of its obligation to ensure that all products that come on the market
are both safe and effective for consumption, especially when there
is a medicinal claim attached to them.
We cannot blame our officials for doing the job entrusted to them
and demanded of them by Parliament.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for
Canada Post.
When the Canada Post mandate review report was made public
last October, the minister promised that Canada Post would not be
privatized as long as it continued to fulfil a public policy role. The
report strongly recommended that the corporation should not be
privatized.
However, in a study that the minister commissioned by TD
Securities she has asked the firm to evaluate whether withdrawing
from competitive operations is consistent with the objective of
possibly ``privatizing Canada Post''.
Does the minister agree that Canada Post should remain a crown
corporation, which is what she said last fall? Or, is she seriously
considering privatization which is suggested in the terms of
reference in the present study?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I said
last fall. As long as Canada Post serves a public policy purpose
then it should not be privatized.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Liberal government announced that
residents of Hong Kong would continue to be exempt from
Canada's visitor visa requirement after the territory has been
returned to Chinese control.
Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration inform the
House why this is an important initiative for Canada?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, visa free access for Hong Kong
people is very good news for Canada and for Hong Kong.
More than 100,000 Canadian people live in Hong Kong. More
than 500,000 Canadians living in Canada have come from Hong
Kong. Every year Canada has more than 200,000 visitors from
Hong Kong. They come here for business, to visit family or for
tourism.
After the assurances we received from the Hong Kong
authorities and the Chinese government, it was very important that
we were able to maintain the visa free access. That is very good
news for everyone.
9280
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a quote from a recent Health Canada study which
shows that the nicotine content of tobacco used in Canadian
cigarettes has increased 53 per cent in the last 27 years.
(1500 )
This government has invested $2 million in increasing the
nicotine content of tobacco to make it more addictive in its Delhi
plants in Ontario. I ask the Prime Minister, for the sake of all
Canadians and in particular for the health of our youth, will he stop
using taxpayers' money to fund research into increasing the
addictive potential of cigarettes?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
premise of that question is completely false. For many days in the
wording of their questions Reform members have tried to suggest
that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was doing research to
enhance nicotine content. We have denied that in the answers we
have given in this House. Again today they are wrong. There is no
such research being done by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to
enhance nicotine levels.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the Government
to tell us what will be on the legislative agenda when we return
from the Easter recess?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since this is the first time my hon. colleague has made the
standard Thursday enquiry as House leader for the Bloc Quebecois,
may I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her new duties.
Tomorrow will be the last day of debate on the budget.
[English]
When the House resumes after Easter, as soon as is procedurally
possible it will be asked to deal with the three or four bills
emanating from the budget.
In addition it would be helpful if I reiterate for the House the
other items that will be given high priority: Bill C-82, the financial
institutions legislation; Bill C-44, the courts; Bill C-32, the
copyright amendment; Bill C-17, Bill C-27 and Bill C-46 which
amend the Criminal Code; Bill C-5 representing bankruptcy; Bill
C-65, the environment bill; Bill C-79; Bill C-55, the high risk
offenders legislation; Bill C-66, the Canada Labour Code
amendment; Bill C-38, the farm debt bill; Bills C-39 and C-40
which relate to flooding agreements; Bill C-49, the administrative
tribunals bill; Bill C-67, the competition legislation; Bill C-72, the
Canadian Wheat Board Act amendments; Bill C-81 respecting the
Canada-Chile free trade agreement; Bill C-84 respecting
citizenship; Bill C-86 respecting transportation acts; and Bill C-89
regarding powers of customs officers.
There is a lot of work to be done when we come back. I wish
everybody a happy Easter so that we can come back in health to
work hard.
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, that was a very long list, and I did
not hear C-17 mentioned. Was it forgotten, or was it on the list?
[English]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17 is at the top of the list.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you will find there is unanimous consent for the following
motion. There has been very good co-operation among all of the
parties. On behalf of the government I wish to thank my colleagues
on all sides of the House for their co-operation.
I move:
That the motion to amend the motion for second reading of Bill C-82 be deemed
to have been withdrawn and the motion for second reading and reference to
committee of the said bill be deemed to have been put and a division demanded and
deferred to 5 p.m. this day.
That all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage and the third reading
stage of Bill C-81 be deemed to have been put and adopted.
That all questions necessary for the disposal of the consideration of Senate
amendments to Bill C-70 be deemed to have been put, and a division thereon
requested and deferred to 5 p.m. this day.
And that no later than 4.59 p.m. this day, any proceedings before the House be
interrupted and all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill
C-32 be put without further debate or amendment.
(1505)
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have
unanimous consent to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to).
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if I
could seek unanimous consent of the House to revert to
presentation of reports from committees.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
9281
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9281
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the second report of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of
Conduct.
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to seek the unanimous
consent of the House to table a report of the Standing Joint
Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Is it possible to obtain
that consent?
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the referral to committee set out in section 19 of the Statutory
Instruments Act, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of
Regulations draws the attention of the House to the Regulation on
notification of directions for treatment by the governor in council
under subsection 672.6(1) and section 672.95 of the Criminal
Code, November 19, 1992, under Registration No. SOR/92-665.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, Bill C-81, an act to implement the
Canada-Chile free trade agreement and related agreements is
concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
you have taken a fairly firm position with regard to character
assassination in the House.
Twice during question period when the Minister of National
Defence was responding to the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, he queried the veracity of the
member. On one occasion he said he thought the member spoke
with forked tongue and toward the end of his answer he wondered
why the member did not speak the truth.
To be consistent, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you should ask the
Minister of National Defence to withdraw these comments.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I did not hear the minister say that
it was an untruth. I did not hear the minister say ``a lie''. Would
you let me review the blues and I will come back to the House on
the two points that the member raised, if I find it is necessary.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I made reference to a letter in my Standing Order 31
statement. I would like you to seek unanimous consent of the
House for me to table the letter.
(1510 )
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent of the
House to table the letter?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am now ready to rule on the
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth on Tuesday, March 11, 1997 concerning the
scheduling of the consideration of the subject matter of Bill C-46,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (production of records in sexual
offence proceedings), by the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs.
[Translation]
I thank the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair, the hon.
member for Berthier-Montcalm, the hon. member for Winnipeg
Transcona, and the hon. member for North Vancouver for their
comments in this matter.
[English]
In his submission, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth
argued that his rights as a member of Parliament had been breached
by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. He
claimed that the committee had misinterpreted and misused
Standing Order 108(2) by scheduling that morning a meeting to
consider the subject matter of Bill C-46 when he believed that
second reading debate on the bill was to resume in the House that
same afternoon.
He maintained that in order to participate in a more relevant
manner in the committee's meeting, it was important for him to be
present in the House that afternoon for the second reading debate
on the bill. Thus he claimed that his rights and privileges to appear
and participate in the committee's deliberations had been denied.
[Translation]
As members are well aware, important procedural reforms have
evolved from the recommendations contained in the report of the
Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons,
commonly referred to as the McGrath Report, which was tabled in
June 1985. One of the main features of the report was its proposal
9282
to empower committees to initiate their own studies without any
specific order of reference from the House.
This proposal resulted in what we now know as Standing Order
108(2), which confers upon standing committees a wide-ranging
authority to examine and report on all relevant matters pertaining
to the mandate, management, organization or operation of
specified departments. It is pursuant to this Standing Order that the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs chose to
undertake a study of the subject-matter of Bill C-46.
[English]
As indicated by the justice committee chair, the member for
Windsor-St. Clair, this course of action has been followed by
other committees. For example, the Standing Committee on
Finance decided in January 1990 to undertake consideration of the
subject matter of Bill C-52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
and related acts. More recently the justice committee initiated an
examination of the subject matter of Bill C-45, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility). It is
interesting to note that in both these cases the committees were
holding meetings on the subject matter of these bills while the
House was either proceeding with or resuming second reading
debate of the same bills.
Committees are free to set their own priorities, establish work
plans and schedule their business. As the Speaker, it is not my role
to get involved in such committee matters and I would refrain from
doing so, as have my predecessors. However, as the hon. member
for Winnipeg Transcona stated that ``the spirit of the McGrath
reform was that things would not be happening simultaneously'',
perhaps committees could keep this in mind when planning their
work.
I would also like to remind all members that the daily
publication, Projected Order of Business, provides them with the
listing of all business expected, and I repeat expected, to be taken
up on a particular day as well as some days to come. However, as
you know, the government is not bound by this publication and
retains the right, under Standing Order 40(2), to call any item of
business listed under government orders on that day's Order Paper.
May I draw your attention to the fact that the business printed on
the Projected Order of Business is subject to change without notice.
This is clearly emphasized in the note appearing under the title of
the document. As committees plan their work, they may or may not
be aware of changes to the Projected Order of Business, or the
progress made on a bill for that matter.
(1515)
[Translation]
In the case presently before us, the resumption of second reading
debate on Bill C-46 was listed on the Projected Order of Business
published for Tuesday, March 11, 1997. This may have caused
some members to assume that this item would be taken up that day.
In fact, this particular item was not called on that day. It would
therefore appear to have been premature on the part of the hon.
member for Hamilton-Wentworth to raise the question at that
time as Bill C-46 was not considered by the House that day.
[English]
I have given careful consideration to the matter presented by the
hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth and I have taken into
account the extent to which this matter infringed on his ability to
perform his parliamentary duties.
It has always been difficult, and increasingly so nowadays, for
members to manage their time because of the constraints imposed
on them by the House, committee meetings, as well as caucus and
constituency business, and members often must make choices as to
what business they should give priority.
Although I can certainly sympathize with the hon. member's
predicament, he was not, in my estimation, prevented from
carrying out his parliamentary responsibilities. Therefore the Chair
does not find that a prima facie case of privilege has been made.
[Translation]
I thank the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth for bringing
this matter to the attention of the House.
_____________________________________________
9282
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (for Minister for International Trade,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, be
read the third time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, our culture defines who we are. It is what
makes Canada unique in the world. Bill C-32 is not only about
culture, it is about creating jobs and growth for Canadians. It is
about strengthening Canada's cultural industries and strengthening
the very things that allow us to tell our very unique story.
Nine hundred thousand Canadian jobs depend on the cultural
sector and nearly 5 per cent of our gross domestic product comes
from culture. Over the last five years the cultural sector has grown
faster than the economy as a whole. But this success did not happen
by magic. It took incredible talent, risk takers, artists and millions
9283
and millions of Canadians who wanted to hear and see and read our
story.
What is copyright? Copyright is protecting people's creative
work. It means that creators have the right to be paid when their
work is used for commercial purposes.
According to Statistics Canada the average Canadian artist is
among the lowest paid in the economy, earning only about $13,000
per year.
[Translation]
Just a few weeks ago, I was pleasantly surprised to meet world-
renowned author Antonine Maillet. She told me that she could not
live on her royalties alone, that she had to give lectures to make
ends meet.
[English]
This bill is about fairness and making sure that Canada's creators
are paid for the work they create, for their intellectual property.
This bill has struck a balance which safeguards the interests of the
users so that all Canadians can continue to be exposed to Canada's
story.
We have listened carefully, and this is a copyright act that
respects those values. That is how Canadian culture will flourish
and that is how jobs will continue to be created in the cultural
industries. We need an act that deals with the realities of today, not
1924 when the act was first adopted.
(1520)
[Translation]
For eight years now, successive governments and ministers have
been working on this copyright bill. With Bill C-32, we tried to
strike a balance between the creators' rights and the need to make
their works accessible to everyone. Bill C-32 creates a healthy and
fair environment for Canadian book distributors.
As for all framework legislation, the Copyright Act as amended
by Bill C-32 sets out the legitimate right of creators to be
compensated for the commercial use of their works, while ensuring
that the international community has reasonable access to these
works.
Given the number of creators and users affected, it is not
surprising that Bill C-32 took so long. It is the result of a long and
painstaking study and consultation process.
[English]
First of all I want to thank all the members of the committee who
did the real work in bringing back into the House Bill C-32 for third
reading.
[Translation]
In particular, I would like to thank the hon. member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, the committee chairman, for his
leadership on a very sensitive and complex matter.
[English]
We are extremely grateful that we have a colleague in this House
who is the model of calm, reasoned and impassioned guidance.
[Translation]
I would especially not want to forget to thank also the one who
took care of the painstaking balancing act, that is, my
parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for
Restigouche-Chaleur. He guided us through every step with his
usual devotion and impartiality.
[English]
I want to thank also the members of the Liberal caucus who
spent hours and hours ensuring that we achieved the right balance. I
would be remiss if I did not in particular single out-
[Translation]
-the work done by the critic of the official opposition, the hon.
member for Richmond-Wolfe, who put his own political interests
aside to co-operate with all of us on a very important issue for all
the artists of our country.
There are times in politics when one has to put his or her own
beliefs aside to work on drafting good legislation. I think that this is
what we succeeded to do together.
Aided by our consultations, the government put forward a
number of amendments at third reading. These amendments were
aimed at improving the bill.
[English]
I want to point out that the only party in the House that is
opposed to copyright is the third party, the Reform Party. I think it
is important to point out how the Reform Party has in its own
charter cited the importance for respect of property rights. Let me
quote from the Reform Party's policy on constitutional reform:
``The Reform Party supports amending the charter of rights to
recognize that in Canada there has existed the right of every person
to the ownership, use and enjoyment of property, both real and
personal, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due
process of law''.
Unfortunately despite the stated belief in property rights this
party did not recognize these rights when it came to Canada's
creators and artists. The Reform Party unfortunately refuses to
recognize that when an artist creates a song, quand Céline Dion
chante or when Shania Twain sings the voice of Shania Twain is
what makes that song unique. Up until the passage of this bill
Shania Twain was never recognized as the creator of the record or
the CD that bore her name. Historically, because of copyright
reform almost a decade ago, we paid the person who writes the
Shania Twain song but we never paid the singer. Bill C-32 will
change that.
9284
(1525)
The Reform Party does not recognize the legitimate rights of
what yesterday the Speaker so eloquently called the soul of our
nation. Copyright reform also plays a real and important part in
maintaining our place in the world and in maintaining our identity.
By bringing in this bill the government is recognizing that culture
is the lifeblood of what we are as a nation and that culture is part of
our collective identity.
For nearly ten years artists have awaited the reform of phase II of
copyright. Last December the world community, through the World
Intellectual Property Organization, concluded two new important
world treaties, the copyright treaty and the performances and
phonographs treaty. Unfortunately Canada could not sign those
treaties. Our own copyright legislation was so out of date that we
could not sign a convention which was established in 1961. Bill
C-32 will fix that. Canada will finally be in a position to join the
world community as a full respector of copyright.
We can also move forward to address the pressing issues related
to the digital agenda and the pressing issues related to the
performances and phonographs treaty of world intellectual
property.
[Translation]
We worked very hard to give Canadian artists, who work in
conditions that are among the poorest of all trades, the opportunity
to get financial reward for what they currently do on a royalty-free
basis.
Bill C-32 is good both for creators and for people who use the
products of the Canadian cultural industry, that is, Canada as a
whole. I am therefore asking the members of the House to
demonstrate resolve and respect.
[English]
I am asking all members of the House to underscore their respect
for copyright by supporting the third reading of this bill and by
ensuring that it has a speedy move to the Senate where we fully
expect the kind of co-operation which was very evident in the
debate in the House of Commons.
I also want to say a special thank you to the Liberal whip's office
and in particular the whip and the deputy whip for the work they
have done in bringing this bill together. I thank the House leader,
the whip, the deputy whip and the deputy House leader. Hopefully
the bill will be sent to the Senate tonight for first reading. It is a bill
which has been a long time coming. It will mean a better life for
thousands of Canadian artists.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is with much pride that, as the official opposition critic for heritage
and cultural industries, I stand to take part in this debate.
This is an occasion of great pride and a great step forward for the
artists, the creators, those who nurture our imagination and our
culture; it is a great step forward because, after third reading, this
bill will be sent to the other place and will ultimately receive royal
assent.
I listened with great pleasure the comments made by the
Canadian heritage minister, because she pointed out that the
tremendous work that has been done all along in the committee,
which received so many reports and studies-over 170 briefs-and
heard about 67 witnesses, work that was done with great care and
determination to improve a bill that will serve the artists, the
cultural industries and the users.
(1530)
Very briefly, I think the colleagues in the heritage committee,
both the government and the official opposition colleagues, quickly
understood that we had the will and determination to work together
to advance the best things possible for this bill.
In that regard, I must say that, as parliamentarians, we are of
course members of Parliament elected to legislate; we are here to
make laws. In the process of studying the copyright legislation, we
all felt-and I think I speak for my colleagues-that we were
playing our role as parliamentarians, that is making sure the bill put
forward gets improved every step along the way in keeping with its
ultimate goal, which in this case was to serve, as the Deputy Prime
Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage said, the interests of
the artists, of the creators and of the cultural industries.
In that sense, I think we reached our objective. I urge all my
colleagues in the House to support the bill on third reading because
these objectives have been reached.
I would like to remind the House simply but clearly that this bill
comes after an act that was passed in 1924 and was first amended in
1988. Now, in 1997, we have a third set of amendments, the
so-called phase II.
Most artists and creators in visual or performing arts get an
income from artistic activity that averages between $7,000 and
$13,000 a year, depending on the type of activity. It is easy to
understand that, for these people, it has been quite a long wait,
from 1924 to 1988, before the society they live in and the
Parliament of all elected representatives got around to listen to
them.
This is a crucial stage, because in 1988, artists and creators were
granted greater moral and economic rights. In 1988, an extremely
pivotal development took place: collective societies were
recognized. Authors and creators can now be represented by an
organization that tries to better manage the royalties and levies
authors, creators, and artists are entitled to, if they are to earn a
living from their artistic activity.
Bill C-32 introduces majors elements, including the
neighbouring rights concept. The heritage minister just mentioned
it a
9285
moment ago. On behalf of our performers and the recording
industry, we must at last join the 50 countries or so that have
recognized neighbouring rights and signed the Rome Convention.
This last phase of Bill C-32 will allow our performers to have their
rights recognized in more than 50 countries. This is a major step
forward.
In this bill, there is another recognition, another important gain
in the area of private copying. Everyone recognized during the
hearings, and we spoke together about this, that a lot of illegal
copying, a lot of bootlegging of songs and music is done without
the creators and singers necessarily getting their fair share.
With the private copying system, royalties will be paid directly
to the manufacturer who, in turn, will redistribute them among
creators, authors, composers and singers who, up until now, were
deprived of their share because of this universally recognized
practice that is the copying of cassettes.
(1535)
This bill also has an interesting feature that gives us hope: it will
be reviewed in five years.
Everybody knows that this bill is not perfect. We worked on it,
we improved it, but everybody admits that, in certain respects, it is
already out of date. One reason for this is that it does not refer to
modern technologies, to all those communication means which are
being developed and on which artists still have no control in
defending their rights.
I ask the government to see to it that phase III can get under way
as soon as possible and to request that the heritage committee
complete its work before the bill is reviewed in five years, so we
are well informed when the time comes.
I wish to recall that the question of copyright has been on the
official opposition's agenda since we arrived in this House. My
colleague, the heritage minister, will recall that, at the beginning of
this 35th Parliament, my colleague for Rimouski-Témiscouata,
who spoke before me, asked her a question about this. She asked
the minister to table a copyright bill as soon as possible. I must say
that, in this regard, the official opposition's mandate has been
fulfilled.
I also remind the House that, in the interests of the artists, the
official opposition asked the government to give consideration as
quickly as possible to the new technologies and the new
circumstances on the global market.
In fact, between 1988 and 1990, some changes were made to the
act as a result of NAFTA and other international agreements. Not
long ago, the heritage committee was asked to review our cultural
policy in relation to those international agreements.
The official opposition did its job and managed to convince the
government to act in the best interests of artists, who had been
waiting for these changes for a long time. They are still waiting for
some changes reflecting the new international market conditions
and the new technologies.
Today is an important day. I ask all my colleagues to vote for the
bill at third reading.
In concluding, I would like to thank first, my colleagues on the
heritage committee for their co-operation and their support. I also
thank the staff and the advisers who followed the committee during
its proceedings to help its members understand all the issues and do
a good job in presenting to this House an improved bill meeting the
ultimate objectives of the authors.
Finally, I want to express my appreciation for all the groups who
submitted briefs or came before us to express their opinion and
explain the issues as clearly as possible to help us do a good job.
I want to express my sincere thanks to all those people and I
hope that the bill will be given royal assent before the elections are
called.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise once again to speak to Bill C-32. However I must
say right from the beginning I am extremely disappointed with the
deal that has been made between the Bloc Quebecois and the
government to end debate on this issue. Many Canadians still are
very concerned about so many aspects of Bill C-32 which simply
do not fill the needs of interested parties, not the least of whom are
Canadian broadcasters.
(1540 )
I will declare my sympathies off the top as I always do. As I
always point out to my colleagues across the way, I come from a
background in broadcasting and I think it is important that be
known.
We are again seeing collusion between the Bloc Quebecois and
the Liberals to end debate on an issue that affects millions and
millions of Canadians. People still had all kinds of questions they
wanted addressed. Unfortunately the government ignored them just
as it ignored the concerns of people on the HST legislation on
which the government also moved closure. It is becoming quite a
common feature of the government, more so than the previous
Mulroney government. That is the first point I wanted to deal with.
Second, I will deal with the legislation specifically. Broadcasters
have asked over and over and over again for a number of things.
They have asked that the government move amendments to the
legislation that would permit them to time shift, which simply
means they would have the ability to record a program at one time
9286
and then play it back at a different time without having to seek the
permission of people who were playing music on that particular
broadcast, without having to go through all the hoops, without
having to go through all the paperwork. It is a common sense
request, but for reasons that escape me or anybody with a modicum
of common sense the government has denied it.
Ms. Copps: It is in the bill.
Mr. Solberg: The minister is saying that it is in the bill, but it is
not in the bill to the point where it is clear to the people involved
that they will not suffer consequences if they do not jump through
all those hoops. The minister knows that legal action has been
taken in the past with respect to these sorts of issues. It leaves
broadcasters wide open.
The government must remember-and this is where the
government falls down-that it does not place adequate importance
on ensuring that broadcasters and the electronic media, the vehicles
for the promotion of Canadian heritage, are allowed to do the job
they have done so well in the past of promoting the wonderful
culture of this country.
Time shifting is one issue. I have spoken to many people at
community cable channels. I have spoken to different groups that
provide all kinds of great Canadian programming. They will feel a
chill run through their organizations because the government has
failed to adequately define how this would work. It has failed to
make it clear that broadcasters could go ahead and do things like
time shift without feeling some kind of repercussion.
Broadcasters have also raised the issue of transfer of format over
and over again but it has fallen on deaf ears.
Ms. Copps: It is in the bill.
Mr. Arseneault: It is in the bill.
Mr. Solberg: Although they are talking about it being in the bill,
it is not defined well enough.
For reasons that escape me the broadcasters have asked for some
clarification, for some simplification so that everybody will be
satisfied. Then there would be no problem.
Again the government has failed to listen. Therefore
broadcasters will be put in a position where they may be paying
twice simply because they are transferring a song from a CD on to
an electronic format like a computer hard disk. They will have to
pay twice simply because the government has not used common
sense and has not listened closely enough to broadcasters who are
therefore put in this awkward position. There is no good reason for
it. We have had hearings over and over again.
Ms. Copps: It is in the bill.
Mr. Solberg: I say to the minister that we have had all kinds of
hearings. The minister knows full well that broadcasters have
insisted that what is in the bill is not adequate. Nor is it clear
enough. Unfortunately broadcasters will have to jump through
major hoops simply because the government has not been listening
closely to what they are saying.
The minister and the parliamentary secretary across the way are
concerned about the input of broadcasters. After all, they are the
vehicle for the promotion of so much Canadian culture. Who could
deny that they have done anything but a wonderful job? It escapes
me why the government would not be listening a little closer.
(1545)
I want to make a couple of comments on behalf of my former
colleagues in the broadcast industry. Please forgive me for doing
this, Mr. Speaker, but I simply must. Yesterday we had some
wonderful artists here from around the country, people who
represented Canadian culture in various sectors: painters, poets and
writers involved in film. It is important to remember that Canadian
radio and television broadcasters should be standing beside those
people, the vehicles for the promotion of culture.
Over the last several years broadcasters have taken many hits at
the hands of the former Conservative government and even at the
hands of this government. Taxes continue to climb. All kinds of
radio and television stations are in great financial difficulty. They
have been struggling to make a go of it. When those various outlets
disappear they are not there to promote Canadian culture.
The government is proposing legislation that will make it
extremely difficult for marginal stations to make a go of it. It will
make it extremely difficult for those in very tight competitive
situations to make a go of it. Therefore it is killing the goose that
laid the golden egg. The government is making it extremely
difficult for broadcasters who have done a wonderful job of
promoting culture over the years to continue doing that.
Broadcasters have tried to work very closely with the minister
and her department. They have made extraordinary efforts to come
to the committee to explain their position. They have been at the
beck and call of the department. They are more than willing to
come and have a dialogue with the minister and her departmental
officials at any time. Even Liberal members across the way have
worked closely with broadcasters to try to get their point of view.
Unfortunately on these common sense issues the government has
not listened. Many bureaucrats in the Department of Heritage who
think they know better than broadcasters what their business is. On
this particular issue they simply do not. Broadcasters have made it
clear over and over again that this will impede their ability to do
their job which ultimately, after making a profit and all those sorts
of things, is to promote Canadian culture in many different ways.
9287
If I have not said it forcefully enough, I am extremely
disappointed. Canadian broadcasters will be extremely
disappointed. The people who listen to radio stations and who
watch television stations will also be disappointed that the
legislation is being forced through.
The government has joined forces with the Bloc Quebecois after
a lot of debate has gone on in this place. We have reached a point
where we could make some changes and the government has gone
ahead and said it will ignore those common sense solutions. It will
bull ahead and put forward solutions which simply are not
adequate.
I do not know if there is much more I could say on the issue other
than that I know I speak for broadcasters across the country when I
say they will be extremely disappointed.
An hon. member: What about the artists?
Mr. Solberg: I am sure they will be disappointed when
broadcasters simply cannot provide the type of service to them
because of the legislation that I know they would love to do.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
_____________________________________________
9287
THE ROYAL ASSENT
(1550)
[English]
The Speaker: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that
a communication has been received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
March 20, 1997
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor
General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 20th day of March, 1997 at
6.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
_____________________________________________