CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 22, 1997
Bill C-408. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-409. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-410. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-411. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-412. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-413. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-414. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-415. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-416. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-417. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-418. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-419. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-420. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-421. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-422. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-423. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-424. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-425. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-426. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-427. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-428. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-429. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-430. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-431. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-432. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-433. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-434. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-435. Motions for introduction and first reading
Bill C-436. Motions for introduction and first reading
(Motion agreed to.) 10042
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10042
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10042
Bill C-93. Motion for third reading 10043
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.06 p.m.) 10055
The House resumed at 1.25 p.m. 10055
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 10057
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10060
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10062
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10064
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10068
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10068
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10068
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10068
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 10069
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 10069
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10070
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10071
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10072
Bill C-93. Consideration resumed of motion for third
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10074
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10077
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10088
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10088
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 109; Nays, 51 10094
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 10095
Bill C-37. Report Stage 10095
Motion for concurrence 10095
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10095
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 160; Nays, 0 10095
Motion for third reading 10096
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 10096
Bill C-39. Consideration of report stage 10096
Motion agreed to on division; Yeas, 161; Nays, 0 10097
Motion for third reading 10097
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 10097
Bill C-40. Report stage 10097
Motion for concurrence 10097
Motion for third reading 10098
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 10098
Bill C-75. Motion for second reading 10098
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 137; Nays, 24 10098
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 10099
Bill C-216. Motion for second reading of and concurrence
in Senate amendments 10099
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 10099
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 10104
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10107
10029
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 22, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, as members know, Canadians are celebrating
Earth Day, the largest international environmental event when over
100 countries will be pausing and reflecting on the status of our
environment and earth.
To mark that occasion I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the first ever sustainable development strategy for the
Department of the Environment.
All departments by the end of this year will have to table their
reports which will be analyzed by the first ever sustainable
development commissioner, whom this government appointed a
few months back.
I hope we can make the earth a little cleaner and a little healthier.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table on behalf of
the Minister of Justice the auditor general's report on the Federal
Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada.
I am tabling the report in both official languages and I wish to
thank the auditor general for his work in this regard.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 26 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I with to table a notice of ways and means
motion respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other
taxes to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties and
taxes and to provide for other related matters.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of
the motion.
Although I am not sure whether one should be proud of this, this
is the largest ways and means motion ever presented.
* * *
(1010)
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to inform the House that, later
today, I will be giving notice to bring this constitutional
amendment resolution before the House and to refer it to a Special
Joint Committee, which will be asked to report back to Parliament.
One week ago, on April 15, 1997, the Quebec National
Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a resolution for a
constitutional amendment that would end the application to Quebec
of subsections (1) to (4) of section 93 (education) of the
Constitution Act, 1867.
On receiving such a proposed amendment, members and
senators must ask themselves three fundamental questions. First:
what amending formula is applicable to this particular case?
Second: is the proposed amendment a good thing for the citizens
affected by it? And third: does this amendment enjoy a reasonable
degree of support from the citizens affected by it? I will give the
Govern-
10030
ment's answers to each of theses three questions in the case of the
amendment we have received from the Quebec National Assembly.
First question: which amending formula applies? In the opinion
of the federal government, section 93 can be amended pursuant to
section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 43 deals with the
provisions applicable to one or more, but not all, provinces. The
amendment can be made with the approval of the House of
Commons and ``chaque province concernée'' in the French version,
or ``each province to which the amendment applies'' in the English
version, which is more specific here. This means that the
amendment will affect only Quebec, but will not change the
constitutional provisions applicable to the other provinces.
Before the constitutional amendment of 1982, it would have
been impossible to amend section 93 unless the traditional means
provided by the Constitution Act, 1867 had been used. It would
have been necessary to ask the Westminster Parliament to ratify the
amendment.
The constitutional amendment passed by the National Assembly
clearly falls within the class of bilateral amendments provided for
in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The legal opinions we
have received are quite definite on that point. And that is what I
told my counterpart Jacques Brassard, Quebec's Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, at our first meeting on this matter on
February 7 this year.
Since this is a bilateral amendment, it must be debated by each
of the two Parliaments. But these debates should not be
simultaneous, in order to avoid possible confusion. For each of the
four bilateral amendments made to date, the debate was held first in
the province's legislative assembly, since the initiative came from
the province. And again on this occasion, since the initiative came
from the province, and in view of the fact that it concerns one of its
areas of jurisdiction-education-it was necessary for the debate
to take place first in the National Assembly. That debate has just
ended with a unanimous vote in favour of the proposed
amendment.
The Canadian Parliament can now play its part. Since the
Constitution requires its assent, it must make its own decision as to
the value of the proposed amendment. Indeed, it is its duty to do so,
since it represents the citizens affected by the amendment, as does
the provincial assembly. The Parliament of Canada is also the
Parliament of Quebecers. Federal institutions are also the
institutions of Quebecers.
The Canadian government believes that the proposed
constitutional amendment is a good thing, and I will now explain
why.
The origins of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 predate
Confederation. This section was included in the Canadian
Constitution to grant education to the provinces and to reassure
religious minorities as to their rights at the time when the single
Province of Canada was about to be divided to create the provinces
of Quebec and Ontario. The purpose of the sections was to protect
the Catholic and Protestant religious minorities. Those guarantees
were then extended to other Canadian provinces.
Until the Quiet Revolution, Catholic and Protestant Quebecers
were apparently satisfied with this system based on 19th century
political and social values. However, following the report of the
provincial commission of inquiry on education in 1966, there were
many discussions in Quebec on the appropriateness of a system
with denominational foundations. Like most other western
societies, Quebec society was now secular.
(1015)
On the francophone side, the present organization of school
boards makes it more difficult to integrate newcomers into
francophone society, as provided by provincial legislation.
[English]
The anglophone community long regarded the Protestant school
board as an institution vital to its development. However, these
school boards have never encompassed Catholic anglophones. On
the other hand, they have accepted a growing number of children
whose language of instruction is French. As a result, there is a
danger that in the medium term the anglophone community may
lose control of boards that are an increasingly inadequate reflection
of the social reality and that, in any case, cannot respond to the
needs of the Catholic populations.
[Translation]
That is why many voices, both francophone and anglophone,
Catholic as well as Protestant, have been heard over the last twenty
years advocating a system based on language rather than religion.
A consensus on the need to reorganize school organization along
these lines has existed in Quebec for some time.
However, for various reasons, all previous attempts have failed,
including the proposal by Quebec's Minister of Education, Pauline
Marois, last June. The Government of Quebec then contemplated a
constitutional amendment to allow secularization of school
organization. This amendment raises the issue of religious rights,
but also, indirectly, the issue of linguistic rights, in view of the
historically close links between Protestant school borads and the
anglophone community.
Let us look first at the religious issue. The contemplated
amendment will end application of subsections (1) to (4) of section
93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to Quebec, and will accordingly
eliminate these religious guarantees.
10031
Although Quebecers approve of secularization of school
organization, many are attached to religious instruction. Quebec's
Minister of Education, Pauline Marois, has already indicated that
schools that so wish may retain their denominational orientation.
Furthermore, the right to religious instruction is still guaranteed by
section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Let us now consider the language issue. The proposed
amendment would not weaken the constitutional rights of the
anglophone minority. The Act which amended the Canadian
Constitution in 1982 guaranteed minority language educational
rights for the first time, in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
While it is true that the National Assembly does not recognize
the Constitution Act, 1982, the resolution it is sending us is
preceded by a ``whereas'' clause which ``reaffirms the established
rights of the English-speaking community of Quebec''. Indeed,
section 23 of the Charter was drafted at the time bearing in mind
Quebec's policies on the language of education. And the
Government of Quebec does not contest its applicability. The
resolution I am tabling today is preceded by a ``whereas'' clause
which reaffirms that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
applies everywhere in Canada.
Section 23 of the charter provides strong constitutional
guarantees to the minority language community. Section 93
guarantees only the existence of denominational administrative
structures in Montreal and Quebec City, and the right of dissent in
the rest of the province, but it does not protect language rights.
Furthermore, the control and management of linguistic school
organization are in fact guaranteed by the case law flowing from
section 23 of the charter and not from section 93.
In the Mahé judgment (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that
section 23 ``confers a right which places positive obligations on the
government to alter or develop major institutional structures.''
Since that time, other judgments have confirmed the interpretation
of the Mahé decision.
[English]
It is true that the scope of the right to instruction in the minority
language provided in section 23 varies according to the number of
students involved. In the case law, however, the bar for granting the
minority the right to establish and control an administrative
structure such as a school board, or simply to participate in it, has
not been set very high. Although there were only 242 francophone
children attending a school in Edmonton at the time of the Mahé
decision, the Supreme Court ruled that this created a right for the
minority to manage and control its schools through a system of
linguistic minority representation within the school boards.
(1020)
[Translation]
It is, in a way thanks to the constitutional amendments of 1982
that the Government of Quebec can proceed as it is intending to do
today. It is precisely because the right to instruction in the language
of the minority and the concomitant right to administer structures
are protected by the Constitution Act, 1982 that it is possible for the
Quebec government to propose that denominational rights no
longer apply within the province.
Now, moving to the support for the proposed amendment, the
third question, it is certainly preferable that a proposed
constitutional amendment garner the support of the population in
question, including minorities if they are affected. This is
especially important when dealing with constitutional matters.
Not that minorities are always right. (By that logic, we would
still be under the sway of aristocrats!) But members of Parliament
are duty bound to be guided by a favourable bias towards
minorities. This princicple applies to constitutional matters in
particular, for constitutional democracies exist to protect individual
rights as well as minority rights. At least, that is the Liberal
government's vision of Canada.
In the matter before us, the Government of Canada notes the
unanimous vote in the National Assembly and the existence of a
reasonably broad consensus, which includes members of all
components of Quebec society.
Some Catholics are opposed to the amendment but their bishops
do not object to it.
[English]
Some groups from the anglophone community would have liked
the national assembly to take this opportunity to strengthen the
linguistic minority's constitutional rights. This is, to be sure, a
noble objective. The Government of Canada would welcome with
open arms any province that wanted to strengthen the rights of its
linguistic minority and become an example to the other provinces.
We did not demand of the province of New Brunswick that other
provinces adhere to official bilingualism before agreeing to New
Brunswick's request to entrench the equal status of its two
linguistic communities in the Constitution in 1993. Our passion for
equality must never be synonymous with the lowest common
denominator.
However, the fact that the constitutional amendment does not
strengthen the minority is not a sufficient reason to object to it. The
important thing is that the amendment not infringe on this
minority's rights and that it garners a reasonable level of support
with the minority community.
10032
[Translation]
The broader the consensus, the easier it will be to implement the
constitutional amendment under the right conditions. The
Government of Canada believes that the parliamentary committee
it intends to form could provide an opportunity to broaden the
consensus. The important issues raised by the amendment will be
studied within a parliamentary framework, in accordance with the
democratic culture that Quebecers share with other Canadians. A
variety of experts, groups and citizens could thus be given the
opportunity to express their points of view and to listen to the
responses of their members of Parliament.
In order to match speed with due parliamentary procedure, this
will be a joint committee, enabling MPs ans senators to do their
word simultaneously.
To conclude, the government is of the view that the proposed
constitutional amendment we have received from the National
Assembly falls within the class of bilateral amendments provided
for in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The government
believes that this amendment should be passed expeditiously, in
accordance with parliamentary procedure, for it will have positive
consequences for Quebec society, including both of its linguistic
communities.
Quebec society has succeeded in reaching a consensus on a
constitutional issue which touches upon the vital issues of
schooling language and religion.
This demonstrates the remarkable nature of Quebec society and
the extent to which it contributes, in its way, to Canada's greatness.
(1025)
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to the proposal of the
Government of Quebec to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. The
Quebec government's objective is to abolish the denominational
school system it inherited from Queen Victoria and establish,
within its territory, linguistic school boards which reflect the
reality of Quebec society today.
The proposed amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867, is
relatively straightforward. It would involve adding a new section
93A providing that subsections (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply
to Quebec. The new section would have many advantages. It would
fully maintain the application to Quebec of the preamble to section
93, in which the provinces are given exclusive jurisdiction over
education, and it would free Quebec of all the constraints in
subsections (1) to (4) of the section 93, an essential prerequisite for
rebuilding the school system on any other than a denominational
basis.
For some time there has been a very broad consensus among
both francophones and anglophones on the need to secularize the
school system administration in Quebec. More than 30 years ago,
the Parent commission appointed by the Liberal government of
Jean Lesage recommended replacing denominational school boards
with unified school boards that would administer all schools, both
French and English, in their respective districts.
Since then another trend has developed favouring linguistic
school boards, an approach strongly supported by anglophones. All
the governments that tried to replace denominational school boards
with unified school boards and linguistic school boards came up
against the uncompromising provisions of section 93.
In 1984, the National Assembly passed legislation to reorganize
school boards on the basis of language of education. This
legislation was thrown out by the courts because of section 93,
although it merely diminished the territory of denominational
school boards, without removing the boards.
Subsequently, we had Bill 107 in 1988. To comply with the
provisions of section 93, this legislation provided that linguistic
school boards would be established but denominational school
boards would continue to exist. This legislation never came into
force, because implementation would have led to unprecedented
fragmentation of the public school system.
For instance, the City of Montreal would have had four school
boards: one Catholic, one Protestant, one francophone and one
anglophone. By adding linguistic school boards on top of existing
denominational school boards, the new plan would create a school
system that was fragmented, segregationist and costly, at a time
when the emphasis was on streamlining administration, on
integration and intercultural dialogue and bringing together
citizens of all origins and faiths.
We must realize that section 93 clearly puts certain constraints
on attempts to modernize school boards in Quebec.
Some may think that the proposed constitutional amendment
violates the rights of the anglophone minority in Quebec. However,
section 93 does not have the slightest connection with the rights of
the anglophone minority in Quebec. It concerns neither the
language of education nor language teaching. It concerns only the
privileges granted at the time to two specific groups on the basis of
their religious affiliation. In the 19th century, in Quebec City and
Montreal, some English speaking Catholics preferred at the time to
be identified as Catholics.
The assumption that constitutional guarantees for Protestant
school boards were intended to protect the anglophone minority
has already been rejected by the courts.
10033
(1030)
In this regard, I refer you to a decision by the Supreme Court in
1981 in which the court stated that section 93 provided religious
and not linguistic guarantees. The theory that section 93 protects
the anglophone minority was not upheld either by the drafters of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, who felt it
appropriate to introduce section 23, which serves to guarantee
rights to education in English in Quebec and the right for this
education to be provided in institutions of the anglophone minority.
If we want to promote the rights of the anglophone minority in
the area of school administration, we would do much better to
permit the creation of linguistic school boards, as the Government
of Quebec is proposing, than to maintain the Protestant school
boards. Quebec's demographic reality imposes this approach.
Of the students enrolled in primary or secondary public
education in Quebec, whose mother tongue is English, 34.3 per
cent consider themselves Catholic, 32.4 per cent consider
themselves Protestant and 33.2 per cent practice another religion or
declare none.
On the Island of Montreal, the variances are much more
impressive: 43.4 per cent of anglophone students consider
themselves Catholic compared with 10.4 per cent who consider
themselves Protestant. The others, some 46.2 per cent of
Montreal's anglophone students, hold other religious beliefs or
have none.
Maintaining existing Protestant school boards is no guarantee
for either the Protestant or anglophone minorities. Furthermore, no
political party in Quebec and none of the organizations involved in
the matter to a varying degree has any argument with maintaining
the English educational networks in Quebec from kindergarten to
university.
Raising the spectre of alleged language persecution as a means
of opposing the reform of school boards, as Alliance Quebec is
doing, it totally absurd. The effect of the reform will in fact be to
enable anglophones to administer the schools that provide teaching
in English.
Since the National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a
resolution to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, since
a broad consensus was formed in Quebec on the question, since the
Government of Quebec has given the anglophone community some
reassurance in amending its proposed resolution to reaffirm the
enshrined rights of English speaking Quebecers, we are entitled to
ask why the federal government now wants to put the proposed
constitutional amendment to a joint parliamentary committee.
In his speech, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said
there had been a consensus for 20 years in Quebec on the need to
reorganize the educational system. By setting up a joint
parliamentary committee, the minister now wants to establish a
broader consensus on the constitutional change. However, the
scope of this consensus leaves me with the impression that he
wants unanimity on the issue.
Is this a stalling tactic? Democracy has spoken in Quebec, and
Parliament has no lessons for Quebec on the democratic process.
The 15th anniversary of the patriation of the Constitution serves to
remind us. On the subject of democracy, it is absurd to have
senators, who have no democratic legitimacy in either Quebec or
Canada, on the joint committee. Need I point out that the senators
are not elected but appointed directly by the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs states that the
committee will submit its report on May 31. We all know that the
general elections will be called in a few days, thus dissolving the
committee. This means then that we are not about to see the
actualization of the Government of Quebec's proposed
constitutional amendment.
(1035)
Despite all, the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to take part in and
work with the special standing joint committee on the Quebec
government's proposed constitutional amendment, so long as it sits
this week to permit passage of the amendment before Parliament is
recessed.
I hope that the federal government will act in good faith in the
process so that the amendment of section 93 of the Constitution Act
may be done as quickly as possible and in accordance with the
wishes of the government and National Assembly of Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is a privilege to respond today on behalf of the Reform Party of
Canada to this ministerial statement.
I note that the Reform Party has not taken a position as a caucus
on the issue since it was just tabled in the House today. However I
would like to express a few thoughts which may guide individual
members during the discussion of this important issue and which
may help members of the Reform Party in their decision about
whether to vote for the resolution.
I am somewhat surprised but pleased that this request to change
the Constitution comes from a legislature which denies the validity
of the Constitution. I suppose we in Parliament are pleased that
although the political rhetoric from Mr. Bouchard is running high,
his actions run contrary to his words in actual fact with his
recognition of the Constitution as the rule of law in the country. He
is abiding by it. We in the Reform Party wish that he would make a
public commitment to abide by the Constitution with respect to the
10034
question of the sovereignty of Quebec. I will return to that theme
in a moment.
Reformers are committed to the principle of grassroots
participation in decision making, especially when it comes to our
most basic law, the Constitution. Decision making on political
issues needs to be pushed as far down the political ladder as
possible to those most affected by the decision.
Although politicians in the legislature of Quebec have voted
unanimously for the resolution, there is a large group of people
from whom we have not heard. Those are the parents of the
children in the schools. They may support the resolution or they
may be against it, but the point is that we simply do not know.
There have been no public hearings held on the resolution in
Quebec as far as I know. That is a fundamental flaw in the political
process which the government has not addressed.
Many Reform Party members will vote against the resolution for
this reason alone. We are changing the legal rights of religious
minorities and other minorities without hearing from the people
who might be affected. As I mentioned, many Reformers will find
that very unpalatable and very hard to support.
I am pleased that at least the federal government is referring the
resolution to a joint committee. It is my hope that the government
will take its time and not rush the matter through without hearing
from all those affected, simply because there is an election in the
offing and the federal government may want to appease the
Government of Quebec. I hope that will not happen.
In my province constitutional change must be approved in a
provincial referendum before any change is accepted by the
province of British Columbia. I believe that is the proper way to do
it.
The last time we dealt with a change to the Constitution in
Parliament was at Newfoundland's request. Most Reform Party
members found that although we had questions about whether it
was a wise decision and questions about minority rights and all the
things that concerned us, most of our concerns were put at ease.
There had been wide public consultation in the province of
Newfoundland. There had been public debate. There had been a
referendum on the question. The people of Newfoundland
expressed the opinion that they were in favour of the change.
If the province of Quebec had done that on this issue and come to
the House asking for the change, it would have been so much easier
to support, knowing full well that the people had been consulted in
the most democratic way by having a referendum on the question.
(1040)
When the joint committee begins its investigation some
questions will be raised, if the committee is allowed to do its work
properly, by parents, bishops, minority groups in Quebec, Alliance
Quebec and others. They will come before the committee to raise
several questions.
They will raise the question that it is not wise or prudent to toss
aside a century old tradition and constitutional requirement to have
confessional schools. They will say it is not good enough to make a
blanket declaration that Quebec society is now secular and
therefore that justifies broad changes to the Constitution.
Many Quebecers may well want these changes. That question
will be put by the bishops and by many others that have contacted
our office and other MPs' offices saying they want to have a say in
the matter. They want to put some questions and bring their
concerns to the table. I am sure that would be one way they would
do that.
People will come forward to say that in the past there has been
positive contribution from many confessional schools or religious
schools. The schools have been a check and balance on the
Government of Quebec using its influence within the school
system to mould the future youth. It is interesting how so many
different players are involved in moulding our youth. Certainly the
parents have the primary role but many other factors mould the
next generation.
Our schools are a big factor. Our religious institutions suffice it
to say have a huge influence on the next generation. I do not know
the numbers exactly of how many are Catholic or Protestant and
how many are French or English. They help to balance the third
influence, the government.
People will raise the question that it is a good check and balance
on the system to have different players such as parents, religious
authorities, the government, people devising curricula and all the
different factors coming into play to help mould the next
generation. Sometimes those checks and balances are necessary to
make sure that no one group forces its agenda on the table.
I hope the hearings will allow those people to come forward. The
government will realize that sometimes it is not always wise to
throw the baby out with the bath water. There are some necessary
checks and balances. Many people will be coming forward to
indicate that these changes take some of those checks and balances
away.
The rights of linguistic and religious minorities must be
respected in Quebec as in all of Canada. The resolution has the
potential, many people will argue, to abuse those rights. We have
assurances from the minister that he does not believe that will
happen. We have assurances from the Bloc that will not happen.
The record of the separatist government in Quebec is not very
good. In some statements its members have made they have
blamed ethnic minorities and other people for different actions,
everything from unemployment to whatever. During the hearings
people will be bringing forward the idea that religious and
linguistic minorities may be losing some of their rights through this
change. Again that will be discussed. The joint standing committee
10035
that will be struck will want to review that in detail to make sure it
is not the case.
I hope the federal government will avoid any rash political
decisions in this most important debate because an election is
probably only three or four days away.
(1045 )
I hope it is sincere in that it does want to allow a joint
Senate-Commons committee to do the investigative work, to call
witnesses, to put people's minds at ease where it can be done, and
to raise any troubling concerns that people in Quebec may have
about this proposed constitutional change.
I hope the federal government will do that. I think this is a most
important debate that we will be entering into and it will centre
around our desire to preserve our values of tolerance, our
appreciation of the past, our religious freedoms and our national
unity. I look forward to that debate. I thank the minister for his
intervention.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
relating to circumpolar co-operation.
This report is unanimous and has the support of all parties that
participated in it. It concludes a year long study by the committee
and makes 49 recommendations developing a stronger Canadian
foreign policy to meet the increasingly important challenges of
circumpolar co-operation heading into the 21st century.
[Translation]
I believe every party cooperated and collaborated to prepare this
report, proving that this House can work together for the good of all
Canadians.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table an answer to the report.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-408, an act to amend the Interpretation Act
(definition of child).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill is co-sponsored by my
colleague from Mississauga East. It harmonizes all federal
government legislation to bring it in line with the December 13,
1991 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It was agreed at that convention that country members will
harmonize all their legislations when dealing with the definition of
a child so that a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18.
Currently Canada lacks a uniform legal definition of who is
considered a child. This lack of legal definition poses particular
difficulties when we try to describe rights and responsibilities of
older teenagers, especially those between the ages of 16 and 18.
In Canada inconsistent and often contradictory laws and
regulations do not always provide a sufficient basis for a stable and
adequate policy toward children. In some cases contradiction can
be found in existing legislation. For example, the definition of a
child as defined by the Income Tax Act set the upper limit of
eligibility for the child tax benefit at age 18. At the same time,
under the goods and services tax, a child is considered to be a
dependent child until he or she is 19.
In light of Canada's commitment to children, it would seem only
logical that we undertake a task of harmonizing all federal
legislation dealing with children, in particular by ensuring that our
legislation is in conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-409, an act to amend the Divorce Act (definition
of child).
(1050 )
He said: Madam Speaker, this act also amends the definition of a
child of the marriage in the Divorce Act by including in the term
persons between the ages of 16 and 18. This also reflects the
definition of child proposed by the United Nations in the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, an agreement which was
ratified by Canada in 1991.
According to Statistics Canada there are about 1,869,000 people
between the ages of 15 and 19, representing approximately 7 per
cent of the total population. This age range is perhaps the most
significant development age of one's life and includes not only
physical changes but also social, intellectual and psychological
development.
It is important for us to review the way we define our children
both legally and socially and seek to clarify the rights and
responsibilities of parents, the state and, most important, children.
10036
The spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is
to ensure that countries develop and maintain legislation to serve
the best interests of the child. Basically this amendment will do
just that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-410, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that
there is a standard school leaving age of 18 years across Canada by
making provisions for the definition from the Canadian health and
social transfer to a province if the school age is not 18 years.
About 30 per cent of all children in Canada leave school before
they reach the age of 18, many of whom get low paying jobs or end
up on employment insurance or social assistance. Some can not
really carry on a full and productive life.
The purpose of the legislation is to set a standard age for when a
child could leave an educational institution, an apprenticeship
program, a learning facility or a vocational training facility.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-411, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan
(definition of child).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill amends the definition of child
in the Canada pension plan to reflect the definition proposed by the
United Nations in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, an
agreement that was ratified by Canada in 1991.
Also, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was the first
internationally recognized document stating a legal code of rights
and measures that should be undertaken to ensure the worldwide
protection of children. It was adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on November 29, 1989 and was ratified by
Canada on December 13, 1991. The convention is predicated on
previous United Nation manifestoes beginning with the Geneva
declaration in 1994, the universal declaration of human rights in
1948 and the declaration of the rights of the child in 1959.
This amendment would ensure that the best interests of the child
are protected.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-412, an act to amend the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act (definition of child).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill amends the definition of a
child in the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to
reflect the definition proposed by the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child, an agreement which was ratified by
Canada in 1991. It will also streamline this act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1055 )
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-413, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act
(definition of child).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill amends the definition of a
child in the Young Offenders Act to reflect the definition proposed
in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, an
agreement which was ratified by Canada.
To date there is no uniform legal definition of child in Canada.
The word child is both broadly defined and used commonly in
everyday language. As a result this contributes significantly to the
legal ambiguity which often occurs when the court attempts to
distinguish between childhood and adulthood.
Most statutes assign their own definition of a child and
frequently use terms such as minor, dependant or young person to
refer to those individuals under the age of 18.
For example, the Young Offenders Act defines a child as a
person who is, or who in the absence of evidence to the contrary
appears to be, under the age of 12, while those between the ages of
12 and 18 are considered young persons.
Notwithstanding the different aspects of the Young Offenders
Act when we deal with offences, this bill makes the unequivocal
statement that a child is anybody under the age of 18 and then we
can move on and deal with the other aspects of the legislation.
It really ensures that we have uniformity in line with the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
10037
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-414, an act to amend the Bank Act (definition of
infant).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill deals with the definition of the
term infant. The Bank Act refers to a child as an infant. This
amendment provides the definition of the term infant for the
purpose of ensuring that it is interpreted consistently with the
definition of child proposed in the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child as a person who is less than 18 years of age.
The term infant is used instead of child in this act because of
wide use of infant in the common law of contracts to mean a minor.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-415, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act
(definitions of infant and minor).
He said: Madam Speaker, in the Bills of Exchange Act when we
refer to a child we do not use the word child. We use different
definitions. We use the words infant as well as minor.
This bill will provide the definition of infant and minor as being
a person under 18 in order to ensure that the act is interpreted
consistently with the definition of child as proposed by the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1100)
[Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-416, an act to amend the Canada Business
Corporations Act (definitions of infant and minor).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill is aimed at amending the
Canada Business Corporations Act with respect to the definitions
of infant and minor.
This enactment defines infant and minor as persons who are less
than 18 years of age, so that the federal legislation be interpreted
according to the definition of ``child'' proposed in the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-417, an act to amend the Canada Health Act
(definition of child).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill, aimed at amending the
Canada Health Act with respect to the definition of child, defines a
child as a person who is less than 18 years of age, so that the federal
legislation be interpreted according to the definition of ``child''
proposed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-418, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act
(definitions of child and infant).
This bill is aimed at amending sections 652 and 660, including
section 6.1, regarding the definition of infant. The enactment
defines child and infant as persons who are less than 18 years of
age, so that these terms, when found in the Canada Shipping Act,
be interpreted according to the definition of ``child'' proposed in
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib. moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-419, an act to amend the Canada Student Loans
Act (definition of full age).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill provides a proper definition of
full age within the Canada Student Loans Act. Full age is defined as
18 years of age or older to ensure that this expression in the Canada
Student Loans Act is interpreted consistently with the definition of
child proposed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child.
There are many bizarre things in federal legislation and we have
not yet tackled provincial legislation. For example, according to
tax legislation, persons 18 years of age and under are considered to
be dependent children. This provision enables parents to claim a
dependent credit and to receive a child benefit allowance.
Discrepancies do arise. When the income of a child reaches a level
which is above the allowable limit, the child has to pay income tax.
10038
Working teenagers between 16 and 18 years of age are required
to pay taxes as adults, yet they cannot contribute to the Canada
pension plan or the Quebec pension plan nor can they contribute
to a registered retirement savings plan. I believe the amendment
to this legislation and other legislation would pave the way for
the federal, provincial and territorial governments to tackle the
whole issue of the definition of a child. It will ensure we have
a uniformity when we deal with issues such as those I have just
mentioned.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-420, an act to amend the Canada-United Kingdom
Civil and Commercial Judgements Act (definition of infant in
matters originating in Canada).
He said: Madam Speaker, this amendment to the Canada-United
Kingdom Civil and Commercial Judgements Act provides a
definition of infant as being a person under the age of 18. For
Canadian matters the amendment will ensure that the
Canada-United Kingdom Civil and Commercial Judgements Act is
interpreted consistently with the definition of a child proposed by
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
With respect to United Kingdom matters, the definition is of
course for the United Kingdom Parliament to deal with.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-421, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act (definition of child).
He said: Madam Speaker, this amendment also deals with the
definition of a child to ensure that its interpretation is consistent
with the definition proposed by the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child which was adopted by Canada.
We are dealing with children in the law. In 1991 about 146,000
or 22 per cent of the 670,000 federal statute charges were laid
against young offenders. About 18,800 or 13 per cent of the
146,000 charges laid against them were for the perpetration of
violent crimes. This represents an increase of 102 per cent, up from
9,300 cases in 1986.
The number of charges laid against young offenders for
committing violent crimes has risen steadily in the last number of
years, especially when compared to the number of charges laid
against adults for committing similar crimes. For example, of the
2.6 million non-traffic Criminal Code offences that were reported
by the police in 1990, 22 per cent were committed by young
offenders.
I am not saying that an amendment to this legislation will solve
the problem. It is one step in the right direction of how we deal with
children in terms of our responsibilities and their rights.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-422, an act to amend the Excise Act (definition of
adult).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill amends the Excise Act, under
the definition of adult. It also amends section 2 of the Act and
section 15 is amended by addition in the alphabetical order. Finally,
this bill gives a definition of adult so that this term may be
interpreted in accordance with the definition of child proposed in
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which
says that any person less than eighteen years of age is a child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1110)
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-423, an act to amend the Extradition Act
(definition of child).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill amends the Extradition Act
(definition of child). It amends item 12 of schedule 1 in the
Extradition Act by replacing any reference to a child in order to set
some consistency and determine that a child is any person less than
eighteen years of age.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-424, an act to amend the Government Employees
Compensation Act (definition of infant).
10039
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill amends the Government
Employees Compensation Act (definition of infant). It amends
section 2 of the Government Employees Compensation Act and
all the following sections in the alphabetical order by adding the
definition of ``infant'' as being any person who is less than
eighteen years of age.
Furthermore, it ensures that the term ``infant'' will always be
interpreted as designating any person who is less than eighteen
years of age, pursuant to the definition proposed in the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-425, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill amends the Hazardous
Products Act (definition of child), in section 2, by adding in the
alphabetical order: ````child'' means a person under eighteen years
of age''. The purpose of this bill is to harmonize the definition of
``child'' in the Hazardous Products Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-426, an act to amend the Canada Cooperative
Associations Act (definition of infant).
He said: Madam Speaker, in the act, when we refer to children
we use the word ``infant'', not ``child``. Therefore, this bill seeks to
amend subsection 3(1) of the Canada Cooperative Associations Act
by adding the following in the alphabetical order: ````infant'' means
an individual who is less than eighteen years of age''.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure consistency in the
act by specifying that a child is a person who is under 18 years of
age.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-427, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act
(definition of child).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill provides that a ``child'' is ``a
person who is less than eighteen years of age'', so as to reflect the
definition of ``child'', as proposed in the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1115)
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-428, an act to amend the Indian Act (definition of
infant child).
He said: Madam Speaker, this particular bill attempts to amend
the Indian Act dealing with the definition of infant child. Also, if
we were to look into this act, this legislation would ensure that the
term ``infant child'' as is mentioned in the act in relation to
guardianship and administration of the property of Indian children
would be interpreted consistently with the definition of child
proposed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child as a person who is less than 18 years of age.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-429, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act (definition of child).
He said: Madam Speaker, this particular bill seeks an
amendment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (definition
of child). This bill would amend the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act to add the definition of child to the section that relates to
children who testify to be accompanied by a parent. This would
ensure that the act would be interpreted consistently with the
definition of child proposed by the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child as a person who is less than 18 years of age.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-430, an act to amend the Insurance Companies Act
(definition of infant).
He said: Madam Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Insurance
Companies Act (definition of infant). Its purpose is to ensure that
the term ``infant'' as it is seen in the context of dealing with issues
in regard to insurance will be interpreted consistently with the
10040
definition of child as proposed by the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child.
As members know, under that convention country members have
agreed to amend all of their legislation in order to ensure that they
have a cohesive policy when dealing with children. This
amendment will ensure that is the case.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-431, an act to amend the Land Titles Act (age of
majority and definition of infant).
He said: Madam Speaker, this is an act to amend the Land Titles
Act (age of majority and definition of infant). This act has been
replaced with respect to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon
Territory but remains in force with respect to Nunavut.
This bill changes the meaning of full age of majority and various
provisions of the act to 18 years old. It also ensures that infants and
infancy in relation to land transactions will also mean a person
under 18 years of age. The act would then be interpreted
consistently with the definition of child proposed by the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as a person who is
less than 18 years old.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1120 )
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-432, an act to amend the Canada Transportation
Act (definition of adult).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill attempts to amend the Canada
Transportation Act (definition of adult). This bill amends the
Canada Transportation Act to add the definition of adult. This
ensures that the act would be interpreted consistently with the
definition of child proposed by the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child.
Some people may ask why we did not have one act to cover all
those together. Simply put, it is not feasible. No matter what, each
act would have to be amended and that is why this bill has come
forward.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-433, an act to amend the Pension Fund Societies
Act (definition of minor child).
He said: Madam Speaker, this is an act to amend the Pension
Fund Societies Act (definition of minor child). Specifically, we
propose an amendment to section 2 of the Pension Fund Societies
Act, to include the following definition of ``minor child'': ``a
person under eighteen years of age''.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-434, an act to amend the Privacy Act (definition of
minor).
He said: Madam Speaker, this is an act to amend the Privacy Act.
More specifically, this bill amends section 77 of the Privacy Act.
Its purpose is to amend the Privacy Act by adding to the section
providing for the making of regulations and a definition of
``minor'', so that the act will be consistent with the proposed
definition of ''child`` under the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child, that is a person under eighteen years of age.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-435, an act to amend the Territorial Lands Act
(definition of adult).
He said: Madam Speaker, this is also one of the series of bills the
intent of which is for us to address each specific aspect of the
federal legislation as an entity on its own. Simply put, it is
imperative for us when dealing with the federal statutes to study
each statute separately in order to see its ramifications when it
comes to children. There is not one piece of federal legislation that
would not have an impact on a child. To that extent, the intent is to
address each specific piece of legislation.
For example, if these bills were introduced as an omnibus bill as
the province of Ontario did and if one member of Parliament or one
cabinet minister had a problem with one of those pieces of
legislation, we would vote against all the legislation.
10041
To that extent, because it is such an important initiative and such
an important commitment that Canada has made to the United
Nations and its other member nations, it is imperative for us to
give this matter the priority it deserves and to address it in a
cohesive, comprehensive and progressive fashion.
That is why all those pieces of legislation are being put before
the House today, hopefully for study after the election. When we
come back, we will have a chance to reintroduce them. Specific
committees could look at each one and try to strengthen each piece
of legislation to ensure that the interests of the child are protected
and paramount.
(1125)
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-436, an act to amend the Wages Liability Act
(definition of adult).
He said: Madam Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Wages
Liability Act. I am trying to harmonize this act with the definition
of a child and to ensure that child means anyone under the age of
18.
This is part of a series of legislation I have proposed today. There
is a lot more to come over the next few days. The intent is to bring
to the forefront the whole notion of the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child and the issues that were dealt with at that
time.
We have started to see movement by the provincial governments.
In particular the province of Alberta set up a task force to deal with
the involvement of children in prostitution. The committee
unanimously recommended to the federal government that it
amend the relevant Criminal Code sections to reflect all provisions
and all prostitution related offences perpetrated against youths as
those involving persons under the age of 18.
The same task force said that at the provincial level Alberta
should change all of its legislation in order to define a child as
anyone under the age of 18. We are starting to see movement at the
provincial level to harmonize legislation in terms of children.
There is one more important thing to put on the table. My
colleague from the NDP tried to harass me earlier about why I am
introducing so much legislation that deals with children. In the
province of Ontario the NDP was in power for a number of years
and had plenty of time to address the provincial legislation that
dealt with the notion of children. It had plenty of time to harmonize
its legislation to be in conformity with the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child. There are in excess of 75 pieces of provincial
legislation that deal with the issue of children. In many cases the
legislation is extremely contradictory.
I am proposing this legislation at the federal level with the hope
that it will be considered. We have no authority over what the
provincial governments do with their legislation. We have a moral
authority and a moral obligation collectively as taxpayers and as
elected officials across the land to collectively harmonize all of our
legislation provincially and federally.
A committee was struck by the UN and in passing, I thank
Senator Landon Pearson and her capable staff member, Yolande,
who supplied me with a copy of a UN committee report. It praises
Canada for what it has done in terms of its commitment to children.
The committee took note of the effort made by Canada in
participating in international projects relating to children in
co-operation with UNICEF and other governmental and
non-governmental organizations.
The same committee indicated its concern about the lack of
conformity and the lack of uniformity when it comes to federal,
provincial and territorial legislation in Canada. The committee has
given Canada the deadline of 1999 to harmonize all federal,
provincial and territorial legislation for consistency and conformity
with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Unless we have that consistency we cannot take collective
action, set priorities or take our proper responsibility. We cannot
devise a national action plan to deal with the notion of children
unless we agree on what constitutes a child. Parents must know
when they legally stop being responsible for their children. When
do children have rights? When does society as a whole have to take
action? All those elements were addressed by the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child.
(1130)
I want to conclude by saying that I agree with Mrs. Clinton when
she said that it takes a village to raise a child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I believe you would find all-party support for the
following motion. I move:
That June 21st be declared Sunshine Day in Canada.
The Sunshine Foundation is a national charitable organization
with offices in all provinces and has over 30 active chapters. The
foundation makes dreams come true for special children
challenged by life threatening illnesses or severe physical
disabilities.
10042
It is funded solely by donations and does not look to any
government level for support.
The foundation chose June 21 as its special day because it is the
longest day of sunshine throughout the year. It works for special
children throughout Canada and truly appreciates the all-party
support the House will give to the motion today.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the hon.
member have unanimous consent of the House to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House has
heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of many Manitobans.
[English]
The petitioners ask members of Parliament to remove the GST
from books, magazines and newspapers, an idea I have supported
for a long time and still do.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
three petitions to present today on behalf of concerned Canadians.
The first one concerns age of consent laws. The petitioners ask
that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children
from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
second and third petitions concern the taxation of books. One is
from my riding of Simcoe Centre and the other is from the riding of
Mission-Coquitlam.
The petitioners ask that the Prime Minister carry out his
September 1992 promise to remove the GST from books.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I have the privilege and pleasure today to present
a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petition is signed by in excess of 5,000 Canadians from
coast to coast, all of whom are concerned about the future of Parks
Canada.
The petitioners note that the federal government is making plans
to ``offload functions at Parks Canada through employee
takeovers''. This is a contracting out scheme that will have a
devastating impact on many remote communities where national
parks are located.
They also note that they care a great deal about the national parks
system and the environment and state they will lose the integrity of
the park system if it is privatized.
(1135 )
The petitioners request that Parliament stop the employee
takeover proposal and work with the citizens and Parks Canada
workers to develop cost saving ideas while at the same time
preserve Canadian heritage.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I have a second petition today signed by a number
of residents of my constituency, specifically from the city of North
Battleford, the towns of Speers and Jackfish Lake, and a few
others.
The petitioners note that 38 per cent of the national highway
system is substandard and that the national highway policy study
identified job creation, economic development, national unity,
saving lives, avoiding injuries, lower congestion, lower vehicle
operating costs and better international competitiveness as benefits
of the proposed national highway program.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make national
highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 it is my honour to table a petition on behalf of
my constituents in Lincoln.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that charitable organizations are being called upon to provide an
increasing number of services for individuals in need.
Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament change the
taxation formula so that an equal percentage of political and
charitable donations are deductible.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I wish to
inform the House that, due to the ministerial statement,
Government Orders will be extended by 34 minutes.
10043
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10043
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the minister of Finance) moved that
Bill C-93, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 18, 1997, be read the third time
and passed.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is with enthusiasm
that I begin the debate for third reading on Bill C-93, the omnibus
bill implementing the budget for 1997. As we know, this legislation
will ensure the implementation of a whole series of measures
introduced in the budget tabled in February 1997.
[English]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has
spoken in support of the legislation on previous occasions prior to
second reading and when the legislation was reviewed by the
Standing Committee on Finance.
[Translation]
It must of course be remembered that before this bill was
introduced for passage in the House, the issues it deals with were
broadly discussed in the debate over the last budget.
Since these issues have already been discussed at length, my
comments will be brief, and I hope my colleagues will pass this bill
shortly.
As I have already said, the 1997 budget not only builds on the
government's remarkable progress in putting its fiscal house in
order but makes first class strategic investments for the benefit of
Canada and Canadians. The bill before us today will allow these
investments to be made.
[English]
It will invest in immediate employment and growth by
enhancing the ability of small businesses to create new jobs. It will
invest in long term jobs and growth by improving Canada's
infrastructure for innovation. It will invest in a stronger society
and improve support for children in low income and lower income
families.
(1140)
As I have said before in the House these issues should not be
divided along partisan lines. On the contrary, they should bring us
together with an urgent and truly national sense of purpose. I can
think of no more worthy a national purpose than our country's
children, particularly those children who are not getting everything
they need for a proper start in their lives.
Bill C-93 takes an important step in advancing the welfare of
these children now that fiscal improvement has given us some
scope for renewed social investment. The bill will pave the way for
a national child benefit system by launching an enriched child tax
benefit. Under the proposed approach the enrichment of this
federal benefit will enable the provinces and territories to redirect
some of their spending to better services and benefits for low
income working families.
The enrichment of the current $5.1 billion child tax benefit to
create a new $6 billion Canada child tax benefit will take place in
two stages. Effective this July the working income supplement will
be enriched by $195 million or $70 million more than that
proposed last year. This will directly translate into an increase in
the maximum working income supplement from $500 per family
regardless of size to $605 for families with one child, $1,010 for
those with two children and $1,440 for those with three children. A
further $330 will be paid for each additional child.
The second stage will occur in July 1998 when the working
income supplement will be combined with an enriched child tax
benefit to form the Canada child tax benefit. The maximum benefit
for low income families will be $1,625 to the one-child family,
$3,050 to two-child families and increasing by $1,425 for each
additional child.
Overall more than 1.4 million Canadian families with 2.5
million children will see an increase in federal child benefit
payments by July 1998.
The government is committed to doing more for Canada's
children as the resources become available. In the meantime, I am
confident that no hon. member can object to the increase in benefits
for children proposed under Bill C-93. It is fitting that children be a
priority of the government, not only because they are the most
vulnerable in our society but because they are in a very literal way
our nation's future, society's future.
10044
Bill C-93 proposes other investments in Canada's future,
including one of the most important initiatives we have seen in
recent years for long term growth and jobs in the country. I am
referring to the Canada foundation for innovation.
It has become commonplace to acknowledge that education,
knowledge and innovation are keys to seizing the economic
opportunities of tomorrow, but scientific knowledge and industrial
innovation demand a commitment to research. The foundation will
provide much needed financial support for research infrastructure
at Canadian post-secondary education institutions and research
hospitals in the areas of health, the environment, science and
engineering.
What is more, the federal government's $800 million investment
in the foundation could lead to as much as $2 billion in needed
investment in research infrastructure through partnerships with
research institutions, the private sector and/or the provinces.
The foundation for innovation has been widely hailed as an
important measure to enhance Canada's longer term growth and
job prospects, but Bill C-93 also includes initiatives that will help
Canadians who want and need jobs. I am referring in particular to
the new hires program which will provide employment insurance
premium relief to small firms that create new jobs this year and
those that create new jobs in 1998.
Under the bill eligible firms, those with less than $60,000 in EI
premiums in 1996, will pay virtually no employer premiums for
new employees hired this year. They will benefit from a 25 per cent
reduction in premiums for new employees in the year to come.
(1145 )
The new hires program, together with the general 1997 EI
premium rate reductions, is expected to generate as many as 20,000
new jobs in Canada.
Bill C-93 includes a broad range of proposed measures. Others
in the Chamber have spoken about this legislation at earlier
readings and I have confined my remarks today to those which
carry broad significance for a large number of those of us living
and working in this country.
However, the other elements of Bill C-93 are nevertheless
important to the stakeholders they affect. They include measures
that will discourage tobacco consumption, provide greater
self-reliance and autonomy over taxation to First Nation bands and
measures to help assure the continued viability of a national airline
in a way that is fiscally responsible and, at the same time,
competitively equitable.
I have outlined today an important and widely beneficial piece of
legislation, good news legislation, whose merits are apparent and
whose review by the House have been extensive. I urge all
members, all colleagues on all sides of the House, to give support
to this worthy bill, C-93.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill
C-93 is an Act to implement the 1997 budget. I will describe its
major elements.
Compared to the billions of dollars cut from social transfers and
taken from the unemployment insurance fund, the meagre $50
million spent this year on the child benefit sounds like a drop in the
bucket. This is the extent of the compassion felt by the Minister of
Finance for the poor children of this country. We will not see the
$600 million announced until 1998-99, while we now have 1.5
million children living in poverty in Canada.
The Minister of Finance could have taken advantage of the
present favourable conditions to lower UI premium rates by three
or four times as much in order to really create jobs while spending
the billions of dollars in the UI fund to increase the protection lost
in the wake of the employment insurance reform.
The Minister of Finance could also have taken advantage of
those three and a half years in his portfolio to undertake a real
reform of corporate and personal taxation, as the Bloc Québécois
has been calling for since the beginning.
We know, for example, that he could have used up to $3 billion
per year from corporate tax expenditures to support small and
medium size business which create jobs, as we demonstrated last
November.
The minister could have done all this and more while getting the
deficit down to zero by the year 2000 thanks to the government's
room to manoeuvre, the extent of which the finance minister is
trying to hide from us.
This budget is hiding the true face of deficit reduction. On page 7
of the budget speech, the minister claims, and I quote:
-we will meet our objectives, as in the past, by focusing on getting spending
right-not by raising taxes.
The truth is the minister has hardly done anything to better
manage government finances. The brunt of his deficit reduction has
been borne by the taxpayers, who, in the last four years, have had to
put up with $2 billion in tax increases and $14 billion in cuts, over
half of which were made to transfer payments to the provinces.
Departmental operating expenditures were reduced by only $3
billion or 8 per cent between 1993-94 and 1997-98, while transfers
to the provinces were cut by 27 per cent during the same period.
To stimulate job creation, the minister is announcing a scant $25
million-or one dollar per Canadian-in new money, including
$15 million for tourism and $10 million to connect the region to the
Internet, compared to the billions he can play with. I would say the
budget the minister brought down is anti-jobs.
10045
As I said before, this budget is full of misinformation,
especially when it comes to the finance minister's forecast of the
amount of money at his disposal.
(1150)
He is hiding something. The deficit cannot have dropped by a
mere $2 billion between 1997 and 1998 when it fell by $9.6 billion
between 1996 and 1997. The minister is hiding behind a margin
which he narrows deliberately to justify his inaction and the
absence of true job creation measures. Most of all, he is hiding the
real anticipated deficit for 1998-99 in order to avoid taking a stand
on an extremely important question before the next election, that is,
what to do with the eventual surpluses.
We should have commended the minister for the $800 million
spent on setting up the Canada Foundation for Innovation, but we
suspected all along that there was something fishy. Not
surprisingly, transfers to the provinces for 1997-98 will be $800
million lower than anticipated in the 1996 budget, mainly because
the economic situation has improved.
Instead of giving the money to the provinces, the federal
government is using it to create a foundation which duplicates and
competes with measures already implemented by the provinces.
Finally, there is not a single word about compensating Quebec for
the harmonization of the GST in 1991, even though it would be
appropriate given the $1 billion paid to the maritimes.
This is clearly a pre-election budget. The minister does not shy
away from repeating, in the budget, all the good news already
announced over the last few months, but he keeps silent on the $4
billion in cuts to take effect this year. In our opinion, the Minister
of Finance is showing a total lack of respect for the voters by
offering them ``electoral goodies'' when he just cut social
programs in a very unreasonable way.
All the new initiatives of the federal government really infringe
on the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, adding to duplication,
overlap, inefficiencies and costs, naturally borne by all taxpayers.
The game the government is playing is very simple: cut ruthlessly
in social transfer payments and implement new initiatives, often
partisan in nature, without any regard for the common good.
Having created new social programs, the federal government
withdraws its financing unilaterally, but continues to insist on
so-called national standards.
The Minister of Finance did not revise his deficit forecast for the
next two years, he is keeping it at $17 billion for 1998 and $9
billion for 1999, although he was more than $5 billion under target
for 1996-1997, that is $19 billion instead of the $24.3 billion
forecast. Therefore, the minister is allowing himself considerable
leeway and his measures for employment and the fight against
poverty are ridiculous when you compare them to what could have
been done while, at the same time, aiming for a zero deficit in year
2000.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the Minister of Finance has $8
billion to work with this year, 1997-98. He is one year ahead of his
deficit reduction schedule. He will probably reach the $9 billion
mark next year, instead of $17 billion, hence the $8 billion I just
mentioned.
The finance minister refuses to reveal exactly how much money
he can play with, because he does not want to be pressured by the
provinces and by public and labour associations that would ask him
to refinance social transfers to the provinces, which have been
greatly reduced, as we have seen.
Thus, from 1993-94 to 1997-98, the deficit has dropped from
$42 billion to $17 billion, a $25 billion reduction. To achieve this,
revenues were increased by $22 billion and spending was cut by
$14 billion.
Consequently, over 52 per cent of the $14.2 billion reduction in
program spending between 1994 and 1998 comes from reductions
in transfers to other government levels, mainly the provinces.
(1155)
We know how the Quebec government's budget was directly
affected by these transfer reductions. Between 1993-94 and
1998-99, the deficit will have fallen from $42 billion to $9 billion,
a $33 billion reduction. In this case, to achieve this, revenues will
be increased by $28 billion and spending reduced by $16.5 billion.
We may conclude that over 49 per cent of the $16.5 billion
reduction in program spending between 1994 and 1999 comes from
reductions in transfers to other government levels, mainly the
provinces.
Since the Liberals came to office, personal income taxes have
grown faster than the economy, than the GDP. This increase in the
personal tax burden does not come from a review of the tax system,
which the Bloc Quebecois had asked for in order to increase
fairness. On the contrary, it comes especially from several subtle
tax increases, such as the non-indexing of tax tables and credits.
The cuts announced in the 1994, 1995 and 1996 budgets will
reduce the federal deficit by $4.6 billion this year. We may then
talk about $4.6 billion in cuts and tax increases that were
announced in the past, but that will come into effect this year. In
1998-99, the cuts announced in the past will reduce the deficit by
$28.9 billion, that is $2.8 billion more than in 1997-98 and $7.4
billion more than in 1996-97.
The finance minister has gotten into the habit of putting off his
bad news until later. But, in his 1997 budget, he bragged that he
was announcing no new cuts or tax increases. Nevertheless, there
10046
are $4.6 billion in cuts and tax increases being implemented this
year, as announced in the three previous budgets.
An election year is no time for the Liberals to spend billions. By
artificially increasing future deficits, the Minister of Finance has
avoided setting off a debate on the use of possible future budgetary
surpluses. Indeed, as long as people think we are still deeply in
debt, the Liberals can go on saying that we must stay the course.
On the other hand, if a zero deficit had been announced for 1999,
the next election campaign could have centred, for example, on the
use of the surpluses created in the federal government's next
budget, compelling the Liberals to commit themselves on this
important issue.
These past few months, several economic forecasting firms
commented on future deficits. Their estimates are quite different
from what the Minister of Finance predicted in his last budget. The
minister already had more than $1 billion in leeway this year, in
1997. Moreover, we are heading toward a $9 billion deficit in 1998,
rather than $17 billion as claimed by the minister, which will give
us the $8 billion surplus that I mentioned earlier. Finally, we will
have a zero deficit in 1999, at least one year ahead of schedule,
which will definitely allow a surplus that could even reach $9
billion.
There is nothing very original about the infrastructure program.
The federal government is investing $425 million in a second phase
of the Canada infrastructure works program. This amount is in
addition to the $175 million remaining from the first phase, for a
total of $600 million in 1997.
The budget provides that the funds allocated to the Canadian
Tourism Commission will increase by $15 million a year over the
next three years. This is very little, considering that the
commission's partners from the private sector are already investing
more than $65 million this year. An amount of $50 million will also
be set aside for the Business Development Bank of Canada, so it
can help finance tourist facilities in the private sector.
(1200)
The budget also provides for a $7-million increase, in 1997-98,
in the funds allocated to the National Literacy Secretariat. This is
somewhat ridiculous, given the efforts required and already made
by the provinces, which have jurisdiction over this area.
There is nothing original about the federal government's new job
creation strategy. The government is dragging its feet and
proposing an antiquated job creation strategy that lacks originality
and dynamism. Here is a government which got elected under the
slogan ``Jobs, jobs, jobs'', but which no longer has any idea on how
to create employment.
There is nothing in the Liberals' election-minded budget for
those Quebecers and Canadians who are looking for work. In terms
of new money for active job creation measures, the government is
only allocating $25 million for the coming year, that is $10 million
for connecting the regions to the Internet and $15 million for
tourism. This amounts to less than one dollar per Canadian and less
than $20 per unemployed for this year.
Yet, as we showed earlier, the Minister of Finance has a financial
margin of several billion dollars. For example, he could have
undertaken a review of the corporate taxation system, free up $3
billion per year, and reinvest the money in the system, so as to
concretely support job creation.
The budget announces a 10-cent reduction in employment
insurance premiums, as of January 1, 1998. This will bring
premium rates to $2.80 per $100 for employees, and to $3.92 for
employers. Such an announcement is usually made in November.
The finance minister will then have the opportunity to announce
this good news twice. The 10-cent reduction is much less than what
it could have been, in view of the annual surpluses accumulated in
the UI fund.
The accumulated surplus is large enough to allow more
flexibility in the insurance eligibility rules as well as a more
substantial reduction in the level of contribution. You will agree
that any additional yearly surplus is a hidden tax. The estimated
cost of cutting 10 cents from the contribution rate in 1998 is $700
million. When this cost is compared to the annual surplus expected
to reach about $5 billion in 1998 and to the accumulated surplus
that should come to about $15 billion by the end of 1998, we see
that the minister is not making much of an effort.
The yearly surplus in the UI account expected for the coming
years will presumably come to between $5 billion and $6 billion,
basically because of the new provisions that came into effect on
January 1, 1997 and make it even harder to qualify for benefits in
addition to decreasing benefit levels.
Here are some figures which illustrate how little effort has gone
into reducing the level of UI contributions. Each percentage point
change in unemployment rates could affect the cost of the program
by some $1.2 billion a year. Likewise, each-10 cent change in
employee contribution rates, such as a decrease from $2.95 to
$2.85 per $100 of insurable earnings, means about $700 million in
contribution revenues for the government.
The last recession has engulfed about $20 billion in UI costs.
However, the chief actuary, Mr. Bédard, told the Financial Post on
October 1, 1996, that because of the government's permanent cuts
to program spending, the next recession would not be as costly. The
current and projected surpluses in the UI account are outrageous. In
fact, it is thanks to workers and employers that the finance minister
is able to artificially reduce his deficit. The UI contribution rates
are a hidden job tax. The surplus should go into a distinct account
so that it cannot be used to artificially reduce the deficit. We agree
10047
that there should be an accumulated surplus in the unemployment
insurance fund, but it should not be excessive. Relatively stable
contributions are needed if we are to avoid raising contribution
levels during economic downturns. Unemployment insurance
contributions are by far the most important of payroll taxes.
(1205)
If unemployment insurance rules in 1996 had been similar to
those in 1989, only $3 billion more would have been available for
the unemployed in Canada. Eligibility requirements are
increasingly restrictive for maternity leaves also.
While the Government of Canada, out of compassion, is about to
spend a few hundred million dollars on poor children, it is taking
billions out of their parents' pockets. In 1996 alone, UI benefits
were cut by $3 billion, while the Canada social transfer for health,
education and welfare, the cost of which the federal government is
deftly unloading onto the provinces, fell by $4.5 billion over two
years.
The government has undertaken to improve the child tax benefit
by injecting $600 million in new money and reallocating $250
million already announced in the 1996 budget.
This will be a two-step process. First step: in 1997, the
government will increase the working income supplement, which
will now be calculated per child rather than per family. The
maximum annual level of the working income supplement, now set
at $500 per family, will climb to $605 for the first child, $405 for
the second child and $330 for the following children. This will cost
$195 million in 1997-98, $125 million of which has already been
included in the 1996 budget.
Second step: more concrete measures are to follow discussions
with the provinces. The current proposal is to merge the tax benefit
and the working income supplement into a single benefit. The
increase will be higher for low income families with many
children.
The interim measure and the measures to be taken in 1998 do not
affect families with an income over $25,921. Also, the bill does not
provide for cost-of-living adjustments.
So, from all of this, we can conclude that, after making the
parents poorer by cutting the social transfer and UI benefits and
failing to create jobs, the Liberal government suddenly cares about
the children and has cynically decided, five years later, to recycle
the money promised in 1993 for child care.
Family policy and the fight against poverty are provincial areas
of jurisdiction. Continuing interference by the Canadian
government in these provincial areas of jurisdiction is unacceptable
to us and is hampering the implementation of a truly consistent
policy by the provinces.
Thus, after ripping their shirts on the non-indexation of benefits
by the Conservative government, the Liberals have yet to remedy
the situation.
The Caledon Institute and anti-poverty organizations estimate
that an additional $2 billion a year is a minimum needed to start
fighting poverty whereas the government will spend only $850
million starting in July 1998. Thus, this measure is quite
unsatisfactory.
The Liberal government is using the fight against poverty as an
excuse to slash social programs like unemployment insurance and
social assistance.
The Liberal government broke its promise to create new child
care spaces and the money that was supposed to be spent in that
regard, that is, $720 million, vanished into thin air. Will the same
happen to the amounts set aside for fighting child poverty?
(1210)
Lastly, the Quebec government considers this new benefit to be
another interference in Quebec jurisdictions. However, Quebec can
hardly reject out of hand the federal proposal to inject additional
funds into programs for children, since those funds can be
reallocated by the Quebec government to other programs for
children.
In short, the Bloc Quebecois has already expressed its opposition
to the following aspects: federal meddling in an exclusively
provincial jurisdiction; the non-indexation of benefits, which hurts
families with children; and replacing a sound family policy with
the fight against poverty.
In pretending to follow the recommendations of the National
Forum on Health, the federal government has announced additional
funds of $300 million for health care, including $150 million over
three years supposedly to help the provinces launch pilot projects
to provide home care or drugs; $50 million over three years to put
in place a national information system on health; $100 million over
three years to improve existing programs, namely the Community
Action Program for Children and the Canada Prenatal Nutrition
Program.
It is difficult to imagine, at first glance, how the program will
work. Will the health minister have a veto over how the funds will
be allocated? Will there be new national standards? We can be sure
of one thing: health being a provincial jurisdiction, the new funds
announced amount to further federal interference in a provincial
area of jurisdiction.
The government ignored an important recommendation made by
the National Forum on Health that cash transfers for health and
social services be set at a minimum $12.5 billion, the amount
10048
forecast for 1997-98, instead of reduced to $11 billion, as
anticipated.
The new funds concern activities which are a direct provincial
responsibility. It will be tempting for the federal government to
implement all these policies and continue to meddle in provincial
areas of jurisdiction.
In conclusion, all these examples show without a shadow of a
doubt that the finance minister is not making any serious effort to
help the most disadvantaged in our society, to help small
businesses to grow, which would help create jobs and ensure the
financial independence of families and individuals. This is exactly
the opposite of what the government has done in the budget tabled
by the finance minister in February.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to address Bill C-93.
This legislation and much of the legislation that passes through
this place is remarkable not only for what is in it but especially for
what is not in it. As we approach what probably will be an election
call in the next few days it is very important to take a look at the
agenda put forward by the government with respect to issues that
are important to Canadians, particularly economic issues.
The government blew a wonderful opportunity in this year's
budget. It had a chance to get its priorities in line with the priorities
of regular Canadians. As someone who has been to many different
provinces this past year I can say that the government simply does
not understand the priorities of the Canadian people.
I was in Moose Jaw and Saskatoon last week. I was in British
Columbia the week previous to that. I will be in Toronto this week.
It seems that no matter where I go Canadians have a very different
agenda from that which the government has proposed.
(1215 )
When I talk to people I find that they have some very modest
expectations. They do not ask a lot. They have very modest dreams.
When I talk to people they say things like ``Would it not be nice to
be able to find a job? Would it not be nice to be able to set some
money aside so that I can buy a house or start a family? When we
start a family, would it not be nice if we could set some money
aside to put the kids through school? If we chose, would it not be
nice if one of us could stay home to look after the children?
Ultimately, would it not be nice to set money aside for
retirement?'' I do not think these are exorbitant requests. They are
very modest dreams. What we have run into is a succession of
governments which seem to have worked against the very modest
dreams which people have.
On the one hand, people want opportunities. They want the
chance to do those things. On the other hand, people want some
security. If they become unemployed through no fault of their own
they want to know that there will be some kind of a social safety net
to help them. If they become ill they want to know that the health
care system will provide for them in a timely fashion. Again, those
modest expectations of security are not being met by this
government and they have not been met by previous governments.
Husbands want to know that when their wives go out to a parking
lot at night they will not have to fear for their lives. They want to
know that when their kids go to school they will return home
unharmed. Many Canadians do not have that sense of security. The
government should be providing that type of security through a
strong criminal justice system.
I do not see those types of priorities being met by this
government. Certainly I do not see that happening with this budget.
The government should be castigated. The principal role of the
government should be to get its priorities in line with the wishes of
the Canadian people. It is simply not happening.
I want to talk a bit about where the government should be going.
Governments have completely reversed their priorities over the last
many years. As I pointed out, people have very modest
expectations. They are not asking the government to be involved in
a lot of them. They just want the government to provide
opportunities. If those expectations are to be met, the government
must not tax the people to death. Obviously if a person wants to buy
a house, go on a vacation or set money aside to put the kids through
school, the more money that is left in the pockets of the taxpayers,
the better chance they have of doing that.
Somehow that pretty simple truth has alluded successive
governments, including the Conservatives. They raised taxes
endlessly, 71 times. This government has raised taxes 36 times.
Those governments have missed the simple truth. If people are to
be able to realize their very modest dreams those governments
must stop picking their pockets.
Right now in Canada we have three levels of government
exacting about half the paycheque of the average family of four.
That makes it virtually impossible to do the sorts of things that
people want to do. According to a Decima poll, 74 per cent of two
income families said that if they had their druthers, if they could
afford to, they would have one parent at home looking after their
children.
We should respect those decisions. We should do what we can to
get government priorities in line with the wishes of Canadians.
Unfortunately Bill C-93 and other budget bills and legislation
which has come before the House have failed to recognize how
important these things are to Canadians, whom this place is
supposed to serve. Governments somewhere along the line went
drastically off track with what they thought they were supposed to
be doing for Canadians.
10049
(1220)
Somewhere along the way we had a group of people who,
admittedly, were extraordinarily well educated but determined that
they knew better than Canadians themselves what was good for
Canadians. Somewhere along the line, I would say 30 years ago,
that happened. Since then we have seen the Ottawa agenda rise to
the fore in this place and in the Senate.
As a result, instead of Canadians expecting Ottawa to represent
their views, they have come to expect Ottawa to bring forward an
entirely different agenda from what Canadians want for
themselves.
I point to some examples of exactly what I mean. A minute ago I
said that Canadians expect the government to provide them
opportunity on one hand and some security on the other.
Let us look at where the federal government is at today with
respect to all the different types of things it does. Is it really
providing Canadians with opportunity?
In 1995 we set a record for bankruptcies in this country, an all
time record. In 1996 we eclipsed that record by 20 per cent. We set
a new record for bankruptcies. At the beginning of this year we are
setting more records, more bankruptcies.
The finance minister tried to put a good face on it but those are
alarming facts that everybody should be concerned about. That is
not all. We have record debt, $600 billion worth. That is a
staggering amount of money, somewhere in the range of 75 per
cent of our GDP.
We will have another deficit again this year. The deficit will
come in probably around $15 billion. It has been 30 years since we
had a balanced budget. That is ridiculous. I cannot believe that we
have staggered on as a country for that long without a balanced
budget.
It does not end there. Of course where there is a $600 billion debt
there are massive interest payments of $46 billion, $47 billion a
year in interest that we are paying; 37 cents of every tax dollar goes
to pay interest on the debt.
Flowing from that, when there are interest payments that are that
high, evermore we pay taxes. That certainly is the legacy of the
previous government. The Conservatives raised taxes 71 times.
A Conservative government, somebody who believes in real
conservatism, would never do that. They understand that money is
much more valuable in the hands of taxpayers.
Somehow conservatism got lost for the Conservatives and they
embraced some other type of ideology, some other form of thinking
which this government to a certain degree has also embraced. That
is why we have had a further $100 billion increase in debt under the
Liberal government and another 36 tax increases.
We have had all that happen. It has not been without its
repercussions. I mentioned a minute ago bankruptcies. I would
argue very strongly that many increases in taxes could come only
from one place, from taxpayers.
There will be more bankruptcies. It is a pretty direct cause and
effect relationship. One of the most startling facts I have uncovered
since we have been here is the one that comes from the Fraser
Institute. It tells us that since 1993 when this government came to
power the average family has seen its disposable income fall by
$3,000.
That to me is a shocking statistic. We should all be very
concerned about it. When there are those sorts of impacts on
Canadian families, is it any wonder that we have staggeringly high
levels of bankruptcies?
One of the other major repercussions of record high debt, taxes,
bankruptcies and all those sorts of things is unemployment of over
9 per cent for 78 months in a row. It is the worst record since the
Great Depression.
(1225 )
Economists tell us that our economy has been growing since the
early 1990s, since about 1991. We have had six years of growth. I
can assure the House that there are many Canadians who have been
unemployed for a long time and who have not seen that growth in
the economy. For them there has no been end to the recession. The
recession has continued on and on.
We have seen almost one-third of a generation grow up in a very
recessionary economy. Certainly the domestic economy has been
asleep for a very long time and has never fully recovered.
This should give us all pause. We should be asking ourselves
why this is happening. We should also refer back to what people
have told us for a long time: is it not the responsibility of the
government, with respect to our economic well being, to provide us
with opportunity?
I would make the argument as forcefully as I can that the
Conservatives failed miserably to provide us with opportunity.
Their record is shameful, sorrowful and speaks for itself. I would
also say, with great respect to government members, that the
government simply has failed to fulfil not only its election
promises but the expectations of Canadians who have been asking
successive governments to create the opportunity for jobs, hope,
prosperity and growth in the economy, the things that typically
governments have done in this country for decades.
It was precisely because governments heeded what Canadians
said with respect to living within their means. We took that for
granted for a long time. It just seemed like such common sense.
However, starting in about 1968, if I had to pick a date when former
Prime Minister Trudeau came to power, we got some really strange
ideas in our heads about what exactly an economy was capable of
doing, especially when we continued to spend more money than
10050
we brought in. We had some very strange ideas. I think those ideas
have continued on even to this day.
I know that some hon. members across the way will make the
argument that yes, but they have done better. They have slowed
down the amount of money that they spend relative to what they
take in. I accept that they have. I think that is true. However, if the
past week is any indication of how this government reacts the
moment it looks like an election is coming, I think we are in big
trouble.
I have gone through the numbers. If we look at all the different
things that could be construed as ways of currying favour with the
public with an election pending, it amounts to billions of dollars
that the government is proposing to spend.
The GST harmonization deal with Atlantic Canada cost $1
billion. That, in a way, relates to both the last election and this
election. That was not something that was demanded by Atlantic
premiers or the people of Atlantic Canada. It was done initially to
get the government off the hook for its 1993 campaign promise but
is now being done, I would argue, as much to prepare for the 1997
election campaign.
All of a sudden the government has realized that for all these
years it has been wrong about pay equity. On the eve of an election
campaign, seemingly or perhaps just a wild coincidence, the
government has decided it needs to come up with a billion dollars
for that.
The Pearson airport deal was causing the government
tremendous grief. Its name was being dragged through the mud.
What did it do? It produced $260 million to deal with that. It goes
on and on. We have the armouries in Liberal ridings.
An hon. member: You are exaggerating.
Mr. Solberg: My hon. friend across the way is trying to
interject, but I would ask him to let me make my point because I
think it is important.
I do not see in this budget implement act money being set aside
for armouries. I certainly do not see money being set aside
precisely for the Prime Minister's riding, for the Deputy Prime
Minister's riding and for the riding of the health minister. I am
looking through Bill C-93 and I do not see it in here. I do not recall
the reference to it in the budget speech.
(1230)
I do not recall the reference in the budget speech to the $63.7
million for the sock factory in Montreal. I know Montreal has a lot
of people and those people vote, but I am troubled because that is a
lot money.
The government went out of its way to ensure that it met its
promise exactly when it said it would cut health care spending and
it did. The government cut big time. It cut $7.5 billion from
transfers to the provinces for health care and education. It cut
every penny of it. It made sure of that. It raises some questions
when it comes to money for a sock factory in Montreal because
there are a lot of people there and they have tended to vote in a
certain way.
Bill C-93 talks about the Canada foundation for innovation. The
idea behind the foundation is to pay grants to modernize and
enhance infrastructure for research in Canada. Is the $63.7 million
for the sock factory part of an initiative from the Canada
foundation for innovation? Is this the type of money that the
government is spending on research? I hope not.
Canadians have other priorities. Health care is 50 times more
important to Canadians than spending money on sock factories. It
is 50 times more important than spending money on armouries in
the Prime Minister's riding, the Deputy Prime Minister's riding
and the riding of the health minister. I am alarmed at some of the
things the government spends money on.
It was not very long ago that we raised the issue of the federal
government spending money on golf carts. I cannot believe it either
but it is true. Canadians would much rather see that money put into
opening up hospital beds that the government closed when it cut
$7.5 billion to the provinces for health care.
In a round about way I am saying the government is off track
with respect to paying attention to what the priorities are of regular
Canadians. It is completely off track because way back when
Canadians said-and I think they continue to say it-that they
expect the government to provide opportunity. It has failed to do
that. They also say they expect the government to provide some
security. It has also failed to do that. I want to expand that argument
a bit more.
If Canadians are asked, there are 10 or 12 things they think the
federal government and only the federal government can do and
should do extraordinarily well. In my opening remarks, for
instance, I talked about how nervous many Canadians are about
going out on to the street at night. They are concerned about crime.
I think my hon. friends across the way will agree that is a fact
today, especially in big cities around the country.
Instead of focusing efforts on putting money into sock factories
or buying golf carts, instead of having the bureaucracy focused on
doing those types of things, would it not make a lot more sense to
take that money and those efforts and focus them on ensuring that
we deal once and for all with our crime problem? Would that not
make a lot more sense?
I would love to see a country that is known around the world for
having the best justice system. That should be the goal of the
government. The federal government should set as its number one
goal the provision of the best justice system in the world. It should
10051
ensure the rule of law is absolutely adhered to in Canada. The
government could do it if it placed emphasis on it.
With the election pending we saw yesterday that the justice
minister was desperate to get through the anti-gang legislation. Our
party co-operated fully because we have tried to make criminal
justice a huge issue in the country. We want to protect ordinary
Canadians from crime. We think that should be the number one
responsibility of the government.
(1235 )
It is not enough to try to rush something through in the last days
of a regime. It is important the government make it a priority every
day. Can we imagine if we focused all that government spending on
fixing the criminal justice system?
My friend from Fraser Valley West told the House about a
woman in his riding who was brutally raped for 90 minutes-and I
will spare the House the details-only to have the offender go
before the court and because of legislation the justice minister
brought forward, Bill C-41, he was allowed to walk free without
spending a day in jail. Can we imagine instead of bringing those
examples forward the hon. member was able to say he has
discovered that crime is no longer an issue in his riding? Can we
imagine that? It would be wonderful. That is something the
government should focus on.
Only when there are a couple of days left before an election
campaign does the justice minister bother. He brought forward all
kinds of stuff which, to be polite, are at the fringes of the whole
idea of justice. Elementary things, the things most Canadians
consider to be important, have been absolutely and completely
ignored.
The members for Fraser Valley West, Crowfoot, Wild Rose and
Calgary Northeast have repeatedly asked the government about a
victims bill of rights. That is the number one responsibility of a
justice minister and a federal government. Somehow the
government has forgotten its priorities.
It fools around with legislation that deals with the fringes of
criminal justice. Through Bill C-41 it provides judges with the
opportunity and the latitude not to impose any jail time even for
serious violent offences. That is what the government did. It saw it
as more of a priority than giving victims the right to protection in
the law. That is so wrong that it is unbelievable we should even
have to discuss it.
The federal government is not in line with the priorities of
Canadians with respect to justice. It is not in line with the priorities
of Canadians with respect to internal trade barriers, for instance.
One thing the federal government should do, can do and has the
right to do under the Constitution is to say to the provinces that it is
time to have the same ability to trade between provinces as we do
with the United States. At the risk of sounding like I am talking
down to members across the way, that is pretty much common
sense. The people back home would agree it makes sense that
Ontario should be able to trade with Quebec as easily as it can with
Michigan.
That is not the fact. There are internal trade barriers. There is an
important role the federal government should assume. It currently
does not play much a role, despite what the government has said
about these things in the past.
The government should focus on the military, something about
which we have had a lot of discussion in the House. Approximately
two weeks ago we celebrated the 80th anniversary of our great
victory at Vimy Ridge. There are few veterans of that battle left but
those who are left, and if others could return, are very concerned, if
not ashamed, at the state of the leadership of the Canadian military
today.
If the federal government spent as much time working on
matters such as fixing the Canadian military as it does handing out
ridiculous grants to all kinds of special interest groups, we would
have a far stronger military and Canadians would forever be in debt
to the federal government.
Many Canadians who served in both world wars, the Korean
conflict and peacekeeping since then, and people who are currently
serving today, are demanding that the federal government fix the
problems in the Canadian military. They should not be put off.
They should not wait for some other administration down the road
to fix them. They should not be left to die a death of a thousand
cuts. The government should find out what is wrong with it and fix
it. We should be given the best military in the world for the size of
our country. That should be the goal of the Canadian government.
(1240)
If it focuses on doing all the things only the federal government
can do, such as foreign affairs, international trade, the monetary
system, and does them extraordinarily well, Canadians will say the
federal government has done something wonderful by giving them
excellent government and great service. It would also mean the
government would not be spending near the amount of money it
currently spends on all kinds of things at the margin and pretty
frivolous.
If the government did that it would be able to balance the budget
for the first time in close to 30 years. That would be a real step
forward. If it were able to focus its spending it would also find that
it had a big surplus, which is exactly what my party is proposing.
Bill C-93 is talking about spending more money. Our party says
that the federal government should focus on doing those things
only the federal government can do and do them extraordinary
well. It should give the provinces and municipalities more respon-
10052
sibility for some of the other things. It should allow families and
individuals the opportunity they have asked for, for a long time.
If the government does that we will have a better country. It
would make a lot more sense to ordinary Canadians who want to be
left alone and have basic services provided. It would make a lot of
sense for national unity to allow the provinces to play a bigger role.
We read in the newspaper about how it took 32 years to get a
labour training agreement with the Quebec government. With
respect, that flies in the face of common sense again. The provinces
are closer to the people and can provide training better. They know
what their people need and want. Why in the world did it take 32
years for that to happen? It is ridiculous.
Why not allow the provinces to do what they can do better and
allow lower levels of government closest to the people to do as
much as they can possibly do? That makes absolute sense. Instead
of continuing to usurp powers to the federal government, powers
that according to the Constitution do not really belong to the
government, it should allow provinces, municipalities, families
and individuals, the private sector, charities and all various groups
that in the past have demonstrated they know perfectly well how to
run their own affairs, to take a leadership role. That is something
the government should do.
When the government does that it opens up some room. It gives
it a big surplus. If it has a surplus the world is a much brighter place
than when it has a deficit. It has a lot more options when it has a
surplus. The government could heed the request of Canadians who
say they would like more money to be put back into health care.
The government took $7.5 billion out of health care and education.
They want some money put back in. My party says that we should
run a surplus, focus the government and give back money to the
provinces for health care. It makes a lot of sense.
It should put $4 billion back. When there is a big surplus it only
makes sense to pay money toward the $600 billion debt. We must
start to reverse the trend. If we start to pay down the debt we will
not have to pay big interest payments any more. They would get
smaller all the time. That would free up even more money for
things that are important to Canadians.
Let us take the rest of that money and offer it to Canadians in the
form of lower taxes. I know what some members across the way
will say. They will say one of two things. I have heard them say that
Canadians do not really want lower taxes. They have also said they
believe in targeted tax relief. That is fine. I accept that. After 107
tax increases in the last 12.5 years I would argue Canadians need
more than a targeted cut. Canadians instinctively know they will
have a lot of trouble competing with the rest of the world if they
have a much higher tax regime than other countries.
(1245 )
My hon. friend from Prince Albert who sits across the way
knows that personal taxes have gone up relative to GDP by about
15 per cent since the government came to power. Personal taxes
have risen exponentially compared with other G7 nations. They
have gone through the roof in the past many years.
We have to do something about that because it hurts our ability
to compete in the world. It also hurts the ability of ordinary
individuals and families to get the things they want. They are the
priorities of Canadian families to which I referred earlier. They are
people's fairly modest expectations. People want to set aside
enough money to buy a house. That is not unrealistic. They want to
set aside money to start a family which is okay with most people. It
is okay to have money to go on a vacation. If the government is
taxing half your income it becomes very difficult to do that. It is
very difficult for a family to choose to have one spouse stay at
home with the children if half your income is being taxed away.
In order to realize those expectations it is necessary to give
Canadians lower taxes. In order to create an economy that produces
jobs for Canadians we must have lower taxes. I have heard the
finance minister say that payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation.
I agree with the finance minister but I wish he would heed his own
observation.
The EI surplus is building and building. It will be $10 billion or
$15 billion by the time the government ever gets around to
balancing its budget, if it ever does. Instead of allowing those
premiums to stay so unreasonably high when unemployment is
over 9 per cent, why not balance the budget quickly and start to
lower EI premiums so the economy will create jobs and put
Canadians back to work?
I cannot believe when I go to Newfoundland that we have a
province with a 20 per cent unemployment rate. That is alarming. I
come from Alberta where the provincial government has been very
responsible with its finances. Taxes are the lowest in the country
and as a result the level of unemployment is relatively low. I was
staggered when I went to St. John's last September and saw the
unemployment. It is a national tragedy. I was in Cape Breton a little
over a year ago and I could not believe the situation that economy
is in. It is horrible, a national tragedy. It speaks volumes about the
need for the finance minister to come to grips with the deficit and
to start to lower payroll taxes. That is a contradiction of where the
government is heading with respect to payroll taxes for CPP, but I
will discuss that later.
The government has gone really off track and does not recognize
that Canadians have very legitimate aspirations. It has not been
able to meet those aspirations, nor did the previous Conservative
government.
10053
My party believes we need a lot of tax relief. That is why we
believe in a $2,000 cut for the average family of four by the year
2000 as a start toward tax relief. We want to bring about $15
billion in tax relief so that Canadians can take the money they
previously gave to the government that very often spent it on
things that I think are very unfortunate and quite wasteful in the
worst instances and use that money to pursue their own dreams.
That is what we would do with that money.
I will backtrack to the government's priorities and speak for a
moment on the government's approach to health care when you
have a balanced budget. I am on the finance committee. The
president of the Canadian Medical Association was before us not
too long ago. She made the point that today if someone is waiting
treatment for breast cancer or prostate cancer, on average, the
waiting time is 14 weeks. People have to wait over three months for
treatment for those two virulent forms of cancer. The cancer does
not stop because the government does not have enough money to
put toward treatment. The cancer rampages on.
(1250)
I cannot believe that the government has decided that spending
money on interest payments for money it has borrowed around the
world, which is what it does when it does not balance the budget,
that spending money on sock factories, golf carts, armouries and
any one of a hundred different things is more important than
spending money on health care and preserving the health of
Canadians. I do not understand why the government is being so
obstinate about dealing with this problem.
Why does the government not recognize that health care is a
priority? Why does it not get its agenda in line with the wishes of
the Canadian public? Why will it not address the problem? Why are
we being subjected to the Prime Minister lining up photo
opportunities and giving out taxpayers' money for all these crazy
ideas when Canadians have made it clear health care is the number
one priority? It makes absolutely no sense.
I am going to conclude my remarks where I began. The role of
the government is to recognize what the priorities of Canadians are.
The role of the government is to serve the public. It is a pretty
radical idea, I know, but the government should listen hard to what
Canadians are saying about their priorities.
If the government listens hard it will come to the same
conclusion to which the Reform Party came, which is that
Canadians want smaller government and a government which
focuses on the things that are priorities for Canadians. They want a
balanced budget. They want to run surpluses and they want to
reinvest in those things which are priorities. They want to take that
surplus and give Canadians lower taxes. They want to use the
surplus to pay down the debt.
Ultimately, if the government can do those things, the country
will have an economy which will provide Canadians the opportuni-
ty I spoke of earlier, which is the opportunity to create the jobs
which Canadians so desperately want.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to take part in the third reading debate on the
Budget Implementation Act. It seems that this year's budget is not
aimed at the real problem, which is unemployment, despite our
numerous remarks on the subject.
The budget is aimed at the wrong target. People tell us to repeat
our arguments again and again, but what use is it? We recently had
the example of the American pensions which showed that by
insisting, by constantly asking questions and making request upon
request, we can get somewhere. Getting results on an issue like that
gives us renewed energy to try to bring the government to
recognize our arguments. The fight against unemployment was
totally omitted from the Liberal government's 1997 budget, but I
have some concrete measures to propose to create jobs because we
need jobs on an urgent basis.
In my riding, be it the Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup,
Témiscouata or des Basques regional county municipality, we need
jobs to allow local workers to earn a living and to support their
families so they can be proud to live and work in the area.
The first measure would be to plan the use of the surplus in the
employment insurance fund because, right now, this surplus is used
to hide the deficit.
(1255)
Because the federal government did not have enough discipline
to cut departmental spending significantly, it is using the surplus in
the employment insurance fund to mask that reality.
In that regard, a concrete measure that could be taken would be
to reopen the employment insurance reform to give control of the
fund to the people who are paying for it, namely employers and
employees. Right now, the situation is somewhat peculiar in that
the people who are funding this insurance plan have no control over
the way the money is used.
Usually, when there is a surplus in an insurance company, it is
used to improve the quality of services, to reduce premiums and so
forth, but we have seen no such concrete measure from the
government. Yet, had the government decided to reduce
unemployment insurance premiums significantly, this would have
left more money in the economy, which would have helped to
create jobs.
Another concrete measure that can be put on the table to
stimulate job creation is to bring radical changes to the government
10054
procurement policy. Last week, the Standing Committee on
Government Operations tabled a report. I will read to you some of
the conclusions contained in that report. This comes from both
Liberal members and opposition members. There is a consensus on
this issue. The problem is that it took three years to get to this point
and, during those three years, the Liberal government did not do
anything to make its procurement policy work in favour of regional
development. We see no such trend for the future.
This is confirmed by what the report says: ``The Treasury Board
is not enforcing its policies, directives and guidelines for the
approval and execution of contracts by departments, agencies and
Crown corporations that fall within its jurisdiction''.
In other words, the Treasury Board is not playing its role as a
watchdog. The departments can pretty much do as they please. It
also says: ``There is a general lack of public awareness of the
federal government's contracting process in many sectors of the
Canadian economy, including the small and medium-sized
enterprises (SME's) as well as a general lack of understanding of
how to access it''.
It is even more complicated for francophone businesses, because
although government requests for proposals are themselves often
bilingual, when more specific documentation is sought, it is not
available in French.
In my riding, I have businessmen who have told me horror
stories of their experiences with government procurement policies.
One firm in Les Basques, for instance, went after a contract to
manufacture fibreglass huts for the Minister of National Defence.
This is one of the departments with the most impenetrable
procurement policy. There is always a relative of somebody on the
base, which is often located in Ontario, who wins the contract year
after year; when a competitor turns up, there is no way to break in.
This was one of the things we noticed.
The result of this in 1994 was to deprive Quebec of $1.3 billion
in contracts. When you compare our share of the population to the
number of contracts received, the economy of Quebec comes up
$1.3 billion short. When we are calling for ways to ensure the
development of the economy of each of our regions, this is one
concrete measure, because $1.3 billion represents 22,000 jobs, or
an average of 300 jobs a riding.
You can see that, with a policy of equitable regional
procurement, 200 or 250 additional full time jobs in my riding
would be a far cry from the situation we now have.
As we head into an election campaign, we must therefore make
sure that, in its next term of office, the government implements the
committee's recommendations as quickly as possible. It has taken
three years, and it should not take until May 1998, as the
committee is recommending, before we know what action the
government is going to take.
During the election campaign, I think voters should ask each of
the candidates the following question: What is your party going to
do about procurement? The Bloc Quebecois's position on this is
very obvious. It is essential that the government's procurement
policy be amended quickly, that there be full and speedy access for
small and medium size businesses, which create the most jobs in
our society, in particular by making information available in
French, thus allowing our entrepreneurs to win these contracts and
eliminating the chance and often partisan nature of the current
political decisions.
Another specific proposal we have to ensure preservation of jobs
is to loosen the federal government's grip on transfer payments.
(1300)
In health alone, the federal government has cut $750 million in
two years in Quebec. If our health system in Quebec had had that
$750 million available to it, would we not have been able to retain
many more jobs in the health system? Could we not have carried
out a reform that would have been both easier and more
appropriate? Changes were needed, but with that money in hand
there would have been far fewer problems relating to staff
allocation and keeping jobs.
The federal government could have chosen to loosen its grip on
transfer payments; it could have made cuts to government
operations. The 19 per cent cut planned there ended up as only 9
per cent. The difference between the two can be seen in the cuts to
transfer payments. This is very easily seen. The federal
government is turning off the tap. The province has less money and
is obliged to manage with what it has left. The bottom line is that
the jobs cut are jobs in the health field, the main area of concern for
Quebecers and Canadians.
It is important to understand this because, in each province
where adjustments had to be made, the tendency is to blame the
provincial government for not doing its job properly, for not
making cuts in the right places. The provincial government's
problems are connected to this cut in the federal government's
transfer payments, in particular.
If the federal government really wants to implement an active
job creation measure in the coming months, in the coming year, it
still has time to loosen up on the transfer payments in order to
ensure that each province will have sufficient funds. As well, it
could re-examine the control of expenditures in each of the
departments, in order to make sure that the mandate has been
properly fulfilled, instead of just putting the cuts off to another day
and never making them, while refusing to give an inch on transfer
payments to the provinces. This is an issue that ought to be raised
10055
in the next election campaign, and it is a major issue, one that
could help create employment.
We have three proposals, therefore. First of all, the government
could draw up a plan to use the employment insurance fund
surplus, ensuring that there will be more money spent in the
communities, particularly those where there is seasonal industry, as
there is in the region I represent. Then, revise the government
procurement policy, in order to ensure that Quebec gets its share,
and the regions get theirs. Finally, loosen the grip on transfer
payments, so that a satisfactory employment level may be
maintained, particularly in education and health.
There are other suggestions as well. It has long been said that
Quebec gets its share from the federal government. As an
experiment, the Bloc Quebecois' presence has been very
conclusive; because now that we sovereignists are in Ottawa, we
can look into transportation and infrastructure spending, for
instance, which have a bolstering effect on the economy, and we
have discovered that there is much that has not been done.
This is another proposal to get the economy rolling. There is the
infrastructure program which is interesting but port infrastructure
also offers interesting solutions. Now that Bill C-44 has been
passed, it is of the utmost importance that the Department of
Transport divest itself of ports as soon as possible so that local
companies can take over under good conditions.
It means, for instance, that in a riding like mine,
Rivière-du-Loup, we must create as quickly as possible the
conditions that will allow industry to take over the ferry wharf and
ensure that the development corporation in Cacouna can actually
take full control of the facilities during the next mandate.
It is the same in Trois-Pistoles. We have received financial
support on an irregular basis, at election time. There has to be a
guaranteed long term future for the ferry. Money must be invested
there, money that would allow job creation.
We see the same thing happening in Témiscouata, a region that
borders on New Brunswick. There is one highway, highway 185,
where there has been a major increase in truck traffic for several
years, ever since the railroad tracks were dismantled, and the
highway badly needs repairs. We have to show some initiative in
this respect. We can no longer expect the traditional ways of
funding to kick in, so we suggested, as recommended in the report
presented by the transport committee, setting up projects in
partnership with the private sector in this country.
Liberal members and members of the Bloc Quebecois made this
suggestion so that our national highway network could be renewed
faster than would otherwise be the case.
(1305)
We all know governments have less money than they did in the
past. They had to find new and different ways to fund these
projects. The private sector-public sector partnership works as
follows: the government announces that it wants such and such a
project to be carried out. The private sector responds to a call for
tenders and says yes, it will take care of construction or renovation
and maintenance over a period of 25 or 30 years, and the
government awards a service contract for that period of time. The
government continues to own the highway. The highway is not
sold. It is not wholly privatized. The service contract is a way for
the federal government or any other government to avoid having to
provide funding during the first few years. This means the project
can be fast-tracked.
This approach was welcomed by the mayors of municipalities
along highway 185, and I can understand why. For many years they
have been waiting for investments. Since the highway is part of the
Trans-Canada highway, it is important for the federal government
to do its share.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the proceedings will
be interrupted.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Harvard): In view of the sirens that
are sounding, we will adjourn to the call of the Chair.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.06 p.m.)
_______________
[
Translation]
The House resumed at 1.25 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Resuming debate. The
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup may now continue.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after this interruption that was quite beyond the House's
control, I remind members that we are looking at Bill C-93
concerning certain measures in the budget.
Before the interruption, I was saying that this budget did not
contain any real measures to combat unemployment, the major
problem in Quebec and in Canada. I proposed several specific
10056
solutions to turn the tide and promote employment in our various
ridings.
The first was a plan to use the surplus in the UI fund not just to
lower the deficit but to really create jobs, particularly in regions
with a lot of seasonal employment. This would make it possible to
diversify our regional economies.
For example, the number of weeks of work could be increased
for forestry workers, as is done in our region, by processing forest
products, in order to increase the number of full time jobs in the
forestry industry in the future.
I also spoke about changing government policy on procurement,
which has been sadly lacking in Quebec, among other places, in
recent years. In 1994, Quebecers were short $1.3 billion compared
to what they should have received, given their percentage of the
population. That is 22,000 jobs for Quebec, or almost 300 jobs per
riding. This would make all the difference between towns having
trouble surmounting these difficulties and towns with an SMB that
could win federal government contracts. This is a concrete way to
do something about employment.
The other way to do something is to loosen the federal
government's grip on transfer payments, to ensure the return of the
$750 million in health cuts over two years in Quebec alone because
of lost transfer payments. If it had really decided to make cuts in
departmental operating budgets, this kind of cut could have been
avoided and the money would be there for jobs. The provinces
would not be stuck with the problems they are now facing.
There are also active measures under the infrastructures
program. The federal government announced that it was divesting
itself of ports and other infrastructures, that it was turning them
over to the public, to interested groups. But when it does this, these
facilities must be in an acceptable condition. Action must be taken
rapidly. Market conditions are changing. Our economic
stakeholders must, therefore, be able to take advantage of the best
transportation infrastructures possible.
Shipping as well as road, rail and air transportation are all
sectors in which prompt action must be taken. However, where
ports are concerned, the federal government has already announced
its intention of unloading them. Let it hand the money over to the
communities concerned, so that they may take things over, as soon
as possible, in order to breathe new life into these really important
elements for job creation.
After Quebec became aware that it absolutely must assume
responsibility for manpower, after 32 years of repeated
demands-particularly in the past three years as the Bloc kept
asking questions in the House in order to ensure that the money
available for manpower was given to Quebec, which already had
responsibility for education, which already possessed all of the
tools necessary, and which was lacking only the necessary funds
for these programs to be effective-it finally came to pass. In
future, we will have to obtain the same type of responsibility for
transportation.
(1330)
We became aware in the past that, because the federal
government was responsible for rail, air and maritime
transportation, while the provinces were responsible for highways,
there had never been any true connection between the governments
in order to ensure effective intermodal transportation.
We have reached the point now where all means of
transportation, and all infrastructures, must be brought in line with
one another, so as to properly meet the new challenges of the North
American markets created by the North American Free Trade
Agreement with the United States, Mexico and South America.
This, then, is another step that must be taken.
Under the current system, it is certain that we will never obtain
real jurisdiction, because the federal government has a sort of
natural inclination to prevent such transfers. But at the very least
we would need to obtain the same as for manpower, during the next
mandate, so as to be able to act on the economic markets and to
ensure that the economic strategy is consistent with a
transportation strategy which takes all means of transportation into
consideration.
I will give an example of this. A few years ago, the rail line
linking Rivière-du-Loup with Edmundston was dismantled, with
federal government authorization. Since that time, the highway
system has been jammed with truck traffic. There is also increased
economic activity between the maritimes and Quebec. Had there
been only one government intervening in the two sectors, we would
have realized that the solution lay not in making miserly savings by
dismantling the railway system. What we needed was a more
integrated approach which would have made it possible to put
trailers on trains and move them by truck at the end of the line.
There would have been economic choices, but they were not made.
Today we face a new reality. The federal government is
responsible for this highway. It is part of the Trans-Canada
highway. We proposed with the Liberal members a public-private
partnership project, which would mean the early completion of
repair work.
I think the federal government would do well in the next election
to endorse public-private partnership projects and, as the Liberal
and Bloc members of the Standing Committee on Transport
recommended, pilot projects, with Highway 185 being an
interesting example.
In short, the budget we got in 1997 was along the same lines as
those of previous years. The Minister of Finance tried to fight the
deficit. He had some success, but the number one problem
governments are facing today is not the fight against the deficit
anymore, but unemployment and how to help people in the regions.
If we want results, we cannot wait another year. Canadians will
have to react quickly and tell the government, during the election
campaign, that they want corrections to be made, that they want a
budget to implement such corrections as soon as Parliament returns
after the election, so that, in one, two or three years, we will see
10057
results because something will have been about unemployment and
about using the potential of all Canadians.
I am thinking in particular of those who have no specialized
training. We must make sure these workers have jobs. When I am
told there are no jobs available and when I am asked what to do
about it, I say that we must make money available, we must make
the employment insurance surplus fund available to allow these
workers to gain more experience and to accumulate more weeks of
employment. For example, why not use the employment insurance
fund to promote secondary or tertiary processing of forestry
products?
As you know, our softwood lumber exports to the United States
are subject to a quota. However, when that wood is processed and
given added value, it is no longer subject to that quota. This means
that more wood can then be exported to the United States. We could
use the surplus in the employment insurance fund to implement
concrete projects and hire people who do not necessarily have
specialized training, but who have practical experience in the
forestry industry.
In conclusion, the government will have to go back to the
drawing board very quickly in order to deal with the number one
problem: unemployment. Given its performance regarding the
deficit, the government has no reason to brag. Canadians want
action now.
(1335)
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member from the Bloc mentioned that the time for deficit control
was over, that deficit control was no longer the issue.
With all due respect to the member, in starting my speech today I
really feel that is a bit of an irresponsible attitude to take toward the
deficit. At $19 billion, and maybe it will get down to $10 billion, it
is a little muddled about where the figures actually are, what an
irresponsible attitude.
It still adds $10 billion to the $600 billion that the federal
government now owes. The way to get meaningful job creation is
not to have that deficit balloon upwards. That could easily happen
anyway if interest rates go up two or three percentage points. Our
deficit could easily balloon right back over $20 billion or $25
billion per year.
We really must get that deficit under control first. We have to
start running surpluses. Perhaps the hon. member who spoke before
me and maybe many members of this House have had no direct
business experience. However, speaking as a business person on
behalf of my colleagues in Reform, many of whom are business
people with business experience, the way to create jobs is to get
taxation down.
When a business' taxes are lower, when its employees' taxes are
lower, both the business and the employees have more disposable
income. When the business has more disposable income it is easy
to reinvest and to create new jobs, to expand, to advertise. That is
how jobs are created.
In addition, when the employees have more disposable income
because their taxes are lower, they spend money on furniture, on
cars and vacations, extra treats that maybe they would not have had
before. This stimulates growth in the economy. It causes businesses
in turn to reinvest the money that they have. That means massive
job creation and that is the way to job growth. It is not by having
the government spend money to create short term jobs, as it did
with the infrastructure boondoggle where the auditor general
calculated that each job created cost us something like $75,000.
What a terrible waste of taxpayer money.
We could have used that infrastructure money to help pay down
the debt. Then we would be closer to tax reductions and meaningful
jobs.
A colleague of mine from the Reform Party, the member for
Yorkton-Melville, brought in a private member's bill recently,
Bill C-361, in which he proposed that there should be a people's tax
form. The bill was called the people's tax form act.
The member proposed that when people fill out their income tax,
in the income tax envelope there should be a one page
questionnaire inviting opinions about specific major programs.
I suspect that defenders of the status quo would find three
objections to the people's tax form act. First, they would say that
too few people would be willing to fill it out. Second, too many
people would fill it out and create too much work. Third, citizens
do not know what they are talking about and should keep their
noses out of the government's business. I do not suppose we will
ever really know what the citizens think. I am certain the
government would not have supported the bill anyway.
In the experiment that was run by my colleague in his riding, the
overwhelming results from the 500 people who returned the
questionnaires were that the federal programs endorsed in one form
or another were the ones that all four major parties in this House
support. They are old age security, health care, justice, the RCMP,
the Canada pension plan, debt reduction, veterans pensions,
universities, natural resource development, environmental
protection and practical research.
Then there are the ten most strongly opposed programs. The
budget we brought in last year could have dealt with them and
saved taxpayers a bundle of money. The ten most strongly opposed
expenditures were all the fat little Liberal pet ponies: official
bilingualism, subsidies for special interests, gun registration, for-
10058
eign aid, multiculturalism, that National Film Board, subsidies for
business, subsidies for sports, Indian affairs and the CBC.
There are themes that are noticeable here. People want to retain
public security for those who cannot afford it themselves. We have
an obligation to help those who need our assistance. They want
government to encourage but not interfere in the marketplace.
Unfortunately we cannot seem to convince this government to
take a more businesslike approach to the running of government.
The policies of this government really do affect the average person
on the street quite dramatically.
(1340 )
I received a letter last week from a constituent by the name of
Ms. Munday: ``I am a registered nurse, so every year I am charged
GST on my registration fee and every year I have to waste time on
the telephone getting through to the income tax office to send me a
GST rebate form''. She describes in detail the process, the hassles,
the number of hours she wastes to have a form sent out to her which
she needs every year. She has made a suggestion which I hope the
Minister of National Revenue will hear. Surely the revenue
collection department can get its act together well enough to send
out the appropriate form with the tax forms it sends to her every
year, knowing that she will need them.
I am sure the minister will act on that suggestion, but the
underlying theme of the letter is that if we did not have the GST
there would not be a need for this lady to fill out the form every
year. The whole exercise of filling out the form to get the rebate is a
waste of taxpayer money.
There are a number of people involved in creating the refund and
their time is not being used productively. First the tax has to be
collected. It has to be processed and banked. Then a form has to be
sent off to this lady, after hours of negotiation on the telephone.
Then she has to fill it out using her time. It has to be mailed and
processed again. Then there has to be a print run on stationery paid
for by the people. It goes back to her. It gets processed through her
bank account and out of the government account again. It is a
wasteful process and the amounts can be very small. I am sure in
many cases the amounts are extremely small. It must be a
tremendously unproductive and costly exercise.
There are places in the House of Commons where we could save
a lot of money and cut the deficit significantly. For example, a
couple of weeks ago I brought to the attention of the House an issue
concerning the heritage committee. It was proposing to spend
about $214,000 for a travel junket around the country to define
Canadian culture. Defining Canadian culture? It is like trying to
define what makes a cat a cat or what love is. What a ridiculous
thing to be wasting money on.
The heritage committee was not very happy with me. I know that
because the chairman circulated a memo with a copy of my speech
and complained bitterly about me at the subsequent committee
hearing. Of course he did not invite me to the hearing. I found out
about it by accident when I read the transcript.
I am glad the election will interfere with the plans of that
committee. It will save taxpayers about $214,000. I give notice to
the committee that if it regenerates the plan after the election I will
ensure it gets plenty of publicity.
In terms of whether the government takes any notice of
taxpayers desire to get rid of some of the waste, I saw a very
interesting article in a local newspaper. It appeared in the February
24 edition of the Vancouver Sun. It was about a gentleman who
decided he had a problem with the finance minister. He discovered
that the finance minister had an E-mail address. He promptly sent
off an E-mail. He received a personal reply, in both official
languages, with a ``thank you for taking the time''. It went on to say
that this would be the only reply he would receive because of
financial constraints.
He was particularly impressed with the E-mail, noting that he
had sent it at 1800 hours Vancouver time, nine o'clock at night
Ottawa time, and within five minutes of sending it he had received
the reply. He thought ``my goodness, we have a lot of very
overworked public servants in Ottawa in the finance minister's
office answering E-mail at five after nine at night''.
He thought that a bit suspicious. Right away he sent another
E-mail on a totally different topic and he received the same E-mail
message five minutes later, in both official languages, thanking
him once again for his opinion and saying that this was the only
reply he would get because of financial constraints.
More than a tad suspicious, he sent a third message to the finance
minister which consisted entirely of ``fuzzy-wuzzy was a bear,
fuzzy-wuzzy had no hair''. Five minutes later, sure enough, he
received the same answer again, in both official languages, saying
that this was the only reply he would receive because of financial
constraints.
(1345 )
This is a very good example of how taxpayers' money is being
wasted on meaningless responses to concerned taxpayers. The
government has no intention of taking their input seriously.
I have another letter that was sent to me by a constituent who had
written to the Prime Minister. This constituent received an answer
from the Prime Minister's office dated March 27, 1997. This
concerns input into the budget process. It reads:
10059
Dear Mr. Campbell:
On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your
correspondence of March 16 regarding.
Yours sincerely, Jill Bowerman, Special Assistant.
They forgot to even put in the topic. It just ends.
This is probably another example of nobody having read the
input or could care less about the input from this person. He was
sending suggestions about the budget process and received a
standard form letter where the person answering even forgot to
plug in the topic.
If there was a little bit more direct democracy in our system the
people in this place would care a bit more about taking notice of the
input they got on bills like this budget bill that is before the House.
They would be concerned that the people would have power, if
there was more direct democracy, to change the laws.
I will give an example. An article appeared in the Financial Post
of Wednesday, April 9 about California's affirmation action ban
being upheld. Members may know about the controversial
proposition 209, which was put forward in California a few months
ago to get rid of the affirmative action programs in California.
They had distorted, with discriminatory practices, the job
marketplace in California showing preference to specific groups
not based on their skills but because they could fit into certain
boxes. It so outraged the people of California when they could see
the unfair distortions that were created by these programs that they
started proposition 209. They were successful in overturning this
politically correct legislation that had been introduced by their
politically correct legislators. On a court challenge, the result of
that proposition was upheld.
What a wonderful victory for taxpayers when they can take their
legislators to task in that way and get rid of legislation which they
see as improper that has been foisted on them because legislators
think they know what is best for them.
The pressure for change to give more meaningful input to bills
like this is building all around the world. There was an article in the
Hill Times a week ago headed ``polls show that Britons have a clear
desire to radically change Parliament and the voting process''. It is
quite an interesting article and is very easy to obtain here on the
Hill. I would recommend to all members to get a hold of it.
The article mentions that the British show a readiness for radical
change in their system of government. Keep in mind that they are
way ahead of us anyway. They permit free voting in the House of
Commons. It is a commonly observed process for members to be
voting on opposite sides. Yet they are still showing a desire to see
even more change and more input into the process.
Specifically there is a strong and accelerating dissatisfaction
with Parliament and the parliamentary system, but interestingly
enough not with the local MPs. People feel that the local MPs listen
to their concerns and perhaps even take them to Parliament. Much
as happens in this place, the concerns can be expressed here but
they end up falling into a big black hole and disappear.
Every day we present petitions, sometimes tens of thousands,
sometimes hundreds of thousands of names. I remember just after
we came to this House after the election of 1993, Reform proposed
that we have one day a month where we debate the major petitions
so that we could get the government's position on these things. Our
idea was defeated.
These petitions still, to this day, get presented and then just go
down to the vault in the basement. I do not know if any member has
been down there to see the petitions that are stored from the turn of
the century. Can anyone imagine the millions of names that are
down there on petitions asking for things and the government has
never taken any notice? There really is no democratic part to the
process. It really is a great shame.
Because of the lack of democracy, we get the type of examples I
gave where letters remain unanswered, E-mails are answered with
meaningless text and we get government dispensing money
without requesting permission from the taxpayers.
(1350 )
The premier of Alberta has introduced legislation to make it
necessary for the government to get permission from taxpayers to
increase tax rates. What a wonderful sign that we are actually
starting to get some improvements in the democratic process. What
a radical idea, that taxpayers might actually be able to tell the
government not to increase taxes. I congratulate the premier for
doing that. I also congratulate the Ontario premier for seriously
considering the introduction of meaningful initiative and
referendum legislation to give the people the power to direct the
government in the way it spends their money.
There are certainly plenty of things we could do with direction
here in spending taxpayers' money. The government has handed
out vast sums of money to Bombardier. I have a letter from another
constituent, Mr. Currie, that is dated March 27. It is actually
addressed to the member for Waterloo. My constituent says: ``On
March 21 in reply to a question from the member for North
Vancouver regarding Bombardier's apparent use of a federal grant
of $97 million to increase its reported profit by $93 million-''
Bombardier reported a profit of $93 million last year but it
received a federal grant for $97 million so it is very easy to see
where its bottom line came from. I asked a question of the member
for Waterloo about that. The member replied that it was a perfect
example of a critical investment in research and development and
that it was money we would get back with interest.
10060
Three days later, on March 24, Bombardier announced it was
moving its production of the Sea-Doo water craft to Benton,
Illinois. After receiving $97 million from the federal government,
it promptly closed down a plant and put 165 employees out of
work. Adding 165 people to Canada's unemployment roll hardly
seems like an investment we will get back with interest. The $97
million might have been better spent on transfers to the provinces
to offset their increasing health care costs.
That raises an interesting point because the Liberals claim to be
the only party-I have seen it in advertisements-that can be
trusted to preserve quality universal health care. The fact is the
Liberals have cut more than $7 billion from transfers to the
provinces in support of health care and social programs.
During the 1993 election campaign, in response to public input,
Reform's zero in three plan to balance the budget specifically
exempted health care transfers and transfers in support of higher
education from any cuts. It was in the plan because people had told
us that those two items were their highest priorities. The Liberals
have cut $7 billion from those transfers and have pretended they
have not done anything. Reform's fresh start program for the 1997
election campaign states that we will restore $4 billion of the $7
billion that has been cut by the Liberals.
The Liberals also claim in some of their election campaign
material that they have cleaned up federal finances and
dramatically reduced the deficit. The fact is the Liberals have
actually added $100 billion to the debt in the last three and a half
years. That means taxpayers are paying about $8 billion more in
interest payments than they were when the Liberals took office.
Reductions in the deficit have not come from cuts to federal
spending, not to the government's special departments. Only $5
billion has been cut out of its $160 billion budget for federal
departmental spending. The bulk of the reductions have come
almost exclusively from huge cuts in transfers to the provinces,
enormous increases in taxes and user fees and good luck in the
form of lower interest rates.
Sitting on the opposite side of the House is a member who comes
from the banking industry. He knows very well the effects that
increasing interest rates have on the amounts people pay for their
mortgages. He is probably also well aware of the amount of
Canada's debt that is in short term securities, two to three year
periods or less. He knows that we are constantly rolling over that
debt, that if these interests rates shoot up three, four or five points,
that debt will be renewed at increasingly difficult payment levels.
The country could quite easily slip into a terrible crisis if interest
rates jump dramatically, especially if it is necessary to defend the
rather failing dollar we have right at the moment.
(1355)
I can see that the other side of the House is getting a little bit
antsy and that members would probably like to ask me a few
questions which I always welcome.
I will wind up by saying that if we want to get this country back
on track and create jobs, we have to get taxes down, spending under
control and begin paying off Canada's $600 billion debt.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a privilege to speak to this bill.
I want to address a couple of matters about government spending
that need to be said. Each night as we grow closer to an election I
watch the government throwing out its usual dollars to encourage
people to vote for them.
An hon. member: Not me.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
Liberals says ``not me''. He may be the only one who says that.
I wonder just how Liberal members feel when in fact they are
borrowing this money from other countries and selling it to the
very taxpayers that are footing the bill for interest.
It is really alarming that we are overspending this year by some
$19 billion-that is nineteen thousand million dollars-and yet the
government believes that it can spend about $6.5 billion thus far
just before an election. Why not take that money, try to write down
the deficit or even pay down some of the debt? What is this
preoccupation before an election of a government to think that
people are standing there with their hands out waiting for money?
The Speaker: I know the member has just started his speech for
today but as it is almost 2 p.m., I wonder if we could go to
statements by members and he will have the floor when we come
back.
_____________________________________________
10060
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Alberta
welcomes the world to experience Canada's magnificent, majestic
Banff National Park, confident that its future will be protected and
enhanced by the Banff management plan.
The plan will be the basis for all decision making in the park for
the next 10 to 15 years and will ensure the legacy continues into the
21st century.
In particular, the heritage tourism initiative will enrich the
experience of all who visit. Parks Canada, the town of Banff and
the tourism industry are developing a heritage tourism strategy
that centres around the park's natural, cultural and historical
resources. This strategy supports a common code of ethics for the
local tourism industry and its partners. It promotes the orientation,
10061
training and accreditation for employees in tourism related jobs,
and it focuses on heritage tourism activities.
An annual round table, an open public forum to review the
progress and to account for the action gives all Canadians an
opportunity to be part of ensuring a sustainable future for Canada's
national park.
In conclusion, the new Banff-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
finals of the Bell super science fair was held this past weekend at
Collège Jean-de-Bréboeuf in Montreal.
Among the many young men and women winners at this event, I
would like to congratulate Catherine Martel and Hélène Hallé of
Polyvalente Charles-Gravel in Chicoutimi for their project on
polygraphy called ``The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth''.
This accomplishment will send them on to Lyon, France to
participate in the science fair at this year's Entretiens
Jacques-Cartier.
My best wishes for good luck to the school administrators, the
teachers supervising the team, Catherine and Hélène.
(1400)
Their victory will surely benefit their entire school. I am proud
to have been involved in education myself for over 30 years.
Congratulations to Catherine and Hélène and to everyone at
Charles-Gravel.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of our most
cherished values is volunteerism. Every day our citizens freely and
selflessly offer a helping hand to those in need.
Today I would like to say a few words about the work of the
Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, a great Canadian story that
seldom gets told.
Since it began operations in 1978 auxiliary members have
participated with risks to their own lives in upwards of 28,000
incidents, 24 per cent of all marine search and rescue incidents
annually, and 200 lives on average are saved each year.
Working closely with the Canadian Coast Guard and made up
mostly of fishermen and recreational boaters, the auxiliary 3,400
members and their 1,300 vessels are an invaluable part of our
marine search and rescue network.
The auxiliary's work also extends to prevention activities as
members dedicate their time to conduct demonstrations of marine
safety equipment, give lectures on boating safety, conduct courtesy
examinations of pleasure craft and fishing vessels, and participate
in boat shows.
These unsung heroes of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary
deserve all the support the government and the Canadian public can
give them.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
celebrated in 1970, Earth Day highlights the link between our
behaviour and the health of the planet.
In Canada over 3,000 events are planned, including the planting
of seedlings and the cleaning of streams and rivers. Community
groups and schools are staging events on the protection of nature,
conservation of our natural resources, reduction of air pollution and
carbon dioxide emissions, protection of our drinking water,
importance of recycling, energy efficiency and conservation of
energy.
Earth Day is a day for all Canadians to celebrate together with
citizens in 100 other countries doing exactly the same.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week Statistics Canada released the
numbers from the 1996 census and revealed what British
Columbians have known all along, that B.C. is home of the biggest
population boom in Canada. B.C. grew by 13.5 per cent between
1991 and 1996.
In 1951 the first census that included all 10 provinces showed
that B.C. had only 8.3 per cent of Canada's population. Today it has
12.9 per cent. Another indicator of B.C.'s growth is a comparison
with the second largest province, Quebec. In 1951 B.C. had 25 per
cent of Quebec's population. Today it has 52 per cent.
Despite these numbers B.C. gets only one-third of the amount of
federal dollars that Quebec receives for each immigrant. It gets
only 28 per cent of the money that Quebec got from the
government's infrastructure fund.
It is time for Ottawa to realize that Canada is changing and to
start acting like it is 1997, not 1951.
10062
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Devco has just sold the Donkin mine site to a private company
without tender for the princely sum of $1 so that the private
company could undertake engineering studies about the feasibility
of operating the mine as a private venture in the future.
Devco employees want answers about this blatant pre-election
ploy. Does it signal that the privatization of Devco is in the works?
When the new mine is up and running will experienced miners at
Devco be forced to leave behind their seniority and pensions and
start from scratch with the new private company?
If private interests think that Donkin is worth developing, why
did Devco not commission the engineering studies rather than
giving the mine away?
Cape Bretoners whose livelihoods are most directly affected
have been left out in the cold. Shame on the 32 Liberal MPs from
Atlantic Canada for treating the miners of Cape Breton with such
arrogance.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the green rug of the House of Commons symbolizes the village
green where people gathered in the early days of parliament to
bring their concerns to the speaker. This was a parliament with only
the walls and carpet of nature.
We are all members of the earth community and even though we
now sit in a building of stone, mortar and glass, we must remember
our connection to the earth. Human activity is threatening the basic
fundamentals of life on our planet. This can no longer be ignored.
As parliamentarians we must legislate as if all life on this planet
matters.
As we remember those early meetings on the village green, we
are connected not only to the beginning of our parliamentary
tradition but to the earth itself. This is an important lesson we can
never forget. It is our past, our present and our future.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a member
of Latin American origin, I would like to draw your attention to the
fact that the president of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, is
visiting Canada and Quebec.
Brazil, with a population of 160 million, is Canada's main export
market in Latin America. Trade between our two countries reached
$1.5 billion in 1996.
I hope that Brazil will become a member of NAFTA and that by
the year 2005, all 34 countries of this hemisphere will form a free
trade zone of the Americas, as agreed at the Miami Summit.
I support President Cardoso's efforts to consolidate democracy,
promote human rights and introduce a greater measure of equality
and social justice in his country.
I also salute his initiative to go to Quebec to meet Premier
Lucien Bouchard.
Benvindo Senhor Presidente ao pais do Canada e o Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the abolition
of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
It was on May 1, 1947 that this act was repealed. It represents a
milestone in the history of Canadians of Chinese descent. It meant
that after decades of hardship Chinese Canadians were finally
recognized as equal Canadian citizens.
We all know the tremendous role the Chinese Canadian
community has played in building our nation. The first Chinese
immigrants arrived in 1858. Their achievements have included
building the national railway, serving in two world wars and many
major contributions to business and the arts.
Today we say thank you to those early Chinese Canadian
pioneers who helped to build the nation even under the hardship of
the Chinese head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act.
The only Canada that is acceptable today is the Canada in which
all people are treated equally, no matter what their race or religion.
Let us all pay tribute to Chinese Canadians and thank them for
their contributions in making this a great country.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
honour to rise in the House to recognize the special Olympians who
are here today.
The South Shore is proud of its two athletes, Martin Fudge of
Shelburne who is here today and Bonnie Conrad of Garden Lots,
Lunenburg County.
10063
The Special Olympics World Winter Games were held in
Toronto in February. Athletes from 90 nations competed in the
games. Canadians watched with pride as Bonnie Conrad captured
a gold and two silver medals in speed skating and Martin Fudge
earned a bronze and three silver medals in the snowshoeing
competitions.
Bonnie, Martin and all the other athletes shared a dream. They
all wanted to represent Canada at the world games. However
victory is not achieved by dreaming; it is earned through
dedication, commitment and hard work.
I send congratulations to all the special Olympians here today
and to those at home. Just as family and friends turned out at the
various welcome home and victory parties, many members want to
show their respect and affection for the athletes who never stopped
striving to be the best they could possibly be.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Rick
Hansen of Vancouver, on the 10th anniversary of his Man in
Motion world tour that is being celebrated this week, is an example
of courage under extreme physical stress, of the determination in
the setting of goals for oneself and of grace in achieving them.
We salute Rick Hansen as a model to our Canadian youth that
they can indeed achieve their dreams if they have the imagination,
the dedication and the will to overcome the difficulties and
pressures in their path.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased with the agreement on manpower
training that was finally announced yesterday, after several months
of negotiations.
As a Quebecer, I am delighted to see that the provincial
government will now have all the tools it needs to develop and
implement its manpower training programs.
As a federalist, I see this agreement as further evidence that
Canadian federalism means being flexible, and that being part of
Canada is worthwhile for Quebec.
As a Liberal, I applaud this great achievement, which no other
government except our own would have been able to bring to
fruition. This agreement on manpower training would not have
been signed without the steadfast determination of our Prime
Minister, for which we are very grateful.
(1410)
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
terrible experience of Tran Trieu Quan and his family continues to
speak to the emotions of their fellow citizens in the greater Quebec
City area.
In fact, 124,000 people have signed a petition sponsored by the
archbishop of Quebec City, the mayor of Quebec City and the
president of the Sainte-Foy Chamber of Commerce, asking the
Vietnamese authorities to pardon Mr. Tran on compassionate
grounds. Today, the sponsors will present this petition to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and ask him intercede more directly so
as to obtain the release of Mr. Tran.
I wish to welcome to our gallery some members of Mr. Tran's
family and 30 students at the Rochebelle secondary school in
Sainte-Foy who have become involved in this cause. Finally, I want
to draw your attention to the presence of Janel Gauthier and his
support group for the release of Mr. Tran.
I am proud to see residents in my riding involved in so many
actions to support Mr. Tran, and this has been going on for nearly
four years. Many thanks to you all.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last year it was
Quebec. This year it is Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia
and now Alberta.
All these provinces have residents who are experiencing the
trauma of homes and businesses invaded and destroyed by flood
waters. Most recently the communities of Peace River and Fort
McMurray in Alberta have been hit by overflowing rivers.
Our hearts go out to the people who are being affected by this
phenomenon of nature. Many have worked for a lifetime to build
and pay for their properties. It is devastating to them to see the
results of their efforts destroyed. Families and individuals face
huge challenges in coping with the trauma of losing valued
personal possessions.
However this also becomes a time of meaningful, helpful
community. Friends and neighbours pull together to rebuild and to
assist those whose loss is most severe or who have the most
difficulty in recouping their losses.
I ask all members of the House to join me in expressing our
heartfelt concern and commitment to help.
10064
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Canadian government announced good news for the
economic recovery of the Montreal region.
It said it was providing assistance to a French company, Ubi
Soft, to help it start up operations in Montreal. This should result in
the creation of 560 jobs over the next five years.
During this period, the software producer, editor and distributor
will receive $14.8 million in funding from the federal government.
The example of Ubi Soft shows that Canadian federalism is
working well in Quebec. When everyone has this determination to
find effective solutions to regional issues, it can truly be said that
Canadian federalism is serving Quebecers.
* * *
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to note that today is Earth Day, an occasion celebrated
throughout the world. On this date, the public is invited to do
something, however small, to help improve their environment.
Unfortunately, we must conclude that the Liberal government
has never heard about this invitation, because its record in this area
is dreadful. Just recently, the Minister of the Environment himself
admitted that his government had failed in the fight against
greenhouse gases. The latest ozone layer figures are extremely
worrying. Recently, there have been news reports on the former
American military bases in the Arctic that are posing a dangerous
threat to that region's fragile ecosystem.
This government does not hesitate, however, to implement
legislation interfering directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction,
thus leading to costly and unnecessary overlap.
The public does not intend to follow the Liberals' example, and
we congratulate all those who are using this day to help improve
the environment of the region in which they live.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will read from an unsolicited letter to the Minister of Justice:
I'm begging you all in the name of God to stop this daily painful hell that you are
causing my mom and other families. I cannot stand by and take the pain you have
and are inflicting on my mother. She suffered enough pain and grief and to get phone
calls almost every other day and having to listen to my mother's cries that you have
caused along with Olson by giving all rights to Olson. You can and must repeal
section 745 and give hope and protect the children of Canada and silence this
monster that took the lives of these young children-Shame on all of you, because of
your heartless, careless actions. Come August 18 my poor mother and the other
families are going to have to see this monster who killed their children, who stabbed
Judy 19 times. She was only 14 years old-. Where is it law to allow victims to be
tormented by someone like Olson? Please stop, Mr. Rock, punishing victims and
start showing respect-
(1415)
The Speaker: Oral Questions.
_____________________________________________
10064
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in his ministerial statement this morning, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs admitted that many voices, both
francophone and anglophone, Catholic as well as Protestant, have
been heard over the last twenty years advocating a system based on
language rather than religion.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs even indicated that a
consensus on the need to reorganize school administration along
these lines has existed in Quebec for some time.
Since even the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admits
there has been a consensus for the past 20 years, how can he
explain that his actions are again opening the Quebec consensus up
to question, by deliberately delaying the start of the debate and the
adoption of this motion?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to confess, and the repetition is
starting to become a pain in the neck.
What I have said since the beginning of this business is that,
since the end of January, since the moment that the Government of
Quebec began to indicate that it would be presenting a
constitutional amendment, I have said that, on the one hand, there
was a consensus in Quebec to have linguistic school boards and, on
the other hand, that work was needed on a consensus about how the
Government of Quebec wanted to proceed. Because it can be said
that there will be a consensus on Bill 107, or on the
Proulx-Woehrling solution, or on other possibilities, what was
needed was to
10065
find out whether there was consensus on the way the Government
of Quebec wanted to proceed.
It will be recalled that, a week before the unanimous vote in the
National Assembly, there was no consensus. It was the Mulcair
amendment which made it possible to build a consensus, due to the
highly positive action of the official opposition in the National
Assembly.
Now it can be stated that there is consensus. The Government of
Quebec is very pleased to support the planned constitutional
amendment and, as usual, no doubt the parliamentary committee
will make it possible to expand the consensus even further, thus
facilitating the implementation of a desired measure.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when Quebec is involved, things always get really
complicated with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Yet
there is a precedent in New Brunswick, where there was no
consensus. Their Legislative Assembly was even divided, yet the
federal government moved quickly, even managing to get a motion
through without a vote in the House of Commons.
Whereas in Quebec there has been talk of education structures
since the Parent report in 1966, and a consensus was reached, as
even the minister admits, at least 20 years ago, and what is more
this has again been confirmed with the general assembly in
Quebec, and as well there is unanimity in the National Assembly
on the matter.
Here is my question for the minister. Why does the federal
government insist on wanting to apply its old double standard
policy where the wishes of the Quebec people are concerned?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the House just how
unfortunate it is that the official opposition uses the example of
New Brunswick and the constitutional amendment which enabled
New Brunswick to enhance bilingualism in that province.
There was indeed no unanimity in the New Brunswick provincial
legislature but, first, there had been a parliamentary committee on
the provincial level-not the case in Quebec-and second, the
amendment was very clearly aimed at expanding the rights of the
linguistic minority. No one was opposed, and third, the only party
which was opposed, and voted against it, was one that had been
created expressly to fight bilingualism in New Brunswick, the COR
Party.
We see today that the official opposition, with its siege
mentality, does not hesitate to make use of the argument of a
political party which was created to oppose the French language, to
make us believe that there is discrimination against Quebec, that
there is a double standard involved here.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, let us make things clear here. Why does the minister not
agree that the real reason he and his government, the Liberal
government, are dragging their feet on what Quebec is asking is
that he does not want to get on the wrong side of his former allies,
his natural and traditional allies, Alliance Québec and The Gazette?
(1420)
That is the real reason. And what is more, he does not want to get
on the wrong side of the disciples of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who are
in the process of organizing into a common front, once again at the
expense of Quebec. That is the real reason. Let him admit it.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have before us an official opposition that cannot
accept a piece of good news, because any good news on the
evolution of Canadian federalism carries the risk of convincing
Quebec that Canada is, in fact, a country that is functioning well,
developing well, serving their interests well. However, the official
opposition is in a conflict of interest situation.
Trotsky wrote a book called The Permanent Revolution, and later
Mitterrand wrote one called Le coup d'État permanent. I propose
that the next book written about the Bloc Quebecois be titled The
permanent conflict of interest.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
In his notice of motion, the minister proposes to appoint a
special joint committee of both Houses of Parliament. The
committee will be asked to consider the various aspects of a
constitutional amendment that would allow linguistic school
boards in Quebec. It would submit its report on May 31, 1997.
Does the minister realize he is insulting Quebec's intelligence by
setting up a bogus committee that will never see the light of day,
since an election call is imminent?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if an election is called, we will pick up the process
after the election and the constitutional amendment will be taken
care of by a re-elected Liberal government.
Meanwhile, the various political parties would be well advised
to say whether they are for or against the amendment. The Liberal
Party of Canada will support the amendment. This information will
be useful for the voters. We will have to say where we stand.
The official opposition may prefer us to say we are against the
resolution, but we support it. We agree with the National Assembly.
10066
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister ought to know that when Parliament is dissolved, the
committees are dissolved as well.
The minister should learn the ABC's of the Parliament of Canada
and put a book on parliamentary procedure in his backpack. By
setting up a committee that will include unelected senators, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is more or less telling the
National Assembly and the Quebec nation to forget it.
Would the minister agree it is not up to unelected members of
Parliament to consider and approve a legitimate, democratic and
unanimous decision by the Quebec National Assembly?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that if there is an election, even the opposition
will be dissolved. And we hope it will be dissolved for a long time,
and that includes when Parliament returns after the election.
However, speaking of books on parliamentary procedure, the
Canadian Constitution makes it quite clear it is not up to the Senate
to decide. The House of Commons, not the Senate, will make the
decision.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have had a glimpse of the government's spending priorities and
they are not very pretty. Somehow over the last several weeks
national priorities for the government have become things like
armouries in the Prime Minister's riding, armouries in the Deputy
Prime Minister's riding and the health minister's riding, a sock
factory in Montreal and billions of dollars on other pre-election
goodies.
If the government has all this money lying around, which of
course it does not, why is it not spending it on health care, by far
the most important priority for Canadians? If it does not have this
money lying around-and again I do not think it does-why is it
racking up the national credit card in a pre-election spending spree?
(1425 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual the member has
it all wrong. There is no armoury in my riding.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, some
would say there is not much of a minister in that riding either.
When we start adding up the pre-election goodies the Prime
Minister has thrown around to buy votes, it adds up to just under $7
billion. When I look on my Doppler radar, I see storm clouds ahead
for the Liberal government.
Given the desire of Canadians for a balanced budget, lower taxes
and for a reinvestment in health care, why is the government
resorting to this old fashioned, out of touch, smarmy attempt to win
votes over?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reply
to the hon. member from smarmy. It is not something he would
understand, but government does not operate on a day to day basis
with respect to projects that take years to put in place and years to
evaluate.
If the hon. member is suggesting that in any part of the country,
including his riding, the government should come to a complete
halt and not proceed with projects and initiatives that have been
undertaken by people who have had an interest in them over many
years, then he should tell us. However, if the member looks closely
into that radar-although I am not sure it is a Doppler, knowing the
hon. member-he might want to look at what the future holds for
the Reform Party in this country.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
the minister was booed so loudly while giving a speech recently in
his part of the country, I do not think things look so hot for him
either.
The Prime Minister says he is against broad based tax relief. I
guess that becomes very obvious after he has gone out and spent
just about $7 billion in the last little while. The fact is that if he had
taken that $7 billion and given it back to Canadians in the form of
tax relief, we would have had about 200,000 jobs created in this
country.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why he thinks buying votes with
borrowed money is more important than real job creation through
tax relief?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the member's
facts are all wrong. Included in the figure that he is putting forward
is a significant amount of money spent under manpower transfers
which is currently going toward job creation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
While spring brings joy to many, it brings anguish to a great
many Quebec families and Acadian families facing the harsh
reality of the spring gap. Between the time when unemployment
benefits run out and the time when they get back to work, there is
10067
waiting period during which unemployed workers can be without
an income for more than ten weeks.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister say that the severe cuts
made in the unemployment insurance program create jobs when
they are forcing an inordinate number of families in Quebec and
elsewhere to live on public charity?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that
question has been asked by the member on a number of occasions.
One of the key areas she fails to mention every time she gets up
on her feet is the fact that the employment insurance system has
been significantly changed. When the changes came in, included in
the changes as she relates to Cape Breton and other high
unemployment areas was the $300 million transitional jobs fund.
This has created a significant amount of economic activity in
ridings like the member's and mine. That extra $800 million we
also put in the investment portion of the employment insurance
system is helping people to find employment.
To suggest that part two of the EI system is not improving the
plight of the unemployed is factually incorrect.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
problem is that these millions are not nearly enough and there are
thousands of families confronted with the spring gap.
The unemployed are not fooled by the government's
compassionate words. They can see that poverty has grown because
of this government's actions. They know that there have been
billions in cuts to transfers for social programs and to the
unemployment insurance program.
(1430)
How can the Deputy Prime Minister honestly think that making
people poorer will boost consumption and stimulate employment?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an unfortunate
situation, and the one to blame for the welfare cuts in Quebec is not
the Government of Canada but the Bouchard government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians should and do know that on the eve of the election this
government is creating last minute jobs. Unfortunately for
Canadians, these jobs are in appointments to the Senate, the
Immigration and Refugee Board, agricultural boards, the IDRC,
the National Research Council, the Cape Breton Development
Corporation and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. You name it, if
there is a commission the government has appointed somebody to
it.
Meanwhile 1.4 million Canadians are out on the street looking
for work with the highest level of unemployment since the 1930s.
When will the Prime Minister drop the Liberal agenda and come
down to the people's agenda of jobs for ordinary Canadians, not
just highly placed Liberal pals?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it slightly
hypocritical on the part of the Reform Party-
The Speaker: I encourage all hon. members to be very judicious
in their choice of words.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is publicly decrying
the government for making investments in very important job
creation issues. However, just before question period the member
for Edmonton Southwest slipped me a note asking if he could get a
$40,000 government grant for someone in his constituency.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will let the member from Edmonton deal with this issue of funding
for a centre for the handicapped. She can deal with that herself. It is
interesting; once a rat packer, always a rat packer.
Mr. McClelland: Sheila, that was a shitty thing to do and
confirms you are one bitch.
Mr. Strahl: Day after day the papers are revealing more about
the avalanche of pre-election goodies being poured out by Liberals
for Liberals but they are being paid for by the taxpayers. The
taxpayers would like to know the cost of these new measures.
People are interested in the new armoury which the Prime
Minister announced last week for his riding. But he has neglected
to tell us exactly how much it will cost or how many votes he
expects to get for it.
What is the total amount the Liberal government is spending in
the Prime Minister's riding just before the election? How much
pork is enough pork?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to
the hon. member's question concerning the armoury in
Shawinigan, it is obvious he has not paid much attention to how
that project has been set up.
The announcement we made last week with respect to that
armoury calls for a private-public partnership where the armoury
would be built as a facility for the reserves, for the militia. It would
also be privately owned. It could serve for many other purposes. It
10068
could be part of a larger complex. It could be an existing building
or a new building.
The hon. member should look more closely at exactly what the
government has proposed. He should understand that we are
moving to meet what I thought his party supported. When I made
the report to the government with respect to the future of the
Canadian forces we said we were moving the reserves and the
militia from 20,000 or 22,000 to about 30,000. Is the hon. member
against the increase in the number of people who are going to be
functioning in the Canadian forces as part of the militia and the
reserves or is he not?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The federalist propaganda is spreading throughout the federal
government. The Department of Foreign Affairs is taking part in
this despicable process by tying financial support for Quebec
artists performing abroad to the promotion of national unity.
(1435)
Will the heritage minister do like Quebec's Minister of Culture
and Communications and call to order her colleague from foreign
affairs? Will she tell him to stop using this unacceptable criterion
and to provide support to artists strictly on the basis of the artistic
merit of their projects?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I made it clear to the
Quebec Minister of Culture that the government does not make
political decisions regarding artistic issues.
I find it confusing that the same people who accuse us of
interfering with cultural decisions asked us last week to overrule a
decision made by Telefilm. If we follow the principle of non
interference, then we have to do it consistently, including the fact
that Telefilm made its decision on the basis of artistic criteria,
which has nothing to do with politics.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is truly regrettable that the heritage minister does not
know the artistic stature of Mr. Falardeau, whose project was
turned down because it dealt with the Patriotes of 1837 and because
Mr. Falardeau is a committed sovereignist.
It comes as no surprise that the heritage minister would endorse
the politicization of the Department of Foreign Affairs' grants
process.
My question to the heritage minister is: Why does her Liberal
government refuse to recognize and respect Quebec's culture, and
why is it in fact incapable of doing so?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims
that the decision is based on politics, when in fact we said clearly
that any decision made by Telefilm to give a grant for any project
should be made independently. Now, the separatists are asking us
to interfere.
If they want us to respect the cultural institutions' autonomy, as
we do, then they should not ask us to overrule a decision which was
made strictly on the basis of artistic criteria, not political ones.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
you see, it is election time again and enumeration has taken place
in my riding, in particular at Matsqui prison.
A judge said prisoners should have the right to vote because
``preventing prisoners serving more than two years from voting is
too sweeping an infringement''. This government must be really
hard up for votes these days.
Why did the justice minister not ask for a stay of the judge's
decision until the appeal was decided on so that prisoners would be
unable to vote in this election?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for the question. I will take the question
under advisement and provide an answer as soon as possible.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a great answer. He is going to take it under advisement a
few days before they drop the writ. Great.
This is about the rights of criminals versus the rights of victims
and law-abiding Canadian citizens. That is what this is about.
Criminals can now vote. They can play golf at Ferndale prison.
They get Canada pension, old age security, the guaranteed income
supplement, overtime pay and they can sue the crown at taxpayer
expense.
Why do victims have to fight this Liberal government so hard for
rights and these Liberals trip over themselves to cater to criminals?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): If they want a response, Mr. Speaker, I
think our record on victims rights speaks for itself. This
government has acted time and time again to protect the rights of
victims
10069
and time and time again it was that party which voted against every
single piece of legislation.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Heritage Canada is at it again. For the second year in a row,
young people applying for jobs in Heritage Canada's Young
Canada Works Program will have to show that they are federalists.
In order to get a job with Heritage Canada, young people, whom the
department will transform into ambassadors for Canada, must
write a 250 word essay telling their future employer what Canada
means to them.
The Bloc Quebecois takes exception to the government using
young people to further its political ideology. How can young
francophones in Quebec hope for a job with Heritage Canada when
it is estimated that close to 75 per cent of them said yes to Quebec
in the last referendum?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when you work for
Heritage Canada, it is obvious that you must also belong to Canada.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage has obviously lost all common
sense. In order to obtain a summer job with Heritage Canada,
young Quebecers and Canadians will have to show that they
believe in and are prepared to promote Canadian unity.
Does the representative of the Prime Minister share this
discriminatory opinion, yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that
the member should question this. If we are looking for summer
ambassadors for Canada, there is nothing unusual in asking them to
write a 250 word essay on ``what Canada means to me''.
[Translation]
Heritage Canada's program is Young Canada Works, and when
we look for ambassadors for Canada, they should naturally have
some knowledge of their country, which is still called Canada.
[English]
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister responsible for emergency
planning.
For the past week we have watched in distress as flood waters
have destroyed property and entire communities in both Canada
and the United States. In Manitoba, as the Red River rises, people
are afraid that their homes will be destroyed and their communities
devastated.
Can the minister assure Manitobans that he realizes the
magnitude of this potential disaster and that our government is
prepared to help both technically and financially in dealing with
this potentially serious situation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that
every member of the House understands the concerns of the people
of Manitoba with respect to the potential disaster impending there.
Obviously there is a very broad arrangement, led by the
Government of Manitoba, which includes the municipalities and a
wide array of Government of Canada departments, including the
Department of National Defence.
I want to say to the hon. member and to the people who
obviously are very apprehensive about impending events in that
part of the country that the Government of Canada will do
everything it can. The Department of National Defence will do
everything it can. As we know, the Government of Manitoba will
do everything it can. The municipalities directly affected will
participate in every way they can to avoid what appears to be an
enormous natural disaster which will take place in a very short
time.
However, with respect to the inevitable, the cost, the dislocation
and the disruption that will occur, the Government of Canada is
absolutely committed, as I have indicated to my colleague in the
Government of Manitoba today, to treating Manitobans equitably.
We will give them every opportunity to respond to the problems
they are faced with in a flexible way. We guarantee that the people
of Manitoba will be treated as well or better than anybody who has
ever been faced with this kind of disaster in Canada.
* * *
(1445 )
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, preventive medicine is an alternative that Canadians are
10070
increasingly coming to rely on in their fight to prevent disease. A
recent poll indicates a significant increase in Canadians' use of
herbal and alternative therapies as a key part of their health care
regimen.
However, it appears that the health protection branch has other
ideas. Canadians are witnessing the spectacle of health food stores
being raided, products confiscated and stopped at borders and
consumers denied access to products they have relied on for
decades. At a time of soaring health care costs and limited
resources, Canadians must be allowed freedom of choice.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Will he impose an
immediate moratorium on these activities until a full public review
can be undertaken?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only real and effective choice is
one that ensures that the product is safe and effective.
The mandate of Health Canada is to ensure that every product on
the market, on the shelves, has already received the stamp of
approval from Health Canada that the product fulfils the medicinal
claims listed on the items.
I am sure that the member opposite would agree that this is a
basic responsibility that the government must fulfil.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's health care cuts make Canadians
increasingly aware of the need to take preventive measures to
remain healthy. Natural health products provide an important tool
to help in that fight.
What will the minister do to keep both his bureaucrats and
natural health products on the shelf?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will be reassured to know
that Health Canada already has a consultative group that includes
practitioners who distribute and who are expert in the consumption
of some of the remedies she is suggesting. Health Canada, over the
course of every year, approves for distribution, for sale and
consumption some 100 such items.
She should feel secure that Health Canada is up on all the issues
that relate to herbal medicine and that the appropriate steps have
been taken to ensure that Canadians can have the confidence that
all those items are safe and effective.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
Last week, Canada refused to co-sponsor a resolution before the
UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, condemning the
appalling state of human rights in China. To protect its prized and
much criticized contracts, the Liberal government was being less
than forthright as it tried to save face by announcing a series of
bilateral measures to discuss the human rights situation in China.
This tactic, which was tried in Vietnam in the case of Canadian
citizen Tran Trieu Quan, has achieved absolutely nothing in the
past four years.
Now that this government has made a clear choice between
promoting trade relations and defending human rights, how does
the minister intend to proceed to obtain from the Vietnamese
government the immediate release of Canadian citizen Tran Trieu
Quan?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member really mixed up two different issues. The
first has to do with our position on China.
As I have already explained to the House, the decision was not
ours. It was taken by members of the European Union. They have
already decided not to support the resolution. As a result, we were
able to gain a number of very important bilateral agreements to
pursue human rights. The hon. member would be well advised to
look at the opportunities that provides.
We are working very closely with the Government of Vietnam.
We have met with the family many times. We will continue our
representations. We can hope that there can be a resolution to this
very soon. I hope this afternoon to meet with the Archbishop of
Quebec, the family and a number of students in Quebec who have
brought forward a petition which demonstrates widespread
support.
We want to continue working with the people who are deeply
committed. I am sure if we work together in solidarity, we will find
a very effective and very quick solution.
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I may remind the minister that everyone in
Quebec stands behind Tran Trieu Quan.
Since Canada has turned its back on its traditional human rights
policy, would the minister agree that the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Vietnam in 1982, authorizes
us to impose sanctions and to lodge an international claim against
Vietnam which is violating the rights of Mr. Tran?
10071
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to point out that all of Canada supports
the liberation of Mr. Quan, not just those in Quebec. This is a
national issue. That is why the Government of Canada has taken the
action required.
Second, I would suggest to the hon. member that rather than
coming to the House in an adversarial way, which his whole
demeanour and behaviour suggests, we should be working in a
co-operative way because this is a very important issue. It does not
require the kind of negative approach the hon. member is taking. It
requires a co-operative partnership approach. I am very confident
that if we continue working together that we can achieve a very
successful result within a matter of days.
The problem with Bloc members is that they do not want
success. They do not want results. They want the problems to
continue because they feed on misery, they feed on negativism,
they feed on problems. They do not feed on success.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, many
Canadians practice preventive health care with health supplements,
yet the health protection branch under the direction of the
government is actively removing vitamins, minerals and herbal and
natural extracts that have been on the shelves for decades.
Some of these products have been in use for centuries with no
history of harm. There is simply no scientific evidence to support
the government's actions. Canadians are paying more for health
supplements and their access to health products is being restricted.
This is clearly not in the best interests of Canadians.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Why is the minister
banning herbs and vitamins that have been on store shelves and in
use for years with no history of harm?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member
opposite heard the first response. I stated that Health Canada is
very interested and is determined to guarantee that the products on
the market are of high quality, safe and effective.
We agree that some products have been used over centuries, but
no medicinal claims have been made for them.
I point out to members opposite that there are some such as
ephedra which in Texas has already proven to have negative effects
in over 500 cases. There is comfrey, chaparral and germander that
have caused liver toxicity and chou wu chih that has caused heart
palpitations.
I am sure the member opposite would not want Health Canada to
put a stamp of approval on products that have already caused some
serious negative considerations in the health community.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
issue has little to do with safety and acting in the public interest.
This issue is about money and about power: money and power in
the hands of the big pharmaceutical companies. That is what this
issue is about.
The government is forcing Canadians to pay more for health
supplements and is driving small companies out of business.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Will the minister act
now to put a moratorium in place to stop the removal from store
shelves of vitamins, minerals, and herbal and natural extracts?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may have a
different perspective on what is the obligation of government.
However, I can assure the House that what is of great concern is not
the economic considerations to which he alludes. The government
wants to make sure that any product that is on the market which has
medicinal claims fulfils the requirement that it is a safe, effective,
high quality product. There is no other consideration is far as
Health Canada is concerned.
I think the member should be ashamed for suggesting that there
is any concern other than that.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Greenhouse gas emissions from Canada continue to rise despite
our international commitment to reduce them made at Rio. As a
prosperous, caring nation we should be setting a good example to
the world, not a bad one. What exactly is the minister doing to
show leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
(1455)
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me thank the member for his question. It is most
appropriate when the world celebrates earth day today. It is also
five years since Rio.
The international community, including Canada, has come to
recognize that we have to redouble our efforts if we are to keep the
promise that was made five years ago in Rio with respect to
stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions by 2000.
We have tried to redouble those efforts. Last December with my
colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, at a joint
federal-provincial energy and environmental ministerial
conference, 45 new
10072
initiatives were set out with which to combat growing greenhouse
gas emissions.
We are also committed to improving the voluntary challenge
program. We also said in the last budget that we were prepared to
put $45 million into a commercial retrofit which would reduce the
energy component and make it efficient by more than 20 per cent.
Ultimately, the conference in December in Kyoto, Japan this
year is very important. Canada leaves for that conference assured
and confident that we can reach those stabilizations.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
had intended to ask a question about the flood situation in
Manitoba but that was ably done by the member for
Brandon-Souris so I will turn to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Given the visit by the president of Brazil, can the minister tell us
whether the future of Christine Lamont and David Spencer was
raised by the Prime Minister with the president? What progress can
the minister report either with respect to those two individuals or
with respect to a treaty forthcoming that would enable Canada to
repatriate these two unfortunate Canadians?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can report to the hon. member that the issue was
discussed by the Prime Minister. The president has also discussed it
at the ministerial level. We continue to raise our concerns in this
matter.
In fact, the Brazilian government has indicated its choice is to
move ahead with a treaty on exchange of offenders. It will be part
of its general policy which includes a number of treaties in this area
with several countries. It is working to put that kind of grouping
together at the present time. We will continue to make our
representations.
I believe that if we continue to work on this file that we will have
a treaty in place and that would then offer to the Spencer-Lamont
families the opportunity to make application under the treaty.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday, the minister admitted there was a problem with the
military bases along the DEW line in the Arctic. In fact, toxic
substances like PCBs have contaminated the environment and have
been detected in the food chain. The Inuit population is very
concerned about the state of the environment in the tundra and for
several years has been trying to reach an agreement with the
government on a viable solution.
Considering that traces of PCBs have been found as far as 15
kilometres away from the bases and that the minister himself has
admitted there is a problem, will he undertake to develop plans for
decontamination that will guarantee the tundra will be restored to a
state that is acceptable?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr Speaker, as I said
yesterday, obviously the Government of Canada recognizes its
obligation to respect the environment in the area described by the
hon. member and elsewhere.
The challenge is a considerable one, because most of these
facilities were built a long time ago, when standards were quite
different from what they are today. However, I can assure the hon.
member that we will do everything in our power to ensure the
integrity of the environment, in Canada's Far North and elsewhere
in this country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the route over the Banff area is the most commonly used
VFR flight corridor between Alberta and B.C. The airstrip in Banff
provides a very necessary emergency landing site for pilots caught
unexpectedly in rapidly changing mountain weather.
(1500)
The minister of heritage plans to close the airstrip as early as
next month, allegedly to protect wildlife although the bit of
information provided by government does not justify it.
Will the minister of heritage at least give the same level of
consideration to people as wildlife and allow the Banff airstrip to
remain, or offer some reasonable alternative such as moving it to
the south side of the highway?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Banff airstrip which is
currently used by approximately half a dozen pilots has been
deemed by those in the know to be unsafe.
* * *
The Speaker: It has become a tradition for those of us in the
House to pay tribute to men and women whose achievements
contribute to our national life. We have such Canadians with us
today.
10073
[Translation]
The Special Olympics World Winter Games were held in
Toronto and Collingwood in February. We have in our galleries
today athletes and coaches representing the Canadian team that
participated in those games.
[English]
The special Olympics movement was launched 30 years ago by
us, by Canadians, and has become an international success story.
This year's winter games brought together 2,000 athletes from nine
different countries.
I want to introduce the athletes and coaches representing the
Canadian teams. I ask members to hold their applause until I have
introduced all of them.
When I call your names, you, our Canadian athletes, I would like
you to stand and stay standing until I have introduced all of you in
the House: Katherine Hall, David Johnston, Tanya Parris, Erin
Thom, Robin Friesen, Fabian Wawianke, Joanne Lautermilch,
Lana Noonan, Jennifer Adams, Maryanne Bland, Samantha Mayer,
Richard Francis, Richard Smith, Mark Virus, Josée Bournival,
Joseph Munro, Marc Mckearney, Gordon Reddy and Frank
Hayden, founder of the special Olympic movement.
These are your special Olympians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I invite members to a reception in room 216 to
meet our special Olympians after the question period, providing of
course they have time from their duties.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, prior to question period I received a communication from
a resident of Edmonton Northwest, the constituency of the minister
of energy. It had to do with the Canadian Paralympics and a
communication that had been given to the minister of heritage over
six months ago and not responded to by the heritage minister.
During question period the heritage minister broke my
confidence and the confidence of the constituent of Edmonton
Northwest by raising the issue, given to her under privilege, in the
House of Commons. I request that the minister give me and her
constituent an apology.
(1505 )
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not want to engage in debate of when the information was shared
and so on, but certainly and clearly to a good number of us in that
exchange between the member for Edmonton Southwest and the
Deputy Prime Minister I think you would find the hon. member for
Edmonton Southwest used language which I will say was very
unparliamentary. I hope he would take the opportunity to withdraw
those remarks.
The Speaker: Before we get into a slinging match-and I do not
want to get into a debate-I am not sure of the circumstances under
which all of this occurred but surely it was an event that occurred
outside the House.
I hope all hon. members would respect one another when they
are speaking to one another. This is a point of debate. It is not a
point of order. I would rule as such and I would say that this point
of order is over for now.
If the hon. member has another point of order, I will listen to it.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, after the heritage minister, the
Deputy Prime Minister, had betrayed my confidence-
The Speaker: I have already ruled on that point of order. I would
like the matter to just stay here for the time being.
On another point of order, the hon. member for Elk Island.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
indicate just for the record that the member for Edmonton
Southwest was not up in question period today and so what the
whip said was inaccurate.
The Speaker: I have already ruled that the incident which took
place is not a point of order. If the hon. member has another point
of order, I will listen to it. However, if it is on the same point of
order, I will intervene.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, the hon. government whip
referred to a comment that I shouted across the aisle to the Deputy
Prime Minister after the events to which you earlier spoke took
place.
At that time I referred to the Deputy Prime Minister, the heritage
minister, as a bitch. I did so-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: With the greatest respect to my colleague, I ask
you to withdraw the word that you just used. Will you withdraw
that word?
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have the greatest
respect for the House, for the chair and for the person who occupies
it. The reason that I did not use a descriptive adjective in front of
the word I used was out of respect for the House, but I will not
withdraw the term.
(1510)
The Speaker: Sometimes we get ourselves into situations. I
know I did just a little while ago when I asked a member to
withdraw. We get into situations where, because of the need to
10074
save face or whatever it is, we find ourselves unable to extricate
ourselves.
My colleague, I address myself to you as the Speaker. As far as I
am concerned your whole tenure here has been exemplary, a model
for parliamentarians. I would ask you again to withdraw the word
you used in your point of order.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the Chair and
for this institution I unequivocally withdraw the remark.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member and I consider the matter
closed.
_____________________________________________
10074
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-93,
the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, at third reading.
You will probably recall how proud the Minister of Finance was
when he tabled his fourth budget, boasting about the fact that the
deficit, which was $42 billion when the Prime Minister entrusted
him with this portfolio, should have shrunk to a mere $17 billion by
the end of the current fiscal year.
There is a difference between the current Liberal government,
and the previous Conservative government. While the
Conservative Party underestimated its deficits, the Liberal Party
tends to overestimate its deficits, which means that, by March 30
next year, the deficit may actually be closer to $12 billion.
The minister is fiddling around with the numbers and using the
communicating vessels principle, in other words interest rates, to
his advantage. In Canada as in every other industrialized country in
the world, interest rates are relatively low right now. On the more
than $615 billion in cumulatve deficits or debt, one can understand
that the Minister of Finance is saving a bundle each month by
paying less interest than he would have to if we had interest rates of
8 per cent or 9 per cent.
(1515)
However, and there is the rub, he is dipping deep into the
employment insurance fund. This year, the EI fund will be
generating a $5.6 billion surplus. Where does the money that
generates this surplus in the EI fund come from? From the $2.95
premium paid by workers on every $100 of insurable earnings and
$3.20 premium paid by employers, these premiums amounting to a
payroll tax on employment.
By charging way too much, they get a surplus at the expense of
workers. Indeed, this same government has decided to shorten the
benefit period while at the same time increasing the number of
hours-they count hours now-required to qualify for employment
insurance benefits. Naturally, the benefit rate will be reduced by 1
per cent for every 20 weeks of benefits collected. After a few years,
a worker who has collected employment insurance benefits for
more than 20 weeks will see his benefits reduced by 1 per cent
increments down to 50 per cent of his insurable earnings.
So, on the one hand, the Minister of Finance is keeping the
employees' and employers' contributions to the employment
insurance fund way too high while, on the other hand, he is making
it extremely difficult for potential recipients to qualify for benefits.
At this rate, within a few years, the fund will be overflowing.
However, this is another way this government can shift its deficit
onto the provinces. The unemployment rate tends to go down
because people are no longer on the list of those actively looking
for work; however, meanwhile, the number of welfare recipients
has been on the rise for some years in all of the provinces.
This is the case in Quebec, where the unemployment rate has
gone down, while the number of welfare recipients has gone up
because, in many cases, people are no longer eligible for
employment insurance benefits and are still without a job. The
result is that these people end up on the welfare rolls.
The Minister of Finance also reduced transfers to the provinces,
including social transfers for post-secondary education and health.
This triggered a chain reaction whereby all the provinces had to
make other taxpayers, particularly municipalities, school boards
and hospitals, shoulder part of the burden dumped on them by the
finance minister.
What is really serious is the inequity of the minister's approach
to balancing his budget within three years. The most blatant
examples are undoubtedly the abolition of the Western Grain
Transportation Act, in the prairies, and the harmonization of the
infamous GST, which the Prime Minister himself promised to
abolish, to scrap, as he said so eloquently. To scrap means to tear
up, to throw in the garbage.
(1520)
The Prime Minister often said: ``I will scrap the GST''. Four
years later, what has been the cost of scrapping the GST? It cost at
least a byelection in Hamilton East, since the Deputy Prime
Minister had pledged to resign in the first 12 months of a Liberal
government if the GST was not abolished.
10075
It took a lot longer than 12 months for her to resign her seat
in the House of Commons, and the official opposition had to
remind her for several weeks of the promise she had made, with
the help of the media, which ran almost daily clips of her saying:
``I promise to resign if we have not abolished the GST in the first
12 months''.
Obviously, it took several weeks, several months, and in June of
last year she handed in her resignation, because a promise had not
been kept, a promise that can of course be found in the red book,
which I note by the way has become as rare on Parliament Hill as
Chairman Mao's little red book has in China; people made a point
of learning Mao's book by heart. My colleagues in the Liberal
Party also made a point of memorizing their little red book. What I
would like is for my Liberal friends opposite to give me a few
copies. I will need them for my next election campaign, and
nobody wants to give me a copy.
I throw out an appeal to everyone, as they do on the quiz show
Tous pour un: if you have half a dozen red books, I need them in the
riding of Frontenac-Mégantic to give to my Liberal opponent,
Manon Lecours, to read over again before she rushes headlong into
the next election campaign that will be announced next Sunday.
I am certain that nobody will provide me with these books
because they are so ashamed of them. I urge Liberal candidates in
the next election not to lapse into the Pinocchio syndrome
described in the book of the same name written by my friend,
André Pratte, a reporter with La Presse. You must have read it, Mr.
Speaker. He mentioned a number of famous comments made by
our friends across the way. He gave examples of frequently
lengthening noses on the faces of some of you, my Liberal friends,
as the result of past untruths.
To get back to Bill C-93, I should point out that the Minister of
Finance applies cuts sometimes unevenly, sometimes unfairly. I
was talking about the GST, the harmonization with the three
maritime provinces, three small Canadian provinces. To help them
swallow the pill, he gave them $960 million. The GST has lost its
name. Now it is the HST, the harmonized sales tax. The people in
the maritimes will forget the GST in a few months or years. They
will be calling it the HST.
In Quebec, the late Robert Bourassa, a federalist premier, with
his good friend the former Prime Minister of Canada, Brian
Mulroney, another federalist, agreed to harmonize the GST and the
Quebec sales tax. I recall very clearly, when I was a farmer, having
to complete two forms for the GST and the QST.
In 1991, I was very proud, I even telephoned my MNA to
congratulate him on harmonizing with the federal government,
since we would be completing only one form. Quebec collects the
GST for the federal government, and, at the end of the month,
makes a cheque out to the Minister of Finance of Canada.
(1525)
The only advantage the Government of Quebec receives is a split
of the costs involved in collecting, whereas the maritime provinces
get $960 for this same harmonization. Worse yet, the provinces do
not do the collecting, the federal government does. It looks after
the forms and the investigations and charges the provinces nothing
for doing so. A double standard.
The Quebec department of finance fairly calculated the cost of
having the same privileges in Quebec. The Minister of Finance's
government would have to pay $2 billion if it were going to treat
everyone fairly.
We in the Bloc Quebecois will pester all Liberal candidates in
Quebec to be fair and to make commitments to the voters. As I
said, it was utterly unfair of this government to use the WGTA to
reduce its deficit. The Western Grain Transportation Act will save
the Canadian treasury $560 million per year.
To sugarcoat it for western grain producers, the same finance
minister paid $2.9 billion in compensation, including $1 billion
paid directly to the producers, under the table. He sent them a
cheque and told them: ``You are not required to claim this amount
on your next income tax return, and no TP4 or T4 will be issued to
include with your return''.
It is the same thing with bribes: one is not required to tell the tax
man about them. The government paid producers under the table to
sugarcoat a bitter tasting pill. It is appalling.
Mr. Canuel: Our hon. speaker, for one, would not take it.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): I certainly hope not.
Mr. Canuel: At least I do not think he would.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): It is appalling. There is a double
standard here, because 48 per cent of dairy producers are in
Quebec, and the Minister of Finance told them: ``We are cutting the
milk subsidy to commercial milk producers''. In 1994-95, the
subsidy was $5.42 per hectolitre, that is to say that dairy producers
were paid $5.42 per 100 litres of commercial milk. As we know,
commercial milk is under Quebec's control.
The subsidy was cut by 80 cents in 1995-96 and by 82 cents the
following year. In five years, it will be all gone. By the year 2000, it
will be down to 76 cents, and by 2001, it will be all gone. By
August 1, 2001, there will be nothing left.
Quebec dairy producers are taking a $168 million loss. This cut
is made in Quebec, which is a big milk producing province as
compared to the western provinces, without a cent in compensation
being paid. Quebec dairy producers are not getting anything to
make the cut more palatable, when $2.9 billion, almost $3 billion,
10076
was paid to western grain producers when the Western Grain
Transportation Act, commonly known as the Crow rate, was
abolished. That is appalling and unjustified.
(1530)
What will be the impact on Quebec farmers? It will bring up the
price of butter or cheese. According to a comprehensive study,
whenever the price of butter goes up 10 per cent, consumer demand
drops by 7 per cent. And 48 per cent of the milk used to make butter
comes from Quebec's dairy producers.
I see the hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard, who is a city
dweller. He is not affected. However, his voters are consumers and
they will pay 40 cents more for a pound of cheddar and 30 cents
more for a pound of butter.
In a wealthy neighbourhood such as Dollard, this is not a
problem. However, it is a different story in poor areas. It does
create problems. Indeed, the reason the demand drops by 7 per cent
is that the poor buy less butter, or no butter at all. They may have to
use margarine, fat or something else.
The same is true in the case of cheese. When the price of cheese
goes up 10 per cent, demand drops by 4 per cent. As the official
opposition critic on agricultural issues, I look after the interests of
dairy producers. However, I am well aware that, ultimately,
consumers are the ones who will have to make up for this
government's cuts.
I want to go back to the Pinocchio syndrome. Some years ago, I
was in my living room, listening to the news. Brian Mulroney was
Prime Minister and Statistics Canada announced that, the previous
week, there were one million Canadians unemployed. Back then,
the rat pack sat on this side of the House. Things were bad: ``One
million unemployed and the Prime Minister is not doing anything.
We want jobs. We want our young people to find work. You are
rotten. You do not work for Canadians''.
Today, there are 1.5 million unemployed. There are three million
children in Canada who live in poverty and who do not eat three
meals a day. We are not talking about Zaire, but Canada. What is
the Minister of Finance doing? What is the Prime Minister doing
about these children living in poverty?
Last week, I met a teacher in Montreal who told me that several
children in her class arrive at school without having had breakfast
and that they barely have anything to eat for lunch.
It is sad to watch this government go about its business. After
three years and seven months, Canadians will have the opportunity
to elect a new government, and I hope they will. I hope that, on
Sunday, April 27, the Prime Minister will hand in his government's
resignation to the Governor General, so that voters can teach him a
good lesson.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
having listened to the member over the last 20 minutes, he has
mentioned a number of things, some of which I would like to
comment on and which require some clarification.
I am going to talk a little bit about the GST. I am sure it is a
subject we are going to hear an awful lot about in the next election.
In the last budget the Liberal government announced that there
would be no tax cuts until we could afford them and we could
sustain them. No tax cuts. In the next election there is no question
that the Reform Party will be running on tax cuts. The
Conservatives will be running on tax cuts. The Liberal government
is going to say no tax cuts.
(1535)
It is not enough simply to look at the bottom of the end result.
The Reform Party and the Conservative Party are a little bit
different; one is when it is balanced and one is immediate. There
are conditions. The situation is there are conditions and some other
matters.
The member must understand that we cannot use just one phrase
or one word to say what represents the position. We have to look at
all of the terms and conditions that are associated with tax cuts or
no tax cuts.
The Liberal Party has said that we are going to have tax cuts
when we can afford them. We are not opposed to tax cuts; we are
going to have them. Having established that, let us talk about the
word ``scrap''. Canadians are going to want to know more of the
facts about what happened.
If we go back to the beginning of this Parliament, the finance
committee was immediately asked to undertake a study of the
alternatives to the consumption tax, the GST. I participated in this
all-party committee. It held 35 meetings with hundreds of
witnesses. It analysed and assessed for months and months at least
25 alternatives to the GST, including a modified GST or other
forms of consumption tax. All members know that because all
parties were represented in the finance committee.
Let us think about this. If in fact the government's position was
to scrap the GST with no replacement, to just get rid of it the way
those members have been trying to suggest, then why is it that the
finance committee spent almost a year studying alternatives? Why
did the public or the opposition parties not go ballistic about why
we were breaking our promise of scrapping it with no alternatives?
They did not do that. They did not complain when we were
studying alternatives because they knew and Canadians knew that
the undertaking of the government was to replace the GST with a
revenue neutral-meaning not getting rid of the $18
billion-harmonized system with the provinces.
10077
Some Canadians will say that they did not see the red book.
I understand that because there were not enough produced for each
and every Canadian. However, each and every member who ran
on that platform included the extract in their literature. I did and
I know my constituents saw it.
In addition, all of the media reported on the platforms of each
and every party including in detail the proposal to replace the GST
with a revenue neutral harmonized tax. It was reported in the press.
Did some members of Parliament use a word or a phrase to
describe the whole platform? Yes, that is true. Even in this House I
know there is at least one member of the cabinet who stood up and
said that we would scrap it. However, to suggest that to use a word
or a simple description of a platform policy is not to be taken in
isolation, one has to also impute that it involves the full conditions
and terms under which it was said.
I will conclude by asking the member a question.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. My distinguished colleague has already said enough that it
will take up the rest of the time allotted me to reply. You will
understand that, without wanting to get into a debate with my
colleague-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I would like to
remind the hon. members that the 10 minutes are for questions or
comments.
(1540 )
[English]
Mr. Szabo: Madam Speaker, the member wants to respond and I
am going to let him. I would simply ask-
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is
entirely normal that he make a comment and then ask a question,
but the comment must be about what the hon. member said and not
about any old topic.
[English]
Mr. Szabo: Madam Speaker, the member was talking about
scrapping the GST but the other member was not here. I forgive
him for not being in attendance to hear the speech.
However, in courtesy to the member, he knows that the Quebec
government did not wait until the legislation came forward to
harmonize its provincial consumption tax with the federal tax. It
went ahead and made arrangements to implement it. Quebec did
not wait because it knew the advantages. It knew that through
harmonization it would have an input tax credit available on the
provincial component of the harmonized sales tax.
Is the member aware that exports from Quebec to other
provinces and outside Canada enjoy an input tax credit on the
provincial sales tax component of the combined tax which the other
provinces did not enjoy before the HST?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like
to remind my distinguished colleague, the member for Mississauga
South, a good-hearted man, a man of courage and incredible
loyalty, that we are not in politics to fool the voters. You can fool
people once, but you cannot fool them all the time.
When we look at the latest surveys on how much confidence
people have in various professions, doctors top the list, used car
salesmen are at the bottom and one up from them are politicians.
Do you know why? Because certain politicians often suffer from
the Pinocchio syndrome, as my colleague has just shown. He says
for all to hear: ``We never promised to abolish the GST''. That is a
lie. I do not say he is a liar, I say it is a lie.
All the CBC and TVA footage showed the Prime Minister of this
country saying: ``We will scrap the GST''. And the Deputy Prime
Minister, who was one of the rat pack and who held a major post in
the last election campaign in 1993 said: ``I will resign in the first 12
months if we do not abolish the GST''. It took 28 months. We had
to give her a shove. This resignation cost the public $500,000, so
that she could turn around and get re-elected with a much smaller
majority in Hamilton East.
I ask my distinguished colleague, a good-hearted and loyal man
as I was saying earlier, to find me six copies of his red book in
French, because I need them badly in Frontenac-Mégantic for the
next election.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-93.
First I would like to address some of the comments which were
made a moment ago by the hon. member for Mississauga South. He
was trying to defend the government's position on the GST. He
suggested that it might be an election issue. I assure all members it
will be a major issue in the coming election.
(1545)
The promise that was made in the red book, without reading the
weasel words or the fine print, to scrap, abolish or get rid of the
GST was made by a government in full knowledge of the
difficulties that would be put in place trying to do that.
When he says we cannot take a few isolated comments out of
context, I remind him and all members that the current finance
minister apologized to the Canadian people for the government's
lack of performance on the GST.
10078
Not only did the finance minister apologize, but the Deputy
Prime Minister resigned. A member of cabinet resigned over their
failure to do what they had promised the Canadian people.
Talking about the resignation, I have to mention that it was done
only after a poll was taken in the riding to make sure that the
Deputy Prime Minister would be re-elected, hardly a move to
address the cynicism that exists between the politicians and the
voters. Her denial to do what she should have done for over a
period of a week certainly hurt politicians, not just the government.
We had the Prime Minister who, in a town hall meeting, took
exception to people who understood what they were saying
differently and challenged that they should have read the red book.
Again on the GST, the government talks about harmonization.
While in opposition the Liberals fought harmonization. As a matter
of fact, the current finance minister was very strong in his
opposition to harmonization. He said that once it is in there, we will
never get rid of it. How he has changed his position now that he has
moved from the opposition to the government.
In order to save face, to try to put some kind of positive spin on
the GST, we get the $1 billion incentive to the three Atlantic
provinces to come on board with harmonization. That is $1 billion
which will be paid by taxpayers right across this country.
In the province of Ontario, the Ontario treasurer resisted
harmonization on the basis that it would shift the tax burden on to
Ontario taxpayers. It would increase it by $3 billion. He rightly
resisted it.
When we talk about the GST, it indeed will be an election issue.
It is one that we have to be honest about. I do not think the
government, in making the promise, was honest. Its members are
still not replying to the reasons why they did not fulfil their
promise in being truthful with the Canadian people.
We are talking about the budget as it relates to the deficit and the
debt this afternoon. It is one of the main reasons for my seeking
office in 1993. I was very concerned about the insanity of the
annual deficits that both the Liberals and the Conservatives had
been running, $30 billion, $40 billion overspending resulting in
now $600 billion of debt.
My concern was not so much for me as it was for my children
and my grandchildren. I realized that while I had been in business
over the years, I had allowed the governments of the day to engage
in this overspending. They had mortgaged the future of my children
and my grandchildren.
We were enjoying the benefits of being the number one country
in the world and enjoying the very best in social programs but we
were not paying our way. We were mortgaging their future. They
were going to be paying our tab for being the number one country
in the world, which we are, but we have done it on the backs of our
children and our grandchildren.
That is something that we should be ashamed of. I am here to do
all I can to reverse that, to bring some fiscal sanity to this place. I
am hoping we will be able to do that.
When I think of this fourth budget that we are dealing with
today, I recall the first budget, the second budget and the third
budget. I have to go back to the first budget and say what a shame it
was that the government wasted that first budget. It did absolutely
nothing to deal with the serious problem of the deficit we had been
running which at that point was almost $500 billion.
(1550)
As a matter of fact, when the Liberals ran in that campaign they
made light of the deficit and debt by telling Canadian taxpayers
that while it is a problem, do not be worried. It is okay. Do not fret.
It is something they would look after. In the first budget the
Liberals failed to address it any meaningful way. As difficult as it is
to believe, they actually worsened the situation because they
lowered the cigarette tax. They caved in to the smugglers. They
said they have to deal with the smugglers and they reduced the tax
on cigarettes. They were more concerned abut the smugglers with
no regard for the health and cost implications to health care for
Canadians.
I found it absolutely unbelievable to see the current health
minister stand in the House and talk about the concern he has for
the young people in our country who are smoking and that ``we
have to do all we can to make sure it does not happen''. However,
he is a member of the government that reduced the taxes on
cigarettes and by doing so encouraged thousands of young people
to take up smoking and put their future health at great risk. I found
it extremely hard to believe when the health minister stood up
today trying to show concern for the health of our young people,
when by their actions they started many young people down that
road.
The price of cigarettes was a major deterrent. I saw it in my own
riding after the tax was reduced. When I drove by a high school I
could see a significant number of young people smoking. The
numbers increased because they could afford to buy cigarettes
again and they were delighted. I find his concern now about the
health of our young people a little difficult to believe. Of course,
there was no thought of the future cost implications to our health
budgets.
The second budget was a bit of an awakening. In the second
budget the finance minister began to make a connection that the
10079
deficit was resulting in high unemployment, in high taxes and was
perhaps more serious than the government thought it was back in
1993 during the campaign.
Even at that point, the government still was not even serious
enough to really tackle the deficit and come out with a program to
eliminate it over a specific period of time. I recall very well that
there was a warning issued by Moody's to the finance minister.
Moody's told the finance minister, I believe before the second
budget, that he had a very serious problem. ``You have been living
beyond your means. You have a huge debt load and you are going
to have to sell your bonds to maintain this lavish lifestyle you have
enjoyed. We are concerned enough about your position that we are
considering downgrading your bonds. We are telling you this
because we want you to know how serious we think the situation is
and how it is going to reflect in the advice that we give to people
you borrow from, because you will have to borrow''.
There was another piece of information given to our finance
minister at that time. He ignored the first and he also ignored the
advice that he had to set a target date to balance the books. This
rolling two year target where somewhere down the road we may get
to a balanced budget is not going to fly with the people buying
bonds. Give us a commitment. Give us a date. Of course, we know
what happened when the finance minister ignored that advice.
There were many who shot the messenger. Moody's was giving us
good advice but there were those in government who asked who
these young finance people in the red suspenders were to tell them
what they should be doing. As a result of that advice being ignored,
our bonds were downgraded with the potential to cost us more in
interest payments.
In the third budget we did get some action. We heard again from
the finance minister these deficits and debts were a serious
problem. I am sure he was having a battle within his own party
about whether to cut or spend more on social programs. Thank
goodness his position prevailed and there were some limited cuts,
but not nearly enough to eliminate the deficit and balance the
books.
(1555 )
Now we get to the fourth budget, the budget we are talking about
today. As difficult as I find this to believe, I actually heard cheering
from the other side when the finance minister stood up in the House
and bragged about the fact that we will only be overspending by
$19 billion. This is an accomplishment to be recognized with great
applause that we are now only spending $19 billion more than we
are taking in in taxes. This is an accomplishment.
There was even the suggestion that the battle is won. It is over.
Now we can start spending again. We do not need to worry about it.
We have won the battle. I have not heard anybody in the private
sector saying that the battle is over. Is $19 billion of overspending
something to applaud? I cannot believe it, but they did. I heard it.
Then we look at the other side of this $19 billion of
overspending. We are now approaching $600 billion of debt. I did
not hear any applause when that was mentioned. As a matter of
fact, that may not have been mentioned too strongly, as indeed it
should not have been. This Liberal government has increased our
federal debt from $500 billion to $600 billion.
I heard government members saying in 1993 not to worry about
the deficit and the debt, then during their term of office they
realized that we were right and they were wrong and the deficit and
the debt are a problem. I heard what they were saying about OAS
and health care, the great defenders of health care and OAS. They
are now doing far more, as we talked about.
NAFTA and free trade they opposed when in opposition. Now
they are the biggest free traders we have ever seen. The Prime
Minister spends as much time out of the country as he does in the
country. Free trade has been good for Canada and NAFTA has been
good for Canada.
The government does not know how to create jobs. The Liberals
did not know how to create them when they were in opposition.
They are now starting come around but it is a complete flip-flop
from what they were saying when they campaigned in 1993 on all
those issues.
Credibility is going to be an issue in this coming election. I
suggest there is not a whole lot of it on the government side. The
Liberals are going to have great difficulty just on those two major
promises that were made to the people to get their vote, job
creation and getting rid of the GST. Those two promises, regardless
of the 173 others in the famous red ink book, are the ones on which
Canadians gave Liberals their trust. It was based on both of those.
They have failed the Canadian people on both those major
promises. They are going to answer for it in a few weeks.
Promises made, promises broken. Canadians do not like to have
promises broken, not when it involves jobs and not when it
involves their pocketbooks. The voters are about to have their say.
There will be some very surprised people. The polls indicating
some popularity right now are paper thin.
This was an election budget to try to calm the waters and plug
the holes in the dam, and there are some pretty big holes in that
dam. Going into this election the voters will be asking, and we will
be encouraging them, are they better off today than in 1993.
I do not think we are going to find very many voters from coast
to coast who will answer in the affirmative to that question. They
will take a look at that and say ``you are absolutely right, I am not
and yet I was told I was going to be''.
10080
They will look at jobs. They were promised jobs. The facts are
there are 1.5 million unemployed today, 2 million to 3 million
Canadians underemployed today, one in four of those who have
a job worried about whether they will hold that job.
There have been 77 straight months of unemployment in excess
of 9 per cent. Am I better off today relative to jobs? I think not.
That is about the same number as when the Liberals promised jobs,
jobs, jobs to get elected in 1993. They have not produced them.
They will have to answer for it.
Let us go to taxes now. The GST is a tax. Canadians hate that tax.
Canadians heard the words ``we're going to get rid of it'' and the
weasel words, ``scrap, abolish, get rid of, read the red book if you
can find one''. They were looking for tax relief. What the
government has given the taxpayers is 37 tax increases and it has
not scrapped the GST.
(1600)
That is why voters are so cynical about politicians. They do not
have jobs. They do have the GST and their taxes have increased.
All we hear is that there have not been direct personal tax increases,
which is true, but there have been 37 indirect tax increases with the
granddaddy of them all the CPP payroll tax increase. Some can call
it an investment but it is a payroll tax and it is a tax increase.
The Fraser Institute has just released a study which states that the
average Canadian family has taken a $3,000 pay reduction since
the Liberals have been in office. That has come about because most
Canadians have seen their salaries frozen and in that same
timeframe Canadians have had 37 tax increases. The reality is the
average Canadian family is $3,000 poorer than it was in 1993.
Again, am I better off today than I was in 1993? I think not.
The record is there. We have record consumer bankruptcies. It
was almost 80,000, just 79,000 and change which is up by 22 per
cent since 1996. Am I better off today? There are 80,000
consumers who will say no very loudly.
Business bankruptcies are up by 7 per cent to 14,229. Canadian
household debt as a percentage of disposable income was 54 per
cent in 1985 and is 91 per cent in 1995. Am I better off today than I
was in 1993? I do not think so. Canadians are asking themselves,
``if this is a feel good budget, why don't I feel good?''
In this atmosphere the government is saying that low interest
rates will get the economy moving, that there will be no tax cuts
because low interest rates will do it. We have record bankruptcies
and record consumer debt. How in the world will low interest rates
get the economy moving? Canadians have lost their borrowing
power. They are in debt right up to here.
However, we should remember that when the Liberals talk about
low interest rates they are talking about going into debt which is
one thing they know a great deal about. We have to give them credit
for that. They know about going into debt. That is what they are
encouraging the Canadian people to do: ``Borrow, borrow more.
You can borrow your way to prosperity. Just go deeper in debt''.
That is a terrible message to send to the Canadian people. We
should be asking the Canadian people to be fiscally responsible, to
not spend what they do not have because future generations will be
paying for it. Of course, the government cannot do that because it
cannot even do it.
The low interest rates factor is a two-edged sword because not
everybody benefits from low interest rates. There are those who do
but there are many who do not. I am thinking of those who are
living on fixed incomes. Across the board tax cuts help all
Canadians. That is what will get our economy moving. That is what
will create the jobs Canadians are so desperately looking for. The
government has not made the connection between high taxes and
high unemployment.
We have been going down this road of government spending and
high taxes for 25 years and it has not worked. Why in the world are
we not looking for a better way, a different way? What we have
been doing has not been working. The unemployment numbers
support this claim and something has to be done about it.
There is a lack of vision, a lack of ideas. It is the status quo. The
Liberals have been saying: ``We have always done it this way so we
have to keep going down this road. We can't do it any differently.
We just don't have the vision or the plan to do it''. I am proud to say
that we have a vision and we are going to be offering it to the
Canadian voters in the coming election. I believe there will be the
change in this place that is so desperately needed.
(1605)
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member when he
talked about jobs.
In 1993 when we were elected the jobless rate was at 11.2 per
cent and now it is down to 9.3 per cent. I think that is a very good
record. Is it enough? No. As the Prime Minister constantly says: ``It
is not enough but it is certainly going in the right direction''.
The hon. member talked about low inflation and that is an
important part. The average Canadian cares about that. Certainly
home buyers care about it.
With respect to interest rates I do not know what riding the hon.
member represents but in Ontario my people do care about low
interest rates when they are buying homes or any other item. In my
humble opinion it is totally irresponsible to promise a tax cut when
10081
the deficit is not completely gone and when we have not tackled
the debt yet.
Does the hon. member really believe that buying votes with such
a see through method is honest? Does he believe it is correct to do
such a thing when fiscally we have not put our house in order?
It is important that the Canadian people know that when we took
power just 3.5 short years ago the deficit was $42 billion. It now
stands officially at $19 billion. The rumour is that it is significantly
less than that. Do the Canadian people think that is a good record? I
believe so. I am proud to hold my head up.
It is really wrong to promise a tax cut when we do not have our
books and our house in order. We are going in the right direction.
The deficit is at the lowest level it has been for 15 years. That is a
really good record.
Please do not let the hon. member promise a tax cut and put us
further in debt. Please.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
believe what I have just heard coming from the government in that
intervention. She talked about buying votes. She is accusing us of
buying votes? I cannot believe it. Jobs, jobs, jobs, the GST, scrap
and abolish NAFTA. Talk about buying votes.
We are not buying votes. We are saying we are going to offer tax
relief after we get rid of the deficit. We make that very clear in our
fresh start platform: after we get rid of the deficit we are going to
act fiscally responsible and we are going to offer tax relief.
We also have a guarantee in our platform. We are saying to the
voters: ``Don't trust us, trust yourselves. If we don't do what we say
we are going to do right now, we want you to have recall''. That is
something that the government does not believe in because it
promised things it knows it cannot deliver.
Why do the Liberals oppose recall? Because they would be
called to answer for the promises they have made and they do not
like to be held accountable for their promises.
The government says that when it took over there was a $42
billion deficit. When the Conservatives took over from them the
debt was about $200 billion thanks to annual Liberal deficits. Now
the Liberals are extremely reluctant to slay the monster they
created. We went down this path of insanity back in 1970 when the
Liberal government started this deficit spending to the point that
when they were booted out of office the debt stood at $200 million.
Now it is approaching $600 billion. That is some kind of an
accomplishment? I think not.
When I hear members over there say that we are being dishonest,
I want to point out that we understand that cynicism. That is the
fault of the Liberal government. That is why we believe in recall.
That is why we believe in referendums. That is why we believe in
freer votes in the House of Commons.
(1610)
The Deputy Prime Minister tarnished every politician in this
House and in this country when she did not do the honourable thing
and resign-
Mrs. Chamberlain: She did resign.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Only after a week's haranguing
and taking a poll in her riding. It lost its impact when she did not do
it immediately, as indeed she should have.
I also want to talk about interest rates. The member talks about
how interest rates are a big factor in her riding.
I have done a poll in my riding. The businesses are not looking
for low interest rates to get the economy moving. That is way down
on the chart. What they are looking for is tax relief. They want their
consumers to have more dollars.
I wonder if the member has talked to the seniors in her
community who are living on fixed incomes and looking for decent
interest rates. Have you heard from them or are you listening to
them? Low interest rates do not benefit everybody.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I would urge the hon.
member to address his remarks through the Chair.
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I just saw another Reform Party member who wanted to rise after
the previous speaker, so I thought I should rise as well to straighten
out a few facts.
You may have noticed that the hon. member who just spoke was
not altogether objective in his comments and was not altogether
fair in the way he described the facts as we know them. And I am
being generous, always abiding by the rules of this House.
[English]
I do not know why, but I kept thinking when I listened to the hon.
member who just spoke about the words of Sir Winston Churchill.
They have been ruled parliamentary by countless Speakers, so I
guess I can repeat them in this honourable House.
He said about remarks which were similar to the ones we have
just heard that the opposite to the truth had never been stated with
greater accuracy. That is exactly what I thought when the hon.
member spoke about the last budget of this government, this Prime
Minister and this very excellent Minister of Finance.
10082
Let us straighten out the facts before we go too much further.
The member opposite talked about unemployment.
[Translation]
My position is that as long as there is a single person in my
riding who is unemployed, there is too much unemployment. It
would be a mistake to be satisfied with the unemployment rate,
whatever it happens to be.
That being said, we still have to state the facts. Last month,
61,000 jobs were created in this country. This is a total of 800,000
jobs since the last election. A net gain of 800,000 jobs is quite an
achievement.
Mr. Speaker, as the soul of objectivity in this House, you will
have to admit that. Those are the facts, and I am sure this
information is correct, since it was authenticated by Statistics
Canada and other agencies.
[English]
The G7, the OECD and think tanks all over have acknowledged
that the largest level of growth of any OECD nation this year will
belong to Canada. It is not average growth. It is not a better than
average growth. Only the best belongs to Canada. We are the best.
Of course it is not good enough to be the best, but it is a darned
sight better than it would be under a Reform government. Heaven
forbid that we would ever have such a thing in this country. That is
not likely to happen at any time, let alone soon.
(1615)
[Translation]
The hon. member opposite just argued in favour of high interest
rates. I found it hard to understand the logic of what the hon.
member said, when he stated that people on low incomes would
benefit from higher interest rates. I would like to know what school
of economics launched that idea. Did you ever hear about people on
low and fixed incomes who benefit from high interest rates,
considering that high interest rates are usually accompanied by
similar levels of inflation?
[English]
How many poor people end up better off with inflation? The
member across the way says that poor people are better off with
high interest rates. I wonder which one of his rich friends taught
him that. Which one of his rich friends is trying to invest money on
the backs of those same poor people?
Mr. Benoit: He never said poor people.
Mr. Boudria: That is what he did say. He said that people on
lower and fixed incomes are better off with high interest rates. All
members of this House have heard it, except for perhaps the
member across the way who is heckling.
People on lower and fixed incomes are the first to be vulnerable
with inflation, the first when something is gouging away at their
purchasing power. Inflation in this country is at the lowest level it
has been in years.
Mr. Benoit: That is untrue.
Mr. Boudria: It is not untrue. It is the truth. We have very
distinguished members in this House, such as the member for
Mississauga South who is an accountant and the member for
Guelph-Wellington who is well known and well versed on
financial issues, who can attest to this. Surely then all of us would
know that this is a fact.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Simcoe-North, I believe, talked about-
An hon. member: No, it was the hon. member for Simcoe
Centre.
[English]
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): You don't even know my riding.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: No, I am trying to forget in his case. I must say I
am doing my best to forget, and I hope the day will come soon
when I can forget entirely.
Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, you have just reminded me of the
name of the riding of the member opposite. He alleged that the
government was wrong to put an end to the smuggling by lowering
the Conservatives' tax on cigarettes. This scourge was affecting
Quebec as well, because nearly 80 per cent of cigarettes were sold
illegally. In my riding, I saw a native community torn asunder by
the problem. I saw people in the same family opposing each other
in this business of smuggling.
[English]
We had achieved an almost hobbesean state where it was every
person for himself and life was brutish and short. People were
going at each other with guns on the issue of contraband. Young
people who broke the law were being rewarded by driving
Corvettes and those who respected the laws were walking to
school. That was the situation in this country.
Yes, it did take intestinal fortitude for the Prime Minister to take
the decision that he did. I congratulate him and always will because
he did the right thing. And the right thing is not always the easy
thing.
When the hon. member for Simcoe Centre pontificates from
afar-that is far right by the way-I say to him that he is wrong.
The Reform candidate in his riding in the last election sure was
singing from a different hymn book on that issue. However, that is
not radically different for Reformers to disagree with each other.
Need I remind all of us of statements made by one member from
across the way who said that people who were different from him
10083
should be in the back of the shop. I remember that and we all will
very shortly. That is the kind of mindset of the people across the
way.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): You should be ashamed of
yourself.
Mr. Boudria: I am not. I want to tell the hon. member across the
way, who tried to pretend that somehow the issue of cigarette
smuggling was anything different than what it was for his own
partisan ends, he had better look at himself in the mirror and maybe
at the same time have a close look at some of his own colleagues.
(1620)
[Translation]
That is the truth. We know what sort of leadership we had in this
government. We recognize the honesty of the Prime Minister and
his government. We know that we have renewed Canadians' trust
in their parliamentary institutions, so much so that a poll revealed a
few days ago that the level of confidence in Canada is the highest
among the G7 countries, whereas it was the lowest before the last
general election. Why? Because we have quality leadership.
I have had the honour for a number of months now of being a
member of his leadership team, because of the mandate the Prime
Minister conferred on me in appointing me to cabinet on October 4.
I, like my colleagues, have tried to provide the people with honest
and respectable government, and we have succeeded in doing so.
Whatever allegations the member opposite made earlier, the
truth is the exact opposite. Soon, I hope, the Prime Minister will
decide to return to the people and ask them to give us a new
mandate. I know he can do so with his head held high. I do not
know the date any more than the member opposite, who is having
fun chatting. When he does decide, he can do so confident in the
knowledge that he fulfilled his mandate and did what Canadians
asked of him.
[English]
I am equally sure that the Prime Minister will again enjoy the
confidence of the Canadian people. He and this government
deserve that kind of confidence for having told Canadians the truth
about every issue, even the issue we brought to the attention of all
Canadians, that of the high deficit.
Today the European Economic Union is calling Canada the
economic miracle of the western world. We are told that by people
in Japan. We are told that by our other trading partners. Why?
Because it is true. The whole world cannot be wrong, except the
Reform Party. Not everyone is out of step except the member for
Simcoe Centre. The reality is a little otherwise. The truth is
otherwise.
I am proud of the quality of leadership by our Prime Minister, by
our Minister of Finance, by this cabinet and by the entire Liberal
team which has supported this government. It has taken difficult
decisions for the good of all Canadians and for generations to
come.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister used the word ``truth'' a dozen times with great
conviction. It seems to me that the truth speaks for itself. One
needs not make a big production of describing what it is. When one
says: ``We are on the side of truth'', then the case for truth is made.
I have my doubts about what he said because what do you call the
Prime Minister saying he would kill the GST and not doing it?
There is a long list of similar situations.
Now, of course, everyone agrees that the deficit must go down
and even disappear completely.
(1625)
Everyone agrees also that we should be paying off our debts. We
all agree with that. But how do we go about doing this? That is the
problem. Unfortunately, the Reform Party, the Conservative Party
and the Liberal Party have nothing better to offer in that, until this
place passes an elections act like the one passed in Quebec under
René Lévesque, under which large corporations are forbidden to
buy, so to speak, governments, regardless of their affiliation, I
assure you these governments will have their hands tied. There will
be no end to family trusts, and families earning $100,000 and more
per year will pay almost no tax because lobbyists will still have
easy access to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the
other ministers.
Until a government passes this kind of legislation, every
Quebecer and Canadian will be justified in doubting the
authenticity of the government and doubting, when promises are
made, the truthfulness of these promises. Not that I doubt the
ministers and the Prime Minister as individuals, but it takes
political courage to pass this kind of legislation. When the
suggestion is made that it be passed, the major national parties
balk. Why? Ask yourself why they do not want such legislation
passed. It is either because they have their hands tied or because
they lack courage.
When companies contribute $10,000, $20,000 or $100,000 to a
party's campaign fund, they are friends and the party is indebted to
them. This is the truth.
Earlier, the minister told you, Mr. Speaker, and I have a great
deal of respect for you, that you are impartial. That is true, but I
believe that, except for you, the only party which can be impartial
in this House is our party, and I will tell you why.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Canuel: Just let me explain. It is because we are not trying
to form the government. I do not think we will ever form the
10084
federal government. Therefore, because we are not trying to form
the government, we can be impartial.
In fact, we are the only party that is not interested in holding
such power. In any case, it is not the real power. The real power is
held, as we know, by the financial world. Until we can dissociate
ourselves from these companies and family trusts, everyone knows
that our hands will be tied. The government may try, it may make
an effort sometimes, but it cannot do a good job.
I ask the hon. member: If his party is re-elected, will he have the
courage to promote a bill that would correct this problem with
campaign funds? The result could be similar to what was achieved
in Quebec, thanks to René Lévesque. Mr. Bourassa himself
congratulated René Lévesque a few years later, because it is a lot
easier to be honest with voters and tell them the truth. I ask the
minister if he will sponsor such a bill.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had heard everything.
The member opposite has just said Bloc members are impartial. So
we will ask the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, when the
time comes, if she considers herself impartial.
(1630)
Mr. Canuel: Of course.
Mr. Boudria: Of course, right. We will ask Hull residents if they
think she is impartial.
Mr. Canuel: But that is different.
Mr. Boudria: So we can all wonder about this proposal
regarding the impartiality of a Bloc Quebecois member, including
the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, and of all the others as
well, of course.
The member opposite has just said that we have attained the
objective of lowering the deficit, but he is not in agreement with
the way we went about it. You will immediately note the
differences of opinion among opposition party members.
This member says: ``They met the objective, but we did not like
the way they did it''. The member for Simcoe Centre, who spoke
earlier, said: ``They did not meet the objective at all''. You see how
opinions differ, and how these two opposition parties, which are not
far apart on some issues, have very differing opinions when it
comes to the economy.
I suspect that, depending on the opposition member you asked,
opinions would perhaps differ even more widely, given that some
members opposite have very little in common with each other,
except for their views on sovereignty. That aside, some lean a little
to the right, others-I am not saying the leader of the
opposition-lean much further to the left, not to mention one who
is really out in left field.
The hon. member across the way says that political parties are to
some extent answerable to those who make campaign
contributions.
Mr. Canuel: Yes, yes.
Mr. Boudria: And has just repeated it.
I am making no such accusation of the Canadians who
contributed to my campaign-
Mr. Canuel: The companies.
Mr. Boudria: -all those who contributed to my election
campaign, the one of the hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard,
and those of my other colleagues in this House. I am convinced that
my electors are basically honest, and when they contribute to my
campaign, whether that means coming to my $5 a plate spaghetti
supper, or my $100 a plate annual fundraising dinner-
Mr. Canuel; $2,000.
Mr. Boudria; No, I have nothing that goes over $100, which
means that the meal is around $35, or $36 or $40, if the hall rental
and the rest of the expenses are included, so the other $60 or so is a
contribution. People do not contribute $60 to my campaign
expecting to get any financial gain back.
I feel that such accusations concerning the people of Quebec and
the people of Canada from sea to sea are totally inappropriate.
Whether a person runs my local convenience store, has an
engineering practice in my neighbourhood, or a company in my
riding-most of them being very small, although there are one or
two big ones-whether they have contributed the $5 or the $60 I
referred to before, or even if they are one of the handful of people
contributing maybe $200 in the last campaign, they are all honest
people, in my opinion. Or at least I believe they are.
Unless it is proven otherwise, I believe that the Canadians who
contribute to my campaign, like yours, like the campaigns of
everybody else, merely want to help the democratic process in
order to have good government, and we will have another good
Liberal government, as we have had this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member
for Chicoutimi-government contracts; the hon. member for
Frontenac-tariffs on agricultural products; the hon. member for
Davenport-Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Develop- ment-the hon. member for Mackenzie-transport.
(1635)
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as I listened to the hon. minister's response to that question or
comment I was reminded of the politician who had the ability to
10085
speak until he thought of something to say. The difficulty was that I
was not quite able to determine what the minister was saying.
I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-93, the budget
implementation act. It is an important act despite the dryness of the
name because we are debating how the nation spends its money and
the policies behind that spending.
Today's debate is very important for Canada and the Canadian
people from coast to coast who are struggling. Why is it an
important debate? I cannot remember another time, except perhaps
for the chaos of the world wars or the depression, when life was so
uncertain for so many people in peacetime.
For example, 1.5 million people are unemployed in Canada
today, just as many as when the Liberals were elected in 1993.
Another two million to three million Canadians are
underemployed. One in four Canadians is worried about losing a
job. We have had the worst string of unemployment numbers since
the great depression, and perhaps the longest string as well.
After four years of what the Liberals call cost cutting, Canada
will be over $111 billion deeper in debt. In total, 25 years of Liberal
and Tory mismanagement have put Canada over $600 billion in
debt. We spend about $46 billion a year on interest charges alone.
The largest claim on the national treasury each year is the interest
we pay on the debt. All this time families are hurting. Since the
Liberals came to power the after tax income of the average
Canadian family has dropped by about $3,000.
The Liberal government has increased taxes 37 times. The latest
increase was the massive 70 per cent hike in Canada pension plan
premiums. People are wondering how they can live with the
creditor's hand in one pocket and the government's hand in the
other. Many of them are not making it. Let us consider the number
of bankruptcies that have occurred in the past year. Bankruptcies
are at their highest level ever with almost 80,000 last year.
Let us also consider health care, education and social programs,
how they have been gutted by $7 billion in the last three and a half
years and the consequences of that.
Last year in my constituency in the city of Quesnel there was a
tragic explosion. Five people lost their lives. Twenty people had to
go to the hospital. The G. R. Baker Memorial Hospital has 50 beds.
It actually has more beds, but if the administrator uses more than
50 he will get fired because of the closures and the cutbacks. The
hospital was entirely occupied by patients; there were 50 patients
when the explosion occurred.
That is the seriousness of the situation. There is no slack in the
system. There is no room for exceptions. There is no room for
people who are caught in unexpected emergencies.
It is no wonder that today more than at any other time people are
extremely concerned. They are frightened. They are concerned
about their finances. They are concerned about their families, the
opportunities available for their children and the opportunities that
are not available. They are concerned about their health care. They
are concerned about how they will pay their mortgages. They are
concerned about their futures. That is why Canadians were looking
to the 1997 budget and praying for some relief, some help along the
way, an oasis in the desert. Did they get it? No, they did not.
(1640)
Let me explain why. The 1997 budget raised tax revenues
another $4 billion. Tax revenues next year will be $24 billion
higher than they were when the Liberals took office.
There was no real job creation strategy. People are still looking
for jobs. People are still worrying about losing their jobs. There
was no help for health care and no help for pensions.
I am afraid Canadians looked at the budget and said to
themselves: ``If this is supposed to be such a good budget, where
are the benefits? Where can I look for some hope?''
The finance minister argued that one of the benefits of the budget
was that government finances were finally under control. Only in
Ottawa will people celebrate when the government is in debt $600
billion, when it borrows $19 billion a year and when it pays interest
charges of $46 billion a year, acting as though it is all under
control, everything is fine and the war has be won.
We watched the Tory administration struggle with the deficit. If
the Tories ever came close to achieving what they sought, they
immediately reversed the trend and began spending more money.
That is what I am afraid we are watching as the election
approaches. We are watching any gain that may have been won
being used up to buy election votes.
The finance minister has argued that his government is reducing
the deficit by controlling spending. Just a couple of weeks ago
Canadians heard some very disturbing news about the government
and the finance minister. We learned that the finance minister had
not met his deficit targets as he had promised. He is $5.2 billion off
his 1995 budget target for expenditure reductions in the federal
government. To cover up his mistake, the finance minister
redefined departmental spending under program review.
When we are in a game we expect to get the ball into the goal. If
someone moves the goal to catch the ball, there is a name for it. In
addition, the true reality of what is happening on top of the
government fudging its books is that the Canadian taxpayer has
paid for 84 per cent of the deficit reduction through increased tax
revenues.
10086
It is no wonder Canadians are still asking the government: ``If
this is supposed to be such a good budget, where are the benefits?
Where is the hope for me?''
The finance minister argues that he has not raised taxes in this
budget or in any other budget. However that is not reality. He may
be able to move the goal to make the score but that score does not
count.
Since the Liberals came to power GST revenues went up by $2
billion. Corporate income taxes went up by $6.8 billion. Personal
income taxes went up by $15 billion. Other taxes went up by $500
million. That is a $24 billion increase in tax revenues over what
they were when the Liberals took office. That does not include the
$10 billion tax hike in the Canada pension plan. Again Canadians
are asking the government: ``If this is supposed to be such a good
budget, where are the benefits?''
The finance minister has argued that he is the great defender of
medicare and that this year's budget shows it. The reality, however,
is something quite different. We see the reality when people are
caught in extreme circumstances such as the explosion which
occurred in Quesnel last week.
(1645 )
The Liberals chose to hack, gut and gouge health care. These are
the finance minister's own words. They are part of his vocabulary.
The Liberals chose to hack, gut and gouge health care to the tune of
$3.6 billion, a 40 per cent decrease. The effects of these cuts have
been devastating.
Over 170,000 Canadians are on medical and surgical waiting
lists. Forty-five per cent of those people say they are waiting in
pain. Fifty-five people have died while waiting for heart operations
in Ontario alone in the last 10 months. Hospitals are closing and
services are being cut in every part of the country. This year's
budget gave no help to those hurting people.
Canadians are still asking this government: If this is supposed to
be such a good budget where are the benefits, where is what
Canadians need? Most of all, Canadians were looking for jobs from
this year's budget. As I mentioned earlier, Canada is experiencing
the worst and longest lasting set of jobless numbers since the great
depression. The finance minister's budget has not changed this
reality. In both months following the 1997 budget, February and
March, the unemployment rate was still over 9 per cent. Let us ask
why.
The government has failed to give Canadians job relief and has
failed to give them tax relief. Reduced taxes mean more money in
the pockets of families, consumers, small business people and
investors. But the money is not there for them. Consumers who
spend more money will create the permanent well paying jobs that
Canadians throughout all of Canada need and are crying for.
The finance minister's message to Canadians is that low interest
rates are the best medicine for the economy. Despite the lowest
interest rates in years, the unemployment rate is still 9 per cent and
there are still 1.5 million people unemployed. For a person who has
just gone bankrupt, for a person who does not have hope or does not
have a means, the low interest rates are not doing any good.
It is quite clear that the economy cannot be pushed uphill with
interest rates. There has to be income growth. There has to be job
growth. There has to be tax relief. What consumers need, what
Canadians need is a tax cut. Government expenditures are breaking
the financial backs of Canadians.
Although Canadians got no help from the finance minister or the
government in the 1997 budget, there is a hope on the horizon and
that hope is called Reform's fresh start. As I close, let me describe
this fresh start for Canadians. A Reform government will cut
government waste and trim government departments to balance the
budget by 1999, two years from now. A Reform government will
then use these budgetary surpluses as follows.
There will be a $5 billion down payment on debt reduction by the
year 2001 with a fixed proportion of future surpluses being
dedicated to debt reduction. We still have this enormous debt
hanging over us. How are we going to deal with it unless we
actually begin to start making payments on it?
A Reform government will provide a $4 billion per year transfer
to the provinces for health and education purposes.
There will be $15 billion in much needed tax relief to the long
suffering Canadian taxpayer. Tax relief of this magnitude will
reduce the tax bill paid by the average Canadian family of four by
$2,000 a year by the year 2000. That is what Canadians need and it
is what the Canadian economy needs. This kind of tax reduction
will spur job creation for parents and families who want and need
jobs. It is a significant tax relief which will help them pay their
bills.
(1650)
I repeat, more money in the pockets of consumers, small
business people and investors will mean greater spending and
prosperity for all Canadians. Consumers that spend more money
will create the permanent, well paying jobs Canadians are looking
for, which is what they need and have not had for years.
What I have described is Reform's fresh start. What we are
putting to the Canadian people is a plan that will give Canadians a
hand up, not a hand out; a plan that will help them succeed in their
goals in the 21st century.
The Liberal government has done nothing for Canada's sick,
elderly and disadvantaged. It has done nothing for Canadian
families and consumers except pick their pockets and impose
hardship. It has raised taxes and has cut health and education
10087
benefits. Canadians are asking where the benefits are from this
budget. Where are the benefits from the government? Is the
government here to serve the Canadian people or are the Canadian
people simply called on to bear the burdens of government without
hope of relief?
Reform's course is clear. We will balance the budget by 1999.
We will begin paying down the debt. We will reinvest in social
programs and create jobs by giving tax relief to every Canadian.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member. He
talked a lot about his concern for health care. I think we can come
to an agreement that all of us are very concerned about health care,
along with all of our constituents across Canada.
I think the hon. member is quite misguided in believing that a tax
cut somehow will help our health care system. We need only to
look at places like Alberta where it offered a tax cut and where
health care did suffer. We need only to look at places like Ontario
where a tax cut has been offered and indeed health care has
suffered. There is no question that a tax cut directly affects health
care and hurts every Canadian across the country.
The Reform Party says that in its fresh start it will put additional
moneys into health care. Here is a news flash: the Liberals have
done that and continue to do it. There are a number of measures in
the budget, as my colleague knows. Also I hope he understands that
for the years 1998 to 2001, there already has been a promise made
to increase transfers and increase payments for health care.
There is a large question around the fresh start proposal which
has really been a quandary for me. Reform has also said that it is
going to take $3.5 billion out of transfers. I guess I am really in
great awe, wondering how it is going to do that and not affect
health care. It must be going to affect education or perhaps other
services people depend upon.
The hon. member talked about bankruptcies and asked what we
are doing to help them, what happens to these people. We have a
number of initiatives. But if the Reform Party carries out its threat,
and I say threat of a tax cut because that is not positive, then we
will see a decrease in services such as health care, education and all
of our social safety nets. I do not know how that will help
Canadians in the long run. In my view, it will not help at all. It has
been proven in Ontario and in Alberta that it has hurt health care
directly.
(1655)
The other thing the hon. member did not touch on is the fact that
this government has vacated 32 per cent room in tax points for
health care. We never hear hon. members talk about that, that tax
room has been given and has helped.
I would really like to understand in all honesty, in all fairness, in
the name of this wonderful fresh start how a tax cut can benefit
Canadians when it hurts health care, when it hurts education, when
it hurts us.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her
comments and questions. They certainly give me ample room to
make my own comments in responding to them.
The difficulty I have had in watching the government's layoff
policy and put its plans into action is the difficulty it has had in
priorizing. It seems that when a cut is made by the Liberal
government it slashes through in such a way that destruction is
done without a lot of benefit. For example, we see layoffs but
where are the layoffs? On the front line, in the provinces and the
communities where people live.
Look what is happening in what used to be called the
unemployment insurance office. The service is not there. People
can no longer drop off their cards. They can no longer go to
counsellors. They have to use the telephone and punch buttons.
One of the biggest fights I have as a member of Parliament is
getting telephones to outlying regions of my constituency. What do
those people do? How did the government cuts help them?
It is not only tax cuts we are talking about. I have noticed that
while tax cuts are taking place on the front line, very little is cut at
the top of the government hierarchy. In fact I have seen the front
lines cut and at the same time the executive and the research
departments expanded.
I watched layoffs take place and a few months later with the
shortages that have been left after the golden handshakes have been
given, what happens? Many of the same people are hired back on
contract so that we not only pay for the golden handshake, we pay
for the new contract as well.
The member says the Liberals are putting money into health
care. It would be a pleasure to know that is happening, but the
benefits have not reached our communities.
I remember when I was campaigning in 1993 I promised that a
Reform government would take no money out of health care. Today
we are in a position where we will be putting money back into
health care and education to restore them and repair the damage
done by this Liberal government. Our cuts will be from the top.
There is lots of room at the top.
When the Liberal government came to power what was the first
thing I heard? ``Your friends are back'', the Prime Minister said to
the government departments, to the bureaucracy. They have been
well looked after.
10088
The member talks about the threat of a tax cut. That is not a
threat. That is a promise. It is a promise made to Canadians who
have been calling for a tax cut for years. All they have had is the
imposition of more and more tax increases to the point where we
are now looking at almost 80,000 Canadians who have gone
bankrupt in the past year.
That is the serious situation we are in. We have to look at
government. We have to priorize our spending. We have to make
the cuts from the top and provide leadership.
Talking about leadership, I am amazed that while Canadians are
having their Canada pension plan premiums increased and the
benefits over the years decreased, I have not heard this government
say anything about the gold plated MP pension plan. Nothing has
been said about that. There are no cuts there. Believe me, there are
no cuts there. They should be ashamed of that. There should be
leadership by example, not what we are seeing from the Liberals:
``Do what we say, not what we do''.
(1700)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member of the Reform Party promise tax
rebates and tax cuts. Well, good luck to him, considering the
credibility politicians acquired with the last red book.
They promised to scrap the GST, but more than three and a half
years later, the GST is still there, and even worse, they paid three
small maritime provinces $960 million to make the medicine go
down in one part of Canada where the GST will miraculously
change its name. Quite a feat, this name change. From now on, it
will be known as the HST, the harmonized sales tax. This means
that in New Brunswick, for instance, they blended the provincial
sales tax with the GST. They pay 15 per cent, which is added on to
the price, of course.
My point is that the government is acting like Robin Hood, but in
reverse. Instead of taking money from the rich to give to the poor, it
is taking money from the poor to give to the rich. For instance, at
Bombardier, where you have more than-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): My dear colleagues, I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to give the hon.
member for Cariboo-Chilcotin enough time to reply. We only
have a few seconds left.
[English]
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
conclude. I want to comment on the issue the member raised about
integrity of politicians.
It is an important issue and one of the reasons I got into politics.
It is backed up in the Reform Party by a guarantee that if we do not
do what we say, we will give the electors the opportunity and the
ability to fire the MP or those MPs. That is a guarantee the Liberals
would not understand. However it is one Canadians must have if
they are to hold their politicians accountable.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when we start
talking about budgets and finances a lot of people's eyes glaze over
in this place. I do not think it is the sort of thing Liberals like to
hear discussed. They have demonstrated in the last 3.5 years not a
lot of vision or planning for the 21st century as many of our young
people would like to see.
We see a group of Canadians, particularly young Canadians, who
have lost confidence in what government can deliver for them. I
cannot help but remember the faces of many young people with
whom I have spoken in universities across the country in just about
every province. Many of them were graduates of courses of varying
lengths and in various trades. They would ask: ``What about us?
What has the government really done for us in terms of prospects
going into the 21st century?''
We can touch on some of those things and some of the things we
hear as we travel the country. Just this past week we have been
asked how we got rid of the debt that was such a problem to us.
When we tell them the debt that was zero in 1969 went to $18
billion in 1972 and climbed through from 1972 to 1984 to about
$180 billion, they ask us how that was possible.
(1705)
We have to tell these young people that governments promised a
lot of things and Canadians accepted a lot of things. The question
we did not ask was what it would cost and from where they would
get the money. Had we asked that question we would have found
out that it was borrowed money and that we had many more
services than we could afford. Taxes increased and we got cradle to
grave services.
In 1983 a guy came along who said that it was terrible and that
we could not let it grow any more. In two consecutive elections we
put that person in. By the time we got to 1993 it was at $489 billion.
We went from $180 billion to $200 billion to $489 billion. Then we
decided to get rid of that person because another government said it
would rein in spending. Now we are at $600 billion.
Young people ask why they should trust politicians. Even more
sinister, the finance minister stood and said they had solved the
problem, that there was no financial problem any more. To prove
the point, in the past week close to $8 billion was spent on various
types of pre-election programs. How can it be helped? The
Canadian population, particularly young people, are asking what
these people are doing.
To go further, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $14 billion
federal is spent on advanced education. Depending on the figures
used, somewhere around $16 billion is spent on health care, $20
billion on pensions and close to $50 billion on interest payments.
Out of a budget of $109 billion, Liberals have the nerve to tell
10089
people there is no problem when they spend close to $50 billion on
interest payments in a year and get nothing for it.
What is threatening our social programs? Certainly not our party.
Not even the Liberals. Interest payments are threatening the
country. It will take a concerted effort by a government to turn that
around.
When we see the spending of $8 billion on vote buying in
elections or when we see the heritage minister having a two-hour
caviar party with around 100 people at a cost according to access to
information of $65,671, Canadians say the Liberals are out of
control and do not know what they are doing.
That is why people have lost confidence. That is why young
people have lost confidence. To go further with the young people
scenario, they ask about the Canada pension. Canada pension is in
trouble. They will not get anything if we do not fix the problem.
They will not do it all at once because they do not have the
courage. They will do it over six years. They will sneak up on
people. People will wonder why they do not have more money but
that they will not really know why it all happened. The Liberals
will be a little deceitful about it and make it happen over six years.
What are they promising young people? They are telling them
that if they earn $30,000 their premiums will be raised from a
maximum $845 up to $1,600 and some dollars maximum and that
their employers will match it. They will collect roughly $3,300
every year from young people and put it into a fund that will be
used for the people who are retiring now. When they are 65 years of
age they will be given $8,800.
(1710)
Is that a wonderful thing to do? If young people took the $3,300
and put it into their own annuity fund, they would get about
$26,000 and would have the principal, using a 6 per cent rate of
return.
Young people say the Liberals have blown it on the debt and on
the insurance plan. Why should they pay that kind of money? There
will be a generational rebellion down the road when young people
wake up to a 73 per cent increase in premiums that will be
dramatic. Some government will face it very soon. Certainly, if not
now, six years from now when it all kicks in.
What is even worse is that MPs have the nerve to collect a
pension that is four to five times better than what people get in
industry. That is not putting their money where their mouth is. It
says to young people that they do not care about them, that they do
not have a plan, that they do not raise taxes and rip them off, and
that they do not mind taking advantage of them because they know
best. They have a real problem with accountability. Politicians
should be accountable.
Let us examine taxes. We have heard from members on the other
side that it would be sinister to lower taxes and that they have to
keep raising them. The Liberals set a good example of raising
taxes. They threw a penny and a half on to the price of a litre of
gasoline and said that it was not a tax increase, that it would not
affect anyone because after all only rich people use cars. The
Liberals said that they would get rid of the GST before the election,
but when they were in power they forgot that promise.
They tax seniors. Recently I received hundreds of letters in
response to a questionnaire I sent out. I was shocked at how many
of them were from seniors with a gross income somewhere in the
range of $17,000 to $18,000. They are living in their own homes.
They are 75 years old. They are trying to make a living and stay in
their homes as long as they can. This year they are paying $1,100 in
federal income tax for the first time.
When I say to them the government needs that money, they say
they heard me talking about the caviar party, some of the other
waste in Ottawa. They say the other place has to be the best
example of waste, that everybody likes to talk about it, and they do
not know anybody who likes that place.
MP pensions is a hot issue. If our Liberal colleagues stand before
their constituents and say they deserve a pension four to five times
better than what any of they deserve, they have different
constituents from the ones I have. My constituents are quite happy
to pay me a pension equal to what I could get in industry, but they
sure are not happy to pay the kind of pension that MPs get.
(1715 )
I found it interesting that a member opposite said that lowering
taxes would hurt the economy. I spent some time in New Zealand
this past July. That country had an economic problem. In 1984 its
political parties got together to try to solve the problem. They
lowered taxes by close to 50 per cent. The economy in New
Zealand is booming. The unemployment rate is under 5 per cent.
New Zealanders are enthusiastic about their country. Its young
people have the choice of two or three jobs. If that kind of tax relief
does not send a message, then these people across the way have
their heads in the sand. They have no vision.
When young people hear figures like that they are shocked and
ashamed of what has happened. This country should be at the top of
the list instead of near the bottom in terms of the things offered to
young people and the tax relief that is offered.
The most meaningful thing that struck me in New Zealand was
when I read about how stamps had decreased in price three times
10090
in a year. Can you imagine that? If that is not an indication of what
lowering taxes will do, I do not know what is.
One of my colleagues mentioned privatization. New Zealand
privatized its television network and it is now very profitable. It
brings in a lot more money than it ever did before.
Lowering taxes is not a bad thing. Lowering taxes will provide a
vision. Taking money from a senior who earns $17,000 a year is not
helping the rich. The government is penalizing the poor. It is going
after the poor people. When it takes 1.5 cents off a litre of gasoline,
that punishes everyone.
What is the vision for the 21st century? Canadians know,
particularly young Canadians, that there is no vision. Look at the
justice system. How can people have confidence in the justice
system?
I come back again to the 300 or more young parents who I met in
a gymnasium. They said to me: ``Our justice system is not fair''.
Why is it not fair? A pedophile who had offended nine times had
just been released into a neighbourhood in our city. The reports
which were read to those young parents that night had a message.
The psychiatrist said: ``This person will definitely reoffend''. The
prison authorities said: ``We had to remove this person from the
treatment program because he was too violent''. The head of the
RCMP in our community said: ``We are really concerned about this
individual reoffending''.
I was very proud of those young parents. They were not
vigilantes. They did not ask for blood. They asked why the system
was failing them so badly.
Young people have lost confidence in this country. The
government is overspending. The increase in Canada pension plan
premiums is a terrible attack on young people.
(1720 )
The tax system continues to grind away and grab more and more.
The justice system does not deliver hope to innocent citizens. I ask
you, Mr. Speaker, when that 10th victim occurs how will I face that
young family and say: ``We knew that was going to happen and
now we can put that person away''. How will I answer that question
for that young person?
We can touch on the area of unity and of course again we see no
plan. Obviously Canada has changed an awful lot in the last 130
years. Where once we were two founding nations, French and
English, we are now a great mix of many nationalities with
one-third of us not being of either French English background. We
must have something better to tell our young people than the
solution to our unity problem is distinct society. We must have a
better answer than that.
Then other things come to mind, such as how women are treated
in the electoral process. Reformers would love to have 53 per cent
of our members female. That would represent the community but it
is difficult to achieve. However, when a party starts appointing
candidates that is just not acceptable.
In the riding in Victoria, for instance, Reform had three
candidates running for the nomination. There was a political
scientist, a businessman and a woman teacher. They worked very
hard and did what they had to do to try to win the nomination.
When Arla Taylor won that nomination she can now stand up and
say I won it because I was the very best. That is what our young
people are looking at. That is the kind of thing they want to say is a
vision for the future.
That bothers the people on the other side because they just
cannot accept equality. They cannot accept that everybody is equal.
They like special status for different groups.
Finally, we must have a vision for the 21st century. The Liberals
certainly do not have one.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a comment and then ask my colleague a question.
The biggest problem I have with the budget implementation act,
Bill C-93, is with the budgetary habits of the Liberal government
and the budget of the finance minister this last time around. I gave
him an F on the budget, not necessarily for what is in it and for the
numbers that are in it, but I gave him an F for what is not in the
budget. I gave him an F for the perception that he is creating by
distorting the strength of our economy.
He brags and assures Canadians that the back of the deficit is
broken with a projected $19 billion deficit which of course will be
down around $14 billion range. How can the back of the deficit be
broken when we are talking about $14 billion deficits? The finance
minister becomes inept because he brags about how the Liberals
have restored confidence to the Canadian economy and yet he takes
all the credit. Let us look at the factors that created the turnaround
in the Canadian economy in the last three and a half years.
(1725)
First was a worldwide drop in interest rates. Second, the drop in
those interest rates was as a direct result of the Bank of Canada's
monetary policy and the high interest rate policy during the
Conservative regime that tried to curb inflation. The Liberals
railed, ranted and ravaged the Conservative government and the
then governor of the Bank of Canada for their high interest rate
policy. It is because that governor was right and did the right thing
that Canada kept in pace and in tune with other world economies.
10091
Now the finance minister is bragging: ``We have brought
interest rates down to their lowest level in the last 30 years. We
have implemented such a wonderful budget that we now have the
lowest interest rates in 30 years. We deserve all the credit.
Canadians will put us back into power because of our sound fiscal
policies and this wonderful budgetary objective and restoring
confidence in the Canadian economy''.
An hon. member: We are going to trounce them.
Mr. Silye: In school I was taught that is called plagiarism. When
you copy someone else's written material and claim it as your own,
it is plagiarism.
The finance minister is the beneficiary of low interest rates. He
has allowed our huge debt to grow. However, he will not give credit
where credit is due. He is taking full credit.
For example, I will give a quote that I could use as mine: ``In
politics, perception is everything''. I could claim that is my quote
but I would be lying, it would not be true because that quote
belongs to none other than the Prime Minister of the country who is
more interested in creating perceptions and smoke and mirrors than
he is about the reality of life in Canada.
I gave the finance minister an F for another reason. He failed to
tell the Canadian public about the debt. It was mentioned once in
his budget speech. He talked for 60 minutes and he mentioned the
word debt once. He has added $111 billion to the debt. He says that
he has broken the back of the deficit and improved the economy
when the debt now is over $600 billion.
Should he be so lucky to be in the government the next time
around, I feel sorry for him when the debt grows to $650 million or
$700 million. Even with the low interest rate policy he is going to
have a hard time making ends meet and paying for the
departmental programs in place now.
What if interest rates go higher than 5 per cent, 6 per cent or7 per cent? What if they go back to 9 per cent? I am very afraid of
that.
I heard members opposite during my intervention asking what
we would have added to the debt. We would have added $45 billion
to the debt as opposed to $111 billion. We would have balanced the
budget in three years from when we took office. We would have a
surplus this year ending 1997.
I am sorry, I talked right through my time. I do want to ask the
member to make one more comment on the vision of the
government. Why does he really think it has a vision when the
Prime Minister and the justice minister say: ``We will handle the
problems one at a time''.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of
vision, we have had a lot of examples of why there is no vision. I
tried to focus on young people. I enjoy working with young people.
I probably enjoy that more than anything else I do in this job. They
are saying that there is no vision. In fact, they are saying worse.
They are asking: ``Is democracy really working?'' They are asking
a much more serious question than just about partisan politics.
They are asking about democracy. I think that is critical. Some
countries like the U.S. have sometimes as low as a 30 per cent turn
out. That is saying a lot about what the people are seeing in
government.
(1730)
Fortunately in Canada we do not get down that low. Hopefully
we can do things that will cause higher percentages. Australia has
taken one approach to that by fining people who do not vote. I do
not really think that is the answer.
We have to involve people in this vision. The real concern is with
that debt. As the hon. member said, they do not have a plan for it. It
is gone. Just think of the opportunity that has been wasted. With
low interest rates and with inflation so low, what a great
opportunity it would have been if they had had a vision to deal with
this problem, to cut some of these Kodak tours, some of the caviar
parties and some of the on top benefits that are around this place.
There are so many people who do not have the vision. To stand
up in this House and say that this government controls interest rates
and controls inflation, it does not.
I am afraid there is good reason for people to be very sceptical
and dubious about where this government is going. They do not see
that there is a plan. They are asking what happens when interest
rates rise, when inflation returns, when the normal economic cycles
take their course. What will this government do?
The government has been unable to deal with pensions, with
unemployment, with health care, with education. If it has not been
able to deal with those in the good times, what will it possibly be
able to do in the tougher times when it is lacking vision?
Raising taxes is the answer that the Liberals possibly will
choose, but I think Canadians have had it with that. They will have
the opportunity to speak soon.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what would be the consequence in my colleague's opinion of
interest rates rising 2 per cent on the present debt repayment
program of the government?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, the answer to that would be
a minimum of $10 billion in increased debt. As that goes up our
ability to service it becomes less and less. Again, that is the big
problem that will hang over us along with the other problems
Canadians will face in the 21st century.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what the
hon. member for Red Deer referred to earlier, he is absolutely right.
This government has missed the problem. It has identified the
wrong problem.
10092
The government has taken the low bar on the high jump and
said deficit is the problem. ``We will solve that. What we will do
is we will promise Canadians to spend less than the Conservatives
did. We promise Canadians that we will bring in a lower deficit
than the Conservatives did and that will solve our problem''. I
submit that did not solve the problem. It only adds to the problem.
I know this bill will be voted on at the end of the day. This is
probably my last chance to speak on a monetary bill. I do not know
if there is anything else on the agenda this week. The one thing I
would like to leave with the Liberal Party and with Canadians
across the country is I would like to remind them that it is a noble
effort and it is worthwhile and it is a necessity to lower our deficit
and we have to get to a surplus.
To the degree that this government has lowered the deficit, I
compliment it. It is the right direction to go.
The degree to which it brags and overexaggerates the benefits
that we have achieved to date is a disservice to the Canadian public.
(1735 )
What I am really concerned about as a Canadian is that the
finance minister, because the global economy and global markets
have improved over the last four years, has missed the opportunity
to make the cuts sooner in the other areas he has avoided. They
dilly-dallied for a whole year before actually making cuts. The first
budget was all talk. He then lobbied with his cabinet and colleagues
and did a good job in getting them to agree to some cuts. They took
some of our ideas from the zero in three, the ones they thought they
could sell. That is smart. If you see a good idea just steal it, take it
and take credit for it. That is fine as long as it is good for all of
Canada.
They went too far on the cuts in social transfer. They put it all
together. In health, education and welfare they cut $7.5 billion,
which is way too much. Provinces are having trouble. Hospitals are
having trouble. Everybody is concerned about this issue. It has
been an issue in Alberta where a lot of angry people have had to be
addressed concerning the closures of certain hospitals, especially
in downtown Calgary. I am very familiar with the issue there and
which hospitals were closed. That is from a regime that did not
promise any tax cuts or give any tax cuts. It just promised to
balance the budget over x period of time. This issue is important.
In our zero in three budget we would have only cut $3.5 billion
from health care, education and welfare. This is clearly $4.5 billion
less than the Liberal government did.
The reason I accuse the Liberals of downloading on the
provinces is they made their cuts in social transfers to provinces
rather than cuts to to their own departments, notwithstanding the
promise of the finance minister that we will sacrifice as well in
order to justify this. If Canadians would accept the government's
$7.5 billion cut to the Canadian health and social transfer, it would
cut 18.8 per cent from departmental spending amounting to $9.4
billion. To date, it is only at 4.2 or 4.5 per cent. It assures us that it
will get there but it has now changed the rules on how it will get
there. It is not quoting $9 billion any more. It is not quoting a final
number any more.
What the government is saying is that it will reach its 18.8 per
cent cuts in program spending but it will redefine what program
spending is and then move a whole bunch of spending off balance
sheet accounting. It is now going to say it has met its 18.8 per cent.
Pretty soon we might find in a year that it is $5.6 billion or another
billion dollars, because I know it is projected and I know what will
happen, but $5.5 billion will now represent 18.8 per cent and once
again it will brag about how it has met its targets and objectives.
My biggest problem with what the Liberals have done is that
they will go to the public after they call an election and ask and
seek for a vote of confidence to stay the course and support a
pan-Canadian view of this country where we have to give
inducements to three provinces to buy into a harmonized sales tax
at a cost of a billion dollars to the rest of the country. That is not
even revenue neutral. It means that the finance minister had to dip
into the current account to pay for that. The Liberals are going to
ask for a vote of confidence without telling the Canadian public
what they will do if they ever balance the budget.
What will they do? We say we should balance the budget and the
sooner the better. Our party makes a firm commitment date as to
when we would do that. We say that we would cut. Where we
would cut more than the Liberals of course is in direct subsidies to
businesses because we feel that distorts the marketplace. There is
another $2 billion to $3 billion there.
In my opinion, if the minister had done that he could have really
been looking at a balanced budget a lot sooner.
We say a tax cut after we balance the budget and after we have
created a surplus. We take that money, apply some of it to the debt
and some to lower taxes for all Canadians, not just the rich
Canadians they accuse us of. Everybody's personal and spousal
exemptions would rise to $7,900. That helps everybody. That is
what we would do with a surplus. We would then lower the cost of
government and lower the overhead. We do not need 300 MPs in
this House. I think the majority of MPs would agree with me on
that on a non-partisan basis. Why are we increasing it by six?
(1740 )
The Prime Minister has said in his broken English and broken
French, the same way in both languages, that maybe we spend,
maybe we do not spend and maybe we will have more money. As
10093
soon as we hit a balanced budget are they going to go back to
increasing spending on different programs? Are they going to
continue to create that dependency on a big federal government so
big government will look after everybody? Then we will just add to
that debt.
Somebody has to address the fact and the reality that sooner or
later, I do not care how small it is, whether it is a $1 billion
payment, this government or any government will have to make a
repayment on that debt. In our personal lives we cannot go on
forever and ever increasing our debt without making a payment on
it. It is fine to reduce your interest cost, your deficit, but we cannot
continually go on adding to our debt. Sooner or later the bank calls
us on our loan. Sooner or later it takes away our car if we do not
make a payment.
Somehow or other government politicians and the
bureaucracy-I do not think it helps sometimes-seem to think
that the public purse is somehow different. The debt is $600 billion
but they think the only problem to solve to get to a balanced budget
is the deficit. They think that will solve the problems of everybody.
That debt has to be addressed.
A prudent government and a prudent finance minister would
have pushed harder and talked about the debt as a percentage of the
gross domestic product. They would have talked about how we are
going to repay it over 30 years, or at least some of it. We do not
have repay the whole $600 billion but we should be making a $1
billion or $2 billion principal repayment at least every term of
government. I agree that the repayment should be over the long
term, that we should bind government to no more deficit spending
except under extreme circumstances or emergencies.
The difference between the United States and Canada is gross
taxation levels. High taxes kill jobs. Lower taxes will create jobs.
The proof is that in the United States total state and federal taxation
amounts to 27 per cent of the gross domestic product. The total
value of the goods and services the Americans generate is taxed at a
level of 27 per cent for individuals and corporations. In Canada
taxation at all levels represents 35 per cent of our gross domestic
product. The U.S. unemployment rate is 5 per cent and our
unemployment rate is close to double that. The United States has
lower taxes, more people employed and a larger population than we
have. It must be doing something right. I maintain it is in the field
of taxation. Therein lies the problem.
If we could ever give tax cuts we would go a long way to solve
our economic problems and to improve our economic situation. We
have to create less dependency on a big federal government. If we
want to do that we have to give more disposable income back to the
people so they can look after themselves. There will be less need
for people to look to welfare programs and unemployment
programs. I do not want to talk about unemployment because I will
get off topic with that slush fund he has cooking, taxing us to the
tune of $7 billion which is in that EI fund already. That is a
generous surplus. I agree the fund should theoretically contain that
surplus, but it is not really a surplus. If he is so far ahead of his
deficit target, that is one small selective tax cut he could make. He
may do it.
I know a lot of economists make representations to the finance
minister, and he does listen, of course only if it is politically
convenient to do so. He may do it at some point during the election
campaign after the Liberals receive enough heat and they get
enough criticism from the general public about their arrogance and
how they brag about how well things are. The Liberals may receive
heat about keeping half the truth from the Canadian public, the
truth about the debt, the truth about the rising interest costs. Even
though interest rates are low, the sum total of what this government
is now paying in interest has gone from $30 billion to $50 billion.
Is nobody worried about that? Is nobody worried about a $650
billion debt, notwithstanding the interest rate? Is nobody worried
about how much money we are going to have to pay? That will be
the single biggest cost to any future federal government. That is
scary and that is after spending is reduced.
(1745)
I submit there is room for another $10 billion worth of cuts the
Liberals have not touched. Some government will or through
attrition we will get down to that lower level of spending. After we
get there the federal government will be able to provide the
services Canadians want. It will take us two or three years to get
there but it will be done.
Interest costs will rise if the Liberals continue to add to the debt.
They will brag. They will say: ``Vote for us. Give us a vote of
confidence because we will have a balanced budget in two years''.
I am worried about what they will do with the surplus. Will they
ignore the debt and increase spending? Will they say they have
taken enough flack from the Reform Party on health care and
increase spending on health care by $1 billion? If they feel they
have taken enough flack from the Reform Party in an area will they
increase spending there? Will they say the foundation for
innovation is so great that they will double its budget? Will they
say regional development is doing good they will triple its budget?
Will they ignore the debt?
We cannot ignore the debt. It is the single biggest problem facing
the country along with the interest cost that services it. It has to be
addressed.
I must be a voice in the wilderness. I am the only person who
talks about the debt and high interest costs. No government
member talks about them. The finance minister mentioned debt
once in his 60-minute speech. We do not talk about it. He brags
about everything else in his economic statement. An economic
10094
statement should fairly and accurately represent the economic
status of the country at any given time.
The minister dwells on the positives. That is misleading. He gets
an f from me for not talking about the other side of the story, the
debt. While the deficit has decreased how much have interest costs
gone up? That is an important component.
Yes, we are a rich country. Yes, we can sustain a high level of
debt. Yes, people will continue to lend us money. However, we are
40 per cent indebted to foreign countries.
The finance minister and the Prime Minister can brag about not
borrowing any more and about the decrease in borrowing
requirements. The foreign borrowing or borrowing requirements of
the government have decreased from $32 billion to $14 billion.
That is tremendous. That is a plus. That is good. We all want that.
It could have been twice as good as that. We could have got there
twice as fast if the cuts I am talking about were made at the time I
am talking about. They should not have wasted time. They should
have lived up to their commitment to cut $9 billion from
departmental spending.
The Liberals wasted two years. They failed to act for two years.
They did not make the cuts, even the cuts they said they would
make. The President of the Treasury Board got all the other
ministers to agree to doing it to justify the $7.5 billion. That has
now been done. I would defend the $7.5 billion, but I would do so
by ensuring that departments lived up to their commitment, which
was to cut $9 billion. That has not happened.
They will come in with a $14 billion to $15 billion deficit. We
must consider the two years of inactivity. If they had made those
cuts during those two years they could brag about a balanced
budget. The election would be about what they do next. Do they
address the debt or do they talk about spending on new programs or
increase spending on programs?
If the Prime Minister and the finance minister come up with a
sequel to their red book they had better address those things. What
will they do when there is a surplus? A surplus is coming. Spending
has been frozen. Certain departments have been told to cut back.
There will be a surplus. It will take them a year or a year and a half
longer than it would take us.
Nevertheless historians and economists will be able to go back
and refit the numbers to see what would have happened if they
acted here or there.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, time has run out.
Pursuant to the order made Monday, April 21, all questions
necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-93 will
now be put to a vote without debate or amendment.
(1750)
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 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.
(1820)
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 329)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Easter
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
10095
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed-109
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Daviault
de Savoye
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Johnston
Kerpan
Laurin
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)-51
PAIRED MEMBERS
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Bertrand
Brien
Campbell
Cauchon
Clancy
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Irwin
Jacob
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manley
Massé
Ménard
O'Reilly
Torsney
Venne
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-37, an act to
implement an agreement between Canada and the Russian
Federation, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
South Africa, an agreement between Canada and the United
Republic of Tanzania, an agreement between Canada and the
Republic of India and a convention between Canada and Ukraine,
for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal
evasion with respect to taxes on income, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made Monday,
April 21, 1997 all the questions necessary to dispose of the report
stage and third reading stage of Bill C-37 shall now be put without
further debate or amendment.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, which is the concurrence at report stage of
Bill C-37 and also third reading of the main motion of Bill C-37,
with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote in
favour of this.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote yes on
these two motions.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of the
motion.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that the
bill be concurred in.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 330)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
10096
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Easter
English
Epp
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hopkins
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Zed-160
NAYS
Members
Nil/aucun
PAIRED MEMBERS
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Bertrand
Brien
Campbell
Cauchon
Clancy
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Irwin
Jacob
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manley
Massé
Ménard
O'Reilly
Torsney
Venne
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) moved that the bill be read the
third time and passed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 330.]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to say had I
been in my place, I would have voted with my party.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House moved to consideration of Bill C-39, An Act
respecting the York Factory First Nation and the settlement of
matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of land,
as reported (with an amendment) from a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made Monday, April
21, all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill
C-39 shall now be put without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, that
is to say, Bill C-39 at the report and third reading stages, with
Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, we give our consent and the Bloc
Quebecois members vote yea.
The Deputy Speaker: An excellent point. Is there unanimous
consent for proceeding in this manner?
Some hon. members: Yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote
yes on this.
10097
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on these two
motions.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of the
motions.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 331)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Easter
English
Epp
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hopkins
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Zed-161
NAYS
Members
Nil/aucun
PAIRED MEMBERS
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Bertrand
Brien
Campbell
Cauchon
Clancy
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Irwin
Jacob
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manley
Massé
Ménard
O'Reilly
Torsney
Venne
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Irwin moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 331.]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration Bill C-40, an act
respecting the Nelson House First Nation and the settlement of
matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of land,
as reported (with an amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made Monday,
April 21, 1997 all the questions necessary to dispose of the report
stage and third reading stage of Bill C-40 shall now be put without
further debate or amendment.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, again, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
10098
House, that is to say, Bill C-40 at the report and third reading
stages, with Liberal members voting yea.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for this
procedure?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1825)
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote yes.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of the
motion.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 331.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Irwin moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 331.]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-75, an act to provide for the
ratification and bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement
on First Nation Land Management, be read the second time and
passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order adopted Monday, April
21, all questions required for the disposal of the second reading
stage of Bill C-75 will now be put, without further debate or
amendment.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: We agree, Mr. Speaker. Members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present have to
vote no on this.
Mr. Blaikie: New Democrats vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yea on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 332)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Easter
English
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Laurin
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
10099
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed -137
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Chatters
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Johnston
Kerpan
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)-24
PAIRED MEMBERS
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Bertrand
Brien
Campbell
Cauchon
Clancy
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Irwin
Jacob
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manley
Massé
Ménard
O'Reilly
Torsney
Venne
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business.
_____________________________________________
10099
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.) moved the
second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the
Senate to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcast Act (broadcast
policy).
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been debated in the
House and studied by the heritage committee. It has been debated
in the other place and studied by its committee. If members of the
opposition really believe in democracy they are going to allow it to
go to a vote. If they care to represent interests greater than Quebec,
they will allow it to go to a vote. If they care about seniors,
families and people who are struggling to get by they will let it go
to a vote.
I would like to suggest that the time has come to end this debate
now and let us get it to a vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remind the House that this bill, standing in the name
of the hon. member for Sarnia, was basically well intentioned.
As far as protecting the consumer is concerned, we have always
said in this House that one of the objectives of this bill was to
prevent negative option billing, in other words, the consumer
should be able to decide whether he wants certain specialty
channels provided by cable distributors.
However, although the hon. member brings up the issue of
democracy, and I will do so as well, although he argues that we
want to protect the interests of consumers and our fellow citizens in
Quebec and in Canada, I remind him of what I said in my
comments on March 27, 1996, and September 16, 1996, which
included arguments that have gained in strength since the bill was
considered by the Senate. Many organizations and experts told the
Senate that this bill went beyond its original purpose and that in
fact it would have a negative impact on the public.
I will outline the sequence of events. If I could speak to them
directly, I would ask all members who wish to talk to do so outside
so I can make myself clear-
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the hon. members who are
having conversations in various parts of the room if they would
please move them. It is much more comfortable in the lobby with
coffee, juice and everything else.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, thank you for
your co-operation, and I want to thank my colleagues for giving me
a chance to explain why we should vote against this bill.
The purpose of Bill C-216 is to prohibit cable distributors from
providing an optional service without the consent of the subscriber.
It is intended to prevent negative option billing. This is a marketing
technique that puts the onus on the consumer to indicate that he
does not want the service.
For instance, when a consumer is offered specialty channels, he
is offered them as a service by the cable company, which tells him
that if a month from now he is no longer interested, he should give
them a call and they will remove the service. So the onus is on the
consumer to accept or refuse the offer, and if he does neither, the
10100
cable distributor providing the service bills the consumer. This is
called negative option billing.
The bill provides for two exceptions. First, if the new service is
substituted for an existing service with no increase in the amount
billed, and second, if no distinct separate charge is levied for that
service. The Senate, when it considered this bill, proposed an
amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to give the CRTC the power it
already had and did not wish to use, which is to allow negative
option billing in the case of specialty channels. The CRTC already
had that power, and an amendment was proposed to confirm that it
had the power and should use it.
I may recall that this bill came on the heels of a revolt among
consumers in English Canada. It started in the Vancouver area
where there was an outcry in 1995 when a new package of services
was introduced by Rogers Communications. In January 1995, six
new English specialty channels came on the air, as authorized by
the CRTC. Rogers Communications took advantage of this
opportunity to change the packages it offered to consumers and, in
the process, subscribers lost some of the channels they liked.
(1835)
They were going to have to pay extra to have them again. The
subscribers also had to tell the cable company they did not want to
take the new channels. This is called negative option billing.
Consumers in the west were penalized by the fact that Rogers
insisted on adding new channels, as a marketing strategy, and the
channels consumers enjoyed were withdrawn. Consumers had to
pay extra to get them. This obviously drew a loud outcry from
western consumers and from consumers in the Toronto area.
What was happening in Quebec at the time? Vidéotron was not
offering a tiered service. It simply added new specialty services to
its basic service at no extra cost. COGECO and CF Cable reached
an agreement with the office of consumer protection after
demonstrating the importance of the billing. This is one way of
achieving desired penetration, that is, selling the product to enough
subscribers to make it cost effective. In Quebec, because the
market is so small, 85 per cent penetration is necessary. In other
words, 85 per cent of customers must subscribe to cable for it to be
cost effective.
Why did the office give its approval and allow the billing, as
long as flexible arrangements were in place for consumers who did
not understand their obligation to cancel their subscription and
avoid being penalized? Simply because, in Quebec, legislation
prohibits negative option billing. The same legislation may be
found in two other provinces. Billing is a matter of provincial
jurisdiction. Product availability and client invoicing are provincial
matters. This is why cable companies in Quebec agreed with the
consumer association-they wanted to obey the law-and why
COGECO did not ask its customers for a cent. This was not the case
in the west.
I should add there were no optional services in Quebec at the
time, and they did not arrive on the market until 1995.
So some of my colleagues and I are going to take this hour to
explain in detail how this whole practice of negative option billing
must be opposed and how there must also be respect for the fact
that it comes under provincial jurisdiction.
Second, it must also be said that, if passed, the bill will have the
effect of preventing any new French language specialty services
from broadcasting in Quebec or in French Canada.
My colleagues will back this up and show how this bill has an
impact on all francophone communities in Canada, and especially
in Quebec.
Finally, they will also show how many organizations, how many
specialists have demonstrated here in the House, before the
committee and in the Senate that the scope of this bill is
unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, as you are indicating to me that I have only two
minutes left, I would like to move an amendment to this bill. I
move, seconded by the member for Drummond:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That'' and
substituting the following:
A message be sent to the Senate to inform their Honours that this House rejects the
amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Broadcasting
Act (broadcasting policy), because, in the opinion of this House, it does not bring the
Bill into conformity with the objectives of the Broadcasting Act with regard to
French-language services.
(1840)
That, Mr. Speaker, is the amendment I wished to move, and I
will invite my colleagues to continue the debate by pointing out
how many experts have opposed the bill, beginning obviously with
Quebec's Minister of Cultural Affairs, Louise Beaudoin, who
spoke out strongly against it, raising the important issues of
distribution and dissemination of cable services for francophones,
particularly in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, if you will approve this amendment, I will move it.
My colleagues will continue, in this debate, to show, argument by
argument, that this bill should be rejected, because it poses a threat
to all francophones in Canada, including Acadian francophones
and francophones in Quebec.
The Deputy Chairman: The amendment moved is in order. The
debate is now on the amendment.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise, perhaps for the last time in this 35th Parliament, to
participate in this debate on Bill C-216. Perhaps this bill will show
all that the Bloc Quebecois has done to defend not only the
10101
interests of Quebec and francophone minorities but also,
throughout this 35th Parliament, our language and culture, in the
interests of Quebecers and every francophone community across
Canada as well.
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit negative option billing by
broadcasters, that is to say cable distributors, a practice that leaves
it up to consumers to specify whether or not they want to keep the
service for which they are billed by the company.
This basic principle contained in the bill, which looks
commendable at first glance, appears to be in the best interests of
consumers, but it does not necessarily benefit everyone. I do not
question the motives of the hon. member who presented the bill,
but I think it does not succeed in giving full privileges to every
francophone community in Quebec and across Canada.
(1845)
First, this bill tells us that the first problem is that the marketing
operations of any federal agency come under provincial
jurisdiction. The bill introduced in this House meddles in
jurisdictions already assigned to the provinces.
Throughout this Parliament, we have repeatedly condemned all
these encroachments on provincial jurisdictions and overlapping
jurisdictions. The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that this bill
interferes directly with provincial jurisdictions. Let us bear in mind
that any federal agency that has a commercial component falls
under exclusive provincial jurisdictions.
Second, in its proposed form, the bill would have the effect of
making it more difficult to provide French language services in
those communities where such services are provided, including in
the French speaking communities outside Quebec and in that
province.
Third, this bill is not at all in line with the structure of the cable
industry. The Bloc Quebecois opposed this bill primarily because it
is a blatant case of interfering in a provincial jurisdiction, but also
because it will be very hard to offer new services in French
anywhere, since the bill provides that, in order for a company to
provide a new service, it must get the approval of all its customers.
This is difficult to understand.
I would like to quote the Hon. Francis Fox who, when he
presented his submission to the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications, on April 8, 1997, looked at the
measures taken since the eighties to protect French culture in
Canada. Mr. Fox stated that Bill C-216 goes against these
measures, and that the person who drafted this legislation has no
idea of the specificity of the French culture.
Allow me to quote a few excerpts from the Mr. Fox's
submission. He said: ``I deeply believe that this bill, in its present
form, would have harmful and destructive effects, not only for
affected companies, but for the French component of our
broadcasting system''.
Mr. Fox also said this: ``In its present form, this bill will either
not allow new French language services to get started, or will
prevent them from doing so at a reasonable price, thus depriving
francophones in this country from having access, in their
language-something which is definitely feasible-to
programming services offering a greater variety and a greater
wealth of information''.
Here is another excerpt: ``This bill totally overlooks the
francophone issue, whether in Quebec, in New Brunswick, or in
Manitoba. Extending new French language services becomes an
utopia''.
This is why we must take an in-depth look at the possible
consequences of all the measures introduced in this House.
Passing this bill would again create federal interference in an
area under provincial jurisdiction. It is important to note that the
billing of a cable service is a commercial transaction between a
consumer and a vendor, and that such transactions clearly come
under provincial jurisdiction.
(1850)
In other words, even if a body such as the CRTC has the
authority to licence broadcasting companies, in Quebec it is the
Government of Quebec which has the required jurisdiction to
regulate relations between companies and their consumers.
A second reason, as I have already stated, not to support Bill
C-216 is that it would prevent any new French-language service
from seeing the light of day, while at the same time seriously
jeopardizing the ones already in existence. The explanation for this
phenomenon is very simple. A specialty channel is aimed at a
specific segment of the public: Canal D, RDS, RDI and the Family
Channel, for example, are not all aimed at the same audience. Since
all channels are not met with the same interest in the general
public, the cable companies take advantage of certain channels'
large audiences, and therefore their cost-effectiveness, to maintain
others which generally are less profitable, since they have only a
limited audience.
If people, especially those in English Canada, select all the
channels they want to receive, obviously the French language
channels will no longer be in demand and will no longer have the
necessary cost-effectiveness to ensure their survival. So, once
again, here we are in a vicious circle: fewer francophones, fewer
services; fewer services, fewer francophones.
It is clear, particularly in Ontario and the West, that the absence
of rules has led to certain distributors' going too far. This proved to
be a disastrous experiment and the consumers were up in arms. Yet,
with good faith and a healthy helping of common sense, it is
possible for the cable companies to do effective marketing, while
10102
complying with the law and respecting the fundamental rights of
consumers.
So, in order to avoid the negative and pointless impact on the
development of French language television in Canada and in
Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois is obliged to vote against Bill C-216.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Debate is on the amendment and the hon.
member for Sarnia-Lambton is entitled to speak to the
amendment.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is an interesting turn of events or an interesting development
when we consider that we are hearing from members of the group
who talk about democracy in Canada and their respect for
democracy.
They have now proposed an amendment that would send the bill
back. They reject it. They purport, allege and suggest they are
speaking for francophones both inside and outside the province of
Quebec. They are failing to tell Canadians who are watching and
Canadians in the gallery today that the federation of francophones
outside Quebec endorse the bill. They are failing to tell Canadians
that cable company distributors in Quebec endorse the bill. They
are purporting to protect Canadians when in fact they are not.
They are telling the people in Quebec that they must accept
channels they do not want. They are telling the seniors in Quebec
they must accept the cartoon channel and the MuchMusic channel,
notwithstanding the amendment made by the Senate that was
sensitive to the needs of Quebec and notwithstanding that the
amendment was put forth by interest groups from Quebec. That is
not enough for the members opposite. They want more. They have
not had enough.
In the end they are trying to frustrate the rules of this place by
killing a bill. They do not want it to go to a vote. They would rather
talk it out and allow it to die here.
Notwithstanding the fact that we sometimes say in this place that
the opposition speaks for all Canadians, they are taking a very
narrow and might I suggest a very selfish view of the issue.
On this topic they are saying they will only speak for people
inside the province of Quebec and to heck with all those people
outside the province of Quebec. In effect they are saying to heck
with all other people inside the province of Quebec. The Bloc says
it knows what is best for them. They are saying they will reject it
and will send it back to the Senate. They have no interest in
consumers. They have no interest in seniors. They have no interest
in families. They have no interest in the people who are living on
very limited incomes.
(1855)
Notwithstanding that the witnesses who appeared before the
heritage committee and the witnesses who appeared before the
committee of the other place do not agree with them, they are
saying they know more than they do.
Under the circumstances I suggest they do not know more. They
are capitulating to a couple of very special interest groups. They
will argue about technical capabilities. They will argue about the
single tier in Quebec. They will make all sorts of weird, wondrous
and spurious arguments.
They are not willing to protect consumers, whether the
consumers are in the province of Quebec or in British Columbia or
Nova Scotia. They are willing to hang them out to dry. They have a
very unique interpretation of the law which, by the way, does not
coincide with what was said by any of the witnesses. It flies in the
face of all the evidence. It flies in the face of everything said before
both committees. Yet the Bloc happens to know more.
On that basis, I urge members to reject the Bloc amendment. Let
us get on with the vote.
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Lib. Dem.): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in support
of a very important piece of legislation which is of concern to every
hard working Canadian including those living in Quebec.
I am speaking against the amendment because for too long
Canadian pocketbooks have been gouged by big businesses
whether they are major banks with exorbitant credit card rates, gas
companies that have monopolized the market or, in the case of the
legislation, cable companies that have been allowed to blatantly rip
off honest, hard working Canadians.
We must not allow it to continue. It is our duty to ensure that all
Canadians have the right to decide whether or not they want a
product at a fair price. It is imperative that the government and the
House do everything in their power to ensure all Canadians are
treated fairly.
Bill C-216 is legislation aimed at eliminating negative option
billing by cable companies. Some two years ago cable companies
decided simply to add new specialty channels to all subscribers and
then tried to charge the customers for this new service without even
asking if they wanted it.
We are aware of the consumer revolt that ensued in which I
played a part. As a result of the tireless efforts of my colleague
from Sarnia-Lambton we have the opportunity today to enact into
law what Canadian consumers have overwhelmingly supported. As
10103
parliamentarians we have an opportunity to vote in support of what
Canadians want over what lobbies representing special interest
groups want.
It is time to put the issue to a vote. It is a victory of the consumer.
Let the voice of the consumers be heard through the legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to have the opportunity to speak this evening to this bill and to
correct the misinformation conveyed by the member for
Sarnia-Lambton.
In cable broadcasting, the francophone context is entirely
different from the anglophone one. Despite what our colleague
from Sarnia-Lambton said earlier, no doubt in the belief he was
speaking accurately, it is wrong to claim that cable companies in
Quebec agree with his bill. Quite the opposite.
(1900)
Paul-Émile Beaulne, a vice-president of Radiomutuel, told the
press on September 25, 1996 that it threatened the survival of
specialty francophone services. He knows what he is talking about.
He is right, and, unfortunately, the member for Sarnia-Lambton
seems to be unaware of these remarks by an important player in the
cable industry.
Earlier, our colleague from Sarnia-Lambton also intimated that
francophone and Acadian communities supported his bill. I have in
my hand a letter signed by Jacques Michaud on June 20, 1996
stating the very opposite. I would therefore be pleased to show
these documents to our hon. colleague to correct his view of things.
I would also like to mention what the Association des
consommateurs du Québec had to say.
[English]
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like
you to consider Standing Order 11, specifically section (2).
We are hearing debates being brought forward from when this
was before the House at third reading, such as references to letters
written on June 30, 1996. I would like to remind members that we
are not debating jurisdictional items, which have already been
debated, but are in fact debating the amendment as proposed by the
Senate and the amendment as proposed by the opposition party.
He is referring to-
The Deputy Speaker: I understand the point made by the hon.
member on the question of relevance. In a technical sense we often
have a great deal of debate in the House which does not, at least to
this Speaker's eyes and ears, seem to be terribly relevant. However,
I am sure the hon. member for Portneuf will make his comments
relevant to the amendment for the duration of his speech.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your perspicacity. You
realize I was repeating what the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton
just said about the amendment.
Since certain claims were made about the position of certain
associations or cable distributors, I assume he realizes that we must
get back to the position taken by these people. We will be very
close to what happened a few days ago, because we know that the
bill before us has come back with an amendment from the other
place.
So what happened in the other place on April 8, 1997? As you
know, the amendment proposes to reject the amendment from the
other place. So what happened? I could not be more relevant.
Well, the Association des consommateurs du Québec-and I was
about to say this when I was interrupted by a point of order-the
association submitted a brief on the bill. In its brief, it rejected
claims that the bill will be beneficial to Quebec consumers and to
the French speaking public in Canada as a whole.
Always with reference to what we received from the other place,
I would like to repeat certain comments that were made in one of
their committees, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and
Communications. The comments were made by the Hon. Francis
Fox. You will recall that not so long ago, Mr. Fox was the Liberal
Minister of Communications, and so you could hardly call him a
member of the Bloc or a sovereignist. We can assume that these
comments are representative of the beliefs of a staunch Liberal.
He said that what is at stake is a long list of concerted efforts by
successive Canadian and Quebec governments to provide for the
development of a French audiovisual resource offering a wide
variety of quality programming. Supporters of Bill C-216, and he
did not doubt they were well intentioned-and I have no doubt
about that either-were in fact undermining all these efforts to
which they seem to be oblivious.
(1905)
I might also add that, in this case again, I am in agreement with
what Mr. Fox said. He goes on to say, and this is particularly
interesting, that the bill should be amended and he lists a number of
reasons for doing so. First, this enactment flies in the face of all
that has been done in the past 15 years. It does not have its place in
the main section of the Broadcasting Act, which reflects a positive
view of what our system should be. It changes the rules set after
careful consideration by the designated authority: the CRTC. It
changes the rules ex post facto between licensing and connection,
ignoring the most basic rules of natural justice.
10104
Mr. Fox adds that nowhere in the bill is the francophone issue,
be it in Quebec, New Brunswick or Manitoba, taken into account,
making any plans for new French language services an impossible
dream.
He then refers to production and creation, saying that all the
commitments made to the CRTC will disappear, whene CRTC
decisions were contributing to consolidate state of the art
technology in Montreal, for instance, production companies, which
are of source of pride to the industry and which owe at least part of
their success to this control: Coscient, CINAR, Les Productions La
Fête, Softimage, Prima Film, SDA, Malofilm, and so on.
We are talking about a independent producers market worth
$350 million. When Mr. Fox makes such comments and the Bloc
Quebecois takes the position it has taken, it is to defend the
interests of Quebec and those of the Canadian francophone
community. For our hon. colleague to feel that we are acting
against the wishes of consumers, this can only be explained by his
taking an anglophone view to the issue. If I were an anglophone
from another province, like our colleague from
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville, I would probably jump up
and say: ``Come on, let us pass this legislation''. But I would do so
because I do not know what the situation of our francophone
population really is with respect to cable distribution.
I want our colleagues in this House to understand that the Bloc's
position is not intended to affect anglophone consumers in any
way. At the time, at second reading, I urged the hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton to amend his bill, so that it would only apply to
cable services provided in English. Had he done so, I would have
been pleased to support his bill. In fact, I have here with me the
transcript of the comments I made at the time, on September 16,
1996, but I will not go back to them, because I could be ruled out of
order for quoting such antiquated excerpts.
I will say it again. Had the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton
had the foresight to restrict the scope of his bill to
English-language cable services, there would be unanimity in this
House. But the member tried, like many others before him, to get
involved in Quebec's affairs. Of course, if we had achieved
sovereignty, neither we nor the hon. member would have to deal
with this issue. But Quebec is not yet a sovereign nation. It is still
part of the Canadian federation and, on behalf of my fellow
Quebecers and francophones from across Canada, I must say no to
this bill.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to speak to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.
When we speak of broadcasting, we speak of culture and of
heritage and that led my colleague, the member for
Richmond-Wolfe, to comment on bills such as this.
This is probably one of the last times I will speak in the House
during this Parliament, and I want to say that one of the things that
have hurt my feelings the most is the way heritage and culture are
dealt with here.
(1910)
Only this afternoon, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage if
it was normal to require individuals applying for a job with
Heritage Canada to hand in a 250 word essay in support of
Canadian federalism. We know that 75 per cent of the young people
from Quebec who usually apply to Heritage Canada voted yes
during the last referendum. So it almost boils down to telling
Quebec ``pay taxes, but you are not entitled to the services we can
provide''.
This reminds me of the recent refusal by the NFB's cultural
production fund to finance Mr. Falardeau's film on the Patriotes.
Sometimes, one almost has to apologize for being a Quebecer. It
seems to me it is a fund to which Quebecers contribute financially.
The vast majority of Quebecers would like to see Falardeau's film.
I would like to see it myself. It is a part of my history and it is
perfectly natural. But Ottawa says: ``You do not have the right to
see such films''.
The third thing bothering me about heritage and culture is that
members opposite and beside voted not to revoke the conviction of
Louis Riel. It seems to me it would have been so easy to vote in
favour, at least as a symbolic gesture. But they did not. Then they
wonder why Quebecers want to leave Canada. It seems obvious to
me. I can tell you that, this year, I have really seen it all.
That having been said, about Bill C-216 on broadcasting, the
September 25, 1996 issue of La Presse said: ``The subscription act
would jeopardize the French cable industry''. Essentially, what this
bill wants to do is to prevent cable distributors from connecting
some subscribers and then charging them until they say they do not
want that service any longer.
I have no problem with what is called the negative option billing.
If I put myself in the shoes of my colleague opposite, the member
for Sarnia-Lambton, I think I could congratulate him. I do so
through the Speaker. I think he is defending the interests of his
riding, except that this shows a problem in the system, that is, in
order to solve a local problem, the government must draft Canadian
legislation at the expense of other regions, including Quebec.
Why do I say the member for Sarnia-Lambton has good
intentions? Subscribers that are offered cable products must pay for
them until they call their cable distributor to tell him they do not
want them any longer. When all is said and done, this is not a bad
approach by the cable companies. They impose certain channels on
their subscriber and, if he does not want it, he must say he does not
want to pay for it. So, basically, I find this is very good.
10105
However, this must be examined on a larger scale. We will also
recall that this bill is the result of a revolt in the Vancouver area.
So, when Rogers decided to change the service packages offered
to its subscribers, they lost some channels that they liked or they
had to pay more to have them back. Furthermore, the onus was
on the subscribers to notify the cable distributor of their intention
not to renew their subscription. This is called negative option
billing.
Again, this bill is full of good intentions but it could hurt
Quebec. We are against this bill because it encroaches on Quebec's
jurisdiction. How many times has it been said in this Parliament
that this or that area comes under provincial jurisdiction?
(1915)
But the federal government cannot help showing off and
encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction. On the subject of relations
between businesses and consumers, section 92(13) of the British
North America Act has this to say:
92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to
Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to
say,
-
(13) Property and Civil Rights in the Province;
This section of the Constitution applies to all businesses, even
those under federal jurisdiction, such as broadcasting and
telecommunications corporations. If the CRTC has the power to
license broadcasters, the Government of Quebec has the power to
legislate commercial relations between those institutions and
consumers.
One of the main reasons-I think this is rather obvious-is that
it is an encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction. They do not ask for
our opinion, they just go ahead. It is a little bit like putting a
bandage on a wound, when we know very well that it will only
make things worse.
The second reason I oppose this bill is that it prevents the
creation of any new French-language broadcasting service. Under
this bill, before offering a new non mandatory service to the basic
or optional service customers, the cable distributor should first
obtain consent from each of his subscribers. I can give an example.
In Hull, if one customer says he does not want the news service
recently offered by TVA or whatever, all the customers will be
penalized. It seems to me that we must preserve some freedom of
expression. Even if 50 per cent of the customers rejected such
service, the other 50 per cent would still want it. The negative
impact is not that strong.
These different proposals deserve to be examined in the context
that is unique to Quebec. Since each specialty channel targets a
specific segment of the public, it is hard to reach the critical mass
that will ensure its viability. This limit takes on even greater
proportions because, in a small market like Quebec, we could be
penalized.
Several industry experts have argued that, in Quebec, if RDI or
the Canal Famille had not been provided to consumers free of
charge for three months, it would have been impossible to offer
those services. People who do not know a product are not inclined
to buy it.
What we are proposing is the procedure in effect in Quebec, that
is, the introduction of new channels. I am very open to the idea of
new television channels, new products. Offer them free of charge,
just like a sample you would send consumers, and then let the
consumers decide if they want them or not. This is just common
sense.
Let me substantiate this with a few opinions. Those are the views
of people who appeared as witnesses before the Senate committee.
The chairman of the CRTC said that this measure, apparently in
favour of consumers, was actually not in their best interests but
rather bad for them. A high rate of penetration is essential for the
French language specialty channels to survive in Quebec and in the
rest of Canada. Legislation to protect consumers from abuse is
useful in a monopoly context, but we are no longer in such a
context.
A number of companies are competing to provide signals to
consumers who benefit from that competition. The former Liberal
Minister of Communications, Francis Fox, has outlined the
measures taken since 1980 to protect French culture in Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member,
but his time is up. The hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies.
(1920)
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, when he made his speech earlier, the hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton suggested that the Bloc has no definite reason to
move an amendment asking the Senate to reject its own
amendment.
I totally disagree with him. The Bloc has excellent reasons to do
so, as we will show. Negative option billing is a fundamental
problem which concerns a large number of Canadians, but which
does not exist in Quebec. Why? Because it is up to the provinces to
legislate in this area, and Quebec did what it had to do a long time
ago. Quebec has legislation which effectively prohibits-
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if there is
a disposition in the House to carry forward with a vote on the
amendment or carry the amendment on division?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary is
asking for unanimous consent.
10106
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Keyes: You do not want to vote?
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not concluded my
remarks.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies has the floor.
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians have been
affected by negative option billing, but not in Quebec.
Do I have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: The period allowed for this debate
expires at 7.27 pm. The hon. member has five minutes left.
Mr. Pomerleau: The Bloc has excellent reasons to move this
motion today. Our motion rejects the Senate amendment because:
-in the opinion of this House, it does not bring the bill into conformity with the
objectives of the Broadcasting Act with regard to French-language services.
We know that services must be provided in French exactly as
they are provided in English; there are two official languages in
Canada and they are equal everywhere.
To settle the problem of negative option billing in Canada, which
should be settled through provincial legislation, my hon. colleague
is proposing a federal bill that would reduce French language
television programming.
My colleague should have asked the provincial legislatures to
pass the regulations now before this House. This is an area under
provincial jurisdiction. Thus, first, this is not the place to solve this
problem and the bill has the disadvantage, when the provinces do
not do their job, of allowing the federal government to encroach on
provincial jurisdictions, which Quebec has always been opposed
to.
So, not only do we not solve a problem correctly by raising it in a
legislative assembly that does not have proper jurisdiction, but
once again Quebec is being had, and forced to fight these motions
when the Constitution provides quite clearly that this comes under
provincial jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, again I must
remind members opposite of Standing Order 11(2) and that we are
debating the amendment as proposed by the opposition and the
amendment as put forward by the Senate, neither of which has
anything to do with jurisdiction.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member and I ask if my
colleague can speak to the amendment before us with some
relevance.
Mr. Pomerleau: My remarks are very relevant, Mr. Speaker. We
reject the amendment proposed by the Senate because it does not
bring the bill into conformity with the objectives of the
Broadcasting Act with regard to French language services.
If motions have to be moved at every turn, we will see to it.
(1925)
What we have shown here is that the bill is strictly a measure
against francophones in Canada and Quebec. If our colleague wants
to introduce a bill to solve the problem, he should do so in the
provincial legislatures and not here.
Mr. Regan: Wrong.
Mr. Pomerleau: That is not wrong. What you are saying is
totally unreasonable. Why then would we be rejecting an
amendment moved by the Senate? It is because the Association des
consommateurs du Québec went to the Senate and said in its brief
that the bill did not meet the objectives it was supposed to meet
and, furthermore, that it would create a lot more problems than it
would solve. In the bill, there was no mention of jurisdictional
encroachment, and that is a second factor.
I will read a few quotes from the Association des
consommateurs' brief: ``We recognize that the objectives which led
to the introduction of this bill may have been worthy and beneficial
to English Canada, but we are convinced that the authors of the bill
never examined or understood the disastrous consequences of this
bill for francophones in our country''.
I will conclude with this remark. I think our colleagues should
reread this report which describes exactly why francophones-
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, the hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
10106
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know what has gotten into our colleagues opposite, whether it is the
10107
upcoming election making them nervous, both in the House and in
committee, but I would like to come back to the issue of federal
government procurement, which has naturally interested the
official opposition for a long time now.
Like most members of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations, we have heard many criticisms of government
contracts, which have been described as unfair and ineffective.
Despite the fine talk of this government since it came to office,
things are pretty much the same as they were in the dark
Conservative past. Of the $8.6 billion spent by this government in
1994-95, 37 per cent was on sole source or non-competitive
contracts. This is very troubling. The Liberal majority, like us, was
left staring at the same sad figures.
Therefore, in the present tendering system, it is important to
make some very minor changes. It would not even take very much
time. These changes were proposed by SMBs that appeared before
the committee. To name but a few, first of all small and medium
size businesses are complaining about lack of information on
tenders. They have no way of knowing what the government wants
to buy.
They also feel that the tendering process has its shortcomings.
They experience great difficulty in contacting the user of the
product or service, or the true purchaser of goods and services.
Reaching these people, or not reaching them, can make the
difference between having the winning bid, or not.
(1930)
The tendering process is an extremely complex one, which
discourages the small and medium size businesses from bidding.
They have trouble filling out the necessary forms. There is too
much unnecessary red tape. As well, the small and medium size
businesses fear, and rightly so, that contracts are awarded on the
basis of nepotism and political favouritism, and favour
Ottawa-based companies.
I have made a list of the comments made by certain small and
medium size businesses in my riding. This is what I heard: ``We are
registered suppliers but we are never asked to tender our services'',
``we have to know the buyer to be able to sell a product or a
service''. That is par for the course in my riding, at CFB Bagotville.
I also heard this: ``We are not informed of requirements or
products'', ``we are not asked to bid, although our names are on the
lists, although we are qualified''. Others told me: ``I tried my luck
recently, but I have serious doubts about the integrity of the
system''.
There is another aspect I would like to discuss, since you are
signalling that my time is up: Quebec's share of the procurement of
goods and services. In 1994-95, there was a shortfall of 22,000 jobs
in Quebec because the federal government did not give Quebec its
fair share of the procurement of federal goods and services.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services followed
closely the work of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations and welcomes its final report and recommendations on
government contracting.
The minister was pleased to note that the report recognizes much
progress has been made by the government to improve the
contracting process. At the same time, this government is
committed to taking further steps to enhance the openness and
accessibility of the federal procurement process for all Canadian
businesses.
We rely heavily on views expressed at the committee and on the
committee's interim report while developing the request for
proposals for the new electronic tendering system. This new
system will be launched June 1, 1997. It is a joint
federal-provincial initiative that will give Canadian firms cheaper,
more user friendly, single window access to information on
government business opportunities.
With regard to the matter of sole source contracting, the
Department of Public Works and Government Services is sensitive
to the concerns of the committee. However, there are cases when
the government can turn to only one supplier. Reasons for this
include: extreme urgency; exclusive rights, such as copyright and
patent; the need for systems to be compatible; or the need to obtain
replacement parts from the original manufacturer. The competitive
approach is always preferred.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services has
dramatically reduced its reliance on sole source contracting from
47 per cent of the value of contracts in 1992-93 to 26 per cent
today. One of the ways we have achieved this is through the use of
advanced contract award notices or ACANs. When the department
publishes an ACAN on the open bidding service and in the
``Government Business Opportunities'' publication, any supplier
that feels qualified to meet the requirement can challenge the sole
source award. When the supplier is successful in demonstrating its
capability, the requirement is completed.
To be clear, when the non-competitive approach is used, it must
be for valid and compelling reasons. Otherwise the requirement is
tendered competitively.
I hope that helps the hon. member.
(1935)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
again this evening in adjournment proceedings to find out from the
Secretary of State for Agriculture how quickly the government will
come to the defence of farm producers and especially Ontario and
10108
Quebec producers of quotaed products. That is what we call rightly
or wrongly supply management in the case of eggs, poultry and
milk.
I will take a moment to remind the House of the issue. In
response to market globalization, Canada signed an agreement with
the United States known as the FTA. A few years later, we
expanded the agreement, which became NAFTA. Mexico joined
the two original partners.
In the fall of 1993-it was signed in the fall of 1993-GATT
became the WTO. Within the context of the WTO and NAFTA, we
set tariffs on imports of these various products to protect our
agriculture, administered by supply management.
The tariff percentages are huge. But they protect our domestic
markets very well. In general terms, they vary from 180 to 360 per
cent. We must reduce these tariffs by 30 per cent over the next six
years. It must, on average, be not less than 15 per cent.
However, the United States, in their usual heavy handed fashion,
are making our life very hard. We had to argue before a NAFTA
tribunal and we won five out of five. The head of the tribunal and
the four judges supported without exception our tariffs on eggs,
poultry and milk.
However, the trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky, swore
up and down to the American farming community that she would
fight to the end and win. Having lost under NAFTA, the U.S. is now
turning to the WTO, and the reports I have are quite alarming,
because there is serious question about this government's efforts to
defend producers since we have seen how pliant it has been in the
past before American demands.
I offer as an example the situation with durum wheat and lumber.
We give them too much, when we should not. The point of my
remarks is to make the government aware and remind it that the
Bloc Quebecois will be there in the next elections to be on the
lookout and ensure that the Liberal government defends the rules
for our farmers who depend on supply management.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague for his question.
We understand that some groups in the United States are
disappointed with the NAFTA panel ruling and are continuing to
press the United States government for further action. The U.S. has
indicated that it remains committed to improving U.S. access to
Canadian markets by doing everything possible consistent with the
U.S. trade laws and obligations to pursue the tariff-free access.
However, the panel's final report released on December 3 fully
upheld Canada's position that the application of Canadian WTO
tariff equivalents to the U.S. origin goods is fully consistent with
our international trade obligations both under the NAFTA and the
WTO. Consistent with the panel's findings, we see no basis for
negotiations. Both sides should now focus on respecting their
negotiated agreements.
(1940)
A key factor to our success before the NAFTA panel was the
wholehearted support and participation of all stakeholders in all
provinces in a truly team Canada effort. We remain committed to
continue to work closely with Canadian stakeholders to defend our
interests against any future challenges that we may face.
It is important to understand that oftentimes political statements
are made by those who would represent individual groups in the
United States. We here in Canada have stood very solidly behind
our negotiations, behind what we have done and we have been
upheld by the panel. I do not believe at this point in time we have
anything to worry about in this regard.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week I asked the Minister for International Trade to confirm that he
would not sign the multilateral agreement on investment being
negotiated at the OECD unless the Canadian government got
exemptions for job creation and other key sectors of great
significance to Canada, such as sovereignty over cultural
institutions and our natural resources.
My question arose from the fact that the multilateral agreement
on investment builds on NAFTA and, like NAFTA, has as its goal
the creation of a level playing field for investors from outside
Canada.
I am pleased to hear that the government plans to set conditions
on foreign investment because, as I understand the agreement, only
those sectors that are explicitly excluded by a country are exempt
from the national treatment which would be accorded foreign
investors under the proposed agreement. Consequently, Canada
must negotiate exemptions for certain sectors, among them job
creation, control over our natural resources, water, which is of
particular interest to western Canada, energy, and possibly
investments that would affect our food security.
NAFTA already restricts Canada's ability to require U.S. firms
to meet employment targets as a precondition of investing in the
country. If this restriction were extended to all OECD nations, the
government would have great difficulty directing the investment
process so as to promote job creation according to national goals.
Furthermore, there is the risk of signing a trade and investment
agreement that will not pay adequate attention to environment
10109
related concerns. I urge an approach which ensures that sustainable
development be at the centre of the decision making process both
of national governments and international trade institutions.
To conclude, I hope the minister can give assurance that Canada
will not sign the agreement unless it retains control over job
creation and unless Canada retains sovereignty over water, energy,
forests and fisheries.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport
commands respect and it is a privilege for me to respond to his
concerns on behalf of the Minister for International Trade.
Negotiation of a multilateral agreement on investment at the
OECD is still at an early stage. Although the original goal was to
complete these negotiations by May, an extension to 1998 appears
necessary. Canada has committed to nothing at this stage.
The principal objective underlying the MAI is to improve
investment protection for foreign investors. A core principle is
equal treatment for foreign and domestic investors with
exemptions for sensitive sectors such as cultural industries. As
exists under the NAFTA and WTO agreements, countries will be
allowed to file exemptions for certain measures they wish to
maintain.
Canada will not sign an MAI that inhibits Canada's ability to
link the granting of investment incentives to job creation or to
impose or maintain foreign ownership limits for privatized crown
corporations.
Canada will retain the ability to review large scale mergers and
acquisitions involving Canadian companies, protect its cultural
industries, protect the integrity of Canada's health care system,
require job creation as a condition for receipt of investment
incentives, require companies to carry out R and D activities in
Canada as a condition of receipt of federal funds, and regulate
crown corporations and monopolies.
Through the MAI, Canadian investors will have greater access
and protection in Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, as
well as other countries willing to adhere to MAI rules.
(1945 )
Signatories to the treaty will adopt investment rules similar to
those accepted by the NAFTA partners. Equally important in a
world where countries fiercely compete to attract foreign
investment, Canada's adherence to an MAI that protects Canadian
interests will raise our attractiveness as an investment location.
Foreign direct investment contributes significantly to Canada's
growth, prosperity and employment creation. In the MAI
negotiations Canada will be seeking disciplines on U.S.
extraterritorial measures such as Helms-Burton, again for the
benefit of Canadian investors.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on March
17, I rose to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food if he
would be changing the Canada Transportation Act to provide some
rebalancing in the relationship between shippers and railways by
including a shipper's right to performance guarantees with
appropriate penalties for poor rail performance.
The question arose because of the abysmal performance that the
railways have shown over the past winter, leaving almost 50 ships
waiting in the harbour in Vancouver for which farmers, through the
Canadian Wheat Board, were paying demurrage costs.
The problem with the Canada Transportation Act is that there is
no way for the shipper, in this case the farmer or the Canadian
Wheat Board, to extract penalties from the railways.
The act was fairly silent on this. The justice system has ruled that
farmers are not shippers. It has also ruled on other occasions that
the wheat board is not a shipper. Therefore it is virtually impossible
for the people who are damaged by non-performance to arrange
contracts with the offending party to make certain that performance
does take place.
I did not ask the question in a vacuum. I had done considerable
research and found that the elevators in western Canada were full
of the grades of grain required for the ships. The terminals which
load the grain after it is received at the port from the railways, from
the prairies, were empty and unable to fill the ships. It does not take
a genius to decide that something had gone wrong with the rail
system.
I found that the rail system had performed very badly. It had
made some attempts to correct the bad performance. It had brought
in locomotives from the United States but for some reason it did
not bring them up to performance standards for northern
conditions. Apparently they were filled with summer fuel and they
froze. They would not work. They were usually left out in the
middle of somewhere which clogged up the system at the same
time. While 50 to 100 cars were sitting full, there was no
transportation to pull them. When the railway did start pulling
them the transportation conked out. Taxis would have to go to
rescue the crew. Other crews would come in to try to get the
engines drained and working.
The management on the railway's part was absolutely abysmal.
It is not that it was not being well paid with the new CTA changes.
It no longer is bound by the 20 per cent limit on the amount of
money it can claim back for investment costs. Those are now
estimated to be somewhere between 30 per cent and 40 per cent.
Under the old act the railway was required to provide certain
performance guarantees which the government was able to manage
10110
by the payout of something in the order of $700 million annually.
With that club over its head there was a lot better performance.
Now that the club is gone, now that there is no possibility of
signing performance guarantee contracts with the wheat board or
the farmer, there has been no compliance and there has been no
performance.
While the railway can complain that the weather was bad, it is
bad every January and February. The farmers manage to get their
grain through that weather to prairie elevators. Why could the
railway not run similar equipment with diesel fuel like the farmers
do through the mountains?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has a
working knowledge of the Canada Transportation Act. He knows
that it is the intention of the CTA to modernize and streamline rail
regulation, promote the formation of shortline railways, ensure that
shippers continue to have access to competitive transportation
services. Unfortunately, and the hon. member hit on it, the act
cannot predict or prevent bad weather.
On the subject of the movement of grain, the government is
concerned about the current situation. However, we want to focus
on solutions, not finger pointing, to improve the efficiency of the
entire system from the farm gate to the ship clearing the port.
There have been dramatic improvements in the shipment of
grain to the west coast in recent weeks. Rail car unloads during
March averaged 4,400 cars per week as compared to under 4,000
for the last week of February.
Grain terminals are now operating seven days a week and the
number of ships waiting on the west coast has been reduced to 13
from 43 in mid-February.
The situation is improving on the prairies and on the west coast.
The backlog is being dealt with. It is not our intention to forget the
problems encountered this winter, nor should we look backward to
start assigning blame, as the hon. member would like us to do.
Instead I suggest to the hon. member that we need to take the
opportunity to look ahead to find ways to make long term
improvements to the system. Finding solutions will require the
co-operation of all parties concerned. Ministers responsible for
transport or agriculture from the four western provinces have
called an inquiry which is just one of the several options now being
considered. Whatever the option ultimately chosen by the
government, our main objective must be to ensure that we have the
most efficient, effective and reliable grain transportation and
handling system possible for our producers, shippers and
customers.
The Deputy Speaker: A motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
(The House adjourned at 7.52 p.m.)