CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 29, 1996
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5776
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5776
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5776
Bill C-35. Report stage (without amendment) 5777
Division on motion deferred 5781
(Motion No. 2 negatived.) 5782
Bill C-57. Motion for second reading 5782
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5796
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 5798
Bill C-49. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and of the amendment
5798
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5800
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 5801
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5804
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5804
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5806
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5806
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5806
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5807
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5808
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5808
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5809
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5809
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5809
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5809
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 5809
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 5810
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 135; Nays, 79 5812
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 5813
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5819
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment. 5832
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5832
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5835
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 5837
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5839
Motion moved and agreed to 5862
Amendment defeated 170 to 27 5869
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 130; Nays, 67 5870
Consideration resumed of the motion 5871
Amendment to the amendment negatived on division:Yeas, 63; Nays, 135 5871
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 5872
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 63;Nays, 135 5872
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 5872
Motion negatived: Yeas, 40; Nays, 159 5872
Bill C-35. Consideration resumed of report stage andamendment 5873
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 5873
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 41; Nays, 158 5873
Motion for concurrence 5874
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 5874
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 173; Nays, 26 5874
5769
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 29, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in both official languages a number of order in
council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, the list of
which is attached.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1997
Immigration Plan.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's response to 14 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a legal requirement that the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration rise in this House and
table an annual plan on the immigration levels. This is a
responsibility which I welcome this morning.
The 1997 immigration plan is a tangible example of this
government's pro-immigration philosophy. This government, and
the Canadians that it serves, recognizes the importance of
promoting immigration as an instrument of positive social and
economic development. I would ask all the members of the House
to not lose sight of what they represent when they look at the
numbers I will be tabling today.
Immigration policy is not about charts and graphs. Every
number in every column represents a human being with dreams and
fears and hopes. When you skim down the columns, think of the
people in your neighbourhood. Your friends. Your colleagues.
People in this House. Chances are they-or their parents or
grandparents-were immigrants.
We should never lose sight of the human face of immigration.
Our government does not, and it is reflected in our policies. This is
demonstrated in the 1997 plan I am tabling today.
[English]
We are clearly attracting the economic immigrants we need to
strengthen our economy. We are also bringing in skilled workers to
meet specific labour market needs. At the same time we remain
committed to family reunification and the realization of Canada's
humanitarian mission.
Immigration is obviously a front and centre policy issue in this
country. Immigration programs have a profound impact on all
aspects of life in Canada. This is true now and it has been true for
over 130 years.
Even before Canada existed as a country, people recognized that
immigration was the key to building the Canadian society.
Unifying the British North American colonies was seen as a good
way of attracting the farmers and labourers needed to kickstart the
young economy.
The visionaries who met in Charlottetown to create this country
knew that immigration was the key to unlocking our potential.
Immigration was a cornerstone of the national policy of Sir John A.
Macdonald.
Immigrants helped fuel the engine of Canadian growth. They
worked in the factories of Toronto and Montreal; they tilled the
land; they helped develop the Atlantic fisheries.
5770
(1010 )
Laurier predicted that the 20th century would belong to Canada.
He knew at that time that immigration would be a key to realizing
this goal so he entrusted Sir Clifford Sifton to bring immigrants to
open the west. Sifton did just that. Under his direction, waves of
immigrants from across Europe made the leap of faith and came to
this country. Their dreams and determination helped shape our
destiny.
More recently during the Pearson and Trudeau administrations,
immigration was perceived as a way of not only strengthening our
country economically, but also of bringing new ideas and new
perspectives to Canada. Immigration policies in the 1960s and
1970s helped shape Canada into the multicultural and multi-ethnic
country we enjoy today.
Immigration has served Canadians very well and it continues to
do so. Immigration will be an important component in
guaranteeing our future development.
Our government is following a clear direction. Two years ago the
Canadian government produced a 10-year strategic framework that
committed us to building an immigration program that is fair,
sustainable, affordable and based on partnerships. The 1997
immigration plan represents our ongoing commitment to achieving
those goals. That is why we have chosen to call the document
``Staying the Course''.
We have a very good plan which has set a reasoned path. In 1994
we set a strategic course which we are following now. That is what
good and responsible government is all about. As hon. members
can see from the numbers, we are attaining the levels which were
laid out last year. This means just over 200,000 people will come to
this country in 1996.
I would like to announce that the 1997 plan calls for the same
level of immigration next year, between 195,000 and 220,000
people. I cannot stress enough that this is not a quota. We do not set
quotas in Canada. These numbers are targets. We do not and will
not close the door on immigrants if we happen to hit the top level.
[Translation]
I would like to announce that the 1997 plan calls for the same
level of immigration next year: between 195,000 and 220,000,
including 27,000 for the province of Quebec. But I cannot stress
enough: this is not a quota. We do not set quotas in Canada.
These numbers are targets. We do not-and will not-close the
door on immigrants if we happen to hit the top level. These are not
arbitrary numbers. They were developed in a fair and reasoned
way, based on a variety of factors, such as Canada's needs, and our
ability to integrate newcomers. The result is the numbers you see
before you today.
I draw your attention to our 1993 campaign promise laid out on
page 87 of the Red Book: ``We need to target immigration levels of
approximately 1 per cent of the population'', considering, ``our
ability to absorb and settle immigrants''.
(1015)
The Liberal government's 1997 immigration plan is in line with
this commitment. I know that many of you might find it difficult to
wade through the numbers and graphs in the document. Allow me
to draw your attention to a few key points.
In Citizenship and Immigration Canada's ten year strategy, we
stated our intention to put a greater emphasis on attracting
economic immigrants. This is a move which Canadians
whole-heartedly endorse. We heard this time and time again during
the nation wide consultations in 1994.
Business professionals and skilled workers bring expertise and
entrepreneurial strength which is important to our economy. They
have the skills to integrate quickly and contribute to the
community. They make a vital contribution to our standard of
living and our lives.
I think that the data and studies speak for themselves. Immigrant
investors injected nearly $606 million in investment capital into
our country last year. Current studies show that immigrants account
for about half of Canada's labour force growth. This contribution is
expected to increase as we move into the 21st century.
We have all heard people say that immigrants take jobs away
from Canadians. That is one myth that must be laid to rest.
Evidence suggests the contrary. Immigrants create at least as many
jobs as they take. Immigrants and newcomers also enhance
Canada's ability to expand into global markets and to build trade
links throughout the world.
The value of these connections can be seen in the success of the
Prime Minister's Team Canada missions. Many of the participants
in these initiatives have been recent immigrants. Their connections
and familiarity with international business practices have been
invaluable. We are selecting the men and women who have the best
potential to contribute to Canada's long term growth.
I am happy to say that we are already seeing an increase in the
numbers of immigrants to this country who come in under the
economic designation. In fact, the number of economic immigrants
exceeded our expectations. The 1997 plan anticipates that these
levels will be maintained.
But we are not just looking at the economic bottom line.
Immigration is not-nor will it ever be-simply about dollars and
cents with this government. There are other issues which must
come into play. We are talking about future citizens of our
country-not units on a balance sheet.
5771
[English]
We need to recognize the importance of factors such as family
reunification when we address immigration policy. The bonds of
family are very important to Canadians. The support and love
which family members give is an essential part of life. I think that
our commitment to family reunification speaks volumes about
what kind of society we are. It shows what kind of heart and soul
unite us together.
I know that all Canadians can sympathize with the woman in
Toronto who wants to be brought together with her husband in New
Delhi. Or the son in Red Deer who wants to be joined by his father
in Manila. That is why we offer priority processing to facilitate the
reunion of Canadian families. We want to eliminate unnecessary
anxiety.
I know that many of you will look at the numbers and ask why
there has been a gradual decline in the family class component.
There are several factors that account for this, including the
modification of the definition of family in our regulations in 1992
and the somewhat tough economic times.
(1020)
Whatever the reason for the declining numbers, I do not believe
they are a cause for alarm. We should remember that family
members accompanying independent immigrants are included in
the economic category.
I strongly believe that we need to keep our family class
commitments in mind when drafting policies. For instance, as
many will know, I am looking at various options to strengthen
sponsorship regulations. Some people have asked why it seems to
be taking so long. It is simple really. We want to get it right. The
stakes are very high and we will not be rushed.
We want to make sure that whatever regulations we develop will
be fair and effective. I also want to make sure that they will not
have an undue effect on numbers within the family class category.
This is important to me personally and it is important to all
Canadians.
I would like to turn to another very important subject to
Canadians, a subject that shows what kind of a country we are. I am
speaking about our record in resettling refugees. We have always
taken our international responsibilities very seriously. Canada
prides itself on being a good citizen in the international
community. Part of this is a commitment to respond to people in
need.
Since World War II this country has helped to resettle over
700,000 refugees. We have provided a safe haven in a world of
hunger, war and instability. I am proud of our accomplishments. I
know Canadians are behind me when I say that we will continue to
do what we can to offer a helping hand to those most in need.
Right now the government is working closely with
non-governmental organizations to develop strategies which will
allow us to continue to meet our humanitarian commitments.
For example, last year we responded to an urgent appeal from the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to help resettle
refugees from the former Yugoslavia. Canada committed to
resettling a minimum of 500 refugees in this country. We
developed the 3/9 project to do this, a partnership between the
Canadian government and community groups. I am proud to say
that at the conclusion of the program, Canada resettled over 1,000
people. This is an example of what can be accomplished when we
work together.
I am happy to report that last year we met and even exceeded our
refugee resettlement targets.
[Translation]
The document I am tabling today is a success story. It shows that
we set goals and achieve them. As I have mentioned, we hit our
global immigration targets.
In 1996, slightly more than 200,000 people will choose Canada
as their adoptive home. We believe that it will be the same for
1997. We also achieved our refugee resettlement predictions. We
are clearly continuing to move forward with a positive vision of
immigration.
In conclusion, Canada has a dynamic immigration program.
(1025)
This is crucial because immigration is going to become more and
more important in the coming decades. Immigration has helped
shape our past.
We are what we are because of generations of immigrants.
Immigration will continue to shape our destiny as we look to the
21st century and beyond. That is why we must stay the course.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened carefully to the speech by the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration. There is nothing new in what she says. The levels set
by the government for 1997 are about the same as for this year.
There are, however, a couple of changes. Economic immigrants
take up far more of the total: 60 per cent of immigration. Canada
will take in between 82,000 and 90,000 skilled workers and
between 20,000 and 30,000 business persons. This, I feel, is a good
decision, but one that was made at the expense of the family
reunification program.
The family reunification program, which involves spouses,
fiancés, parents and grandparents, will account for only 35 per cent
of immigration to Canada. Until the Liberals came into power, the
family class and the economic class were almost equal. This is no
longer the case. In all, there will be a total of between 168,900 and
5772
187,700 new immigrants. With the refugees, that makes a total of
between 195,000 and 220,000 newcomers to Canada in 1997.
The minister does not, however, mention that some 80,000
people leave Canada each year. The positive balance will,
therefore, range between 115,000 and 140,000 new people in
Canada.
There is one other comment I would like to make. The
government had created the category of provincial or territorial
nominee. Last year, the objective for these persons to be nominated
by the provinces or territories was set at 1,000. The number for
next year will be the same. I have some questions, and the minister
is not giving us any answers. Is this new category a failure? Are the
provinces not interested in taking part in this program? The Bloc
Quebecois believes that provinces ought to play a far greater role in
immigration, a far more active role, because immigration is a
jurisdiction shared between the federal and provincial
governments.
The minister does not indicate where these new immigrants will
be coming from, either. As at present, two-thirds of the new
immigrants will come from Asia, particularly Hong Kong, China,
Taiwan, the Philippines and Sri Lanka. The rest will come
particularly from the former Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom, the
United States and Pakistan.
When I asked departmental employees this morning, they were
unable to tell me how many new immigrants are expected from
Latin America.
(1030)
There are no figures because the numbers have shrunk and are so
small that Latin American countries do not rank among countries
that provide high levels of immigration. In my opinion, Canada
should make a special effort to attract more immigrants from Latin
America, as we approach continental economic integration.
NAFTA will be expanded to create a broad economic zone from
Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, involving the mobility of capital,
investment, services and goods. As far as mobility of individuals is
concerned, however, problems on our own continent are increasing,
and Canada is not very generous to Latin America as far as
immigration is concerned.
Africa has the same problem. Today, 42 per cent of the world's
refugees come from Africa, this out of a total of 25 million. We see
what is happening today in Africa, but the minister remains silent
on these tragic events.
However, I do want to point out that the Bloc Quebecois agrees
in principle with the target figures proposed by the minister for
1997, although the government is still far removed from the
objective set in the red book, which proposed annual immigration
levels equivalent to 1 per cent of the population of Canada.
I am critical of the fact that the minister has considerably
reduced the family component. There has been a major reduction in
this class, which goes against the promises made by the Liberal
Party in its red book, where family reunification was one of their
priorities. That is not the case. I closely followed the proceedings
of the convention of the Liberal Party of Canada on the weekend.
They said their record was very positive: 78 per cent of their
promises had been kept.
The government's policy is a dismal failure as far as family
reunification is concerned. Last year's target figures, which were
much higher, were not met.
Under the Conservative government, about 250,000 new
immigrants were admitted to Canada annually, but this year, the
real figure will be less than 200,000. It is expected that next year,
the real figures will also be well below the target figures.
The minister said in her speech, and I agree with her on this
point, that we should never lose sight of the human aspect of
immigration. However the immigration tax imposed by the federal
government in the 1995 budget is certainly not indicative of a
policy that is open and fair to all aspirant immigrants.
The fact that each individual has to pay $975 to obtain
permanent residence in Canada is a major hurdle for immigrants
from developing countries. I realize that at this last convention
some Liberals tabled a resolution to eliminate this tax. I also realize
that some members, even Liberal members, as yet do not agree
with this discriminatory tax, which goes against the government's
family reunification program.
(1035)
This tax is even more irritating when applied to refugees. Even
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expressed
very serious reservations about this refugee tax. I think it goes
against the spirit of the Geneva convention, which is aimed at
protecting persecuted people, victims of conflicts, and so on.
I must also point out that this tax is a significant source of
revenue for the government, bringing in over $250 million a year.
With the other fees immigrants must pay to have their files
reviewed, obtain work permits, etc., the Department of Citizenship
and Immigration's total revenues exceed $400 million a year, while
its overall annual budget is only $600 million.
I would like to say a few words on the issue of refugees and
displaced persons. The situation is tragic. In addition to the 23
million refugees I just referred to, there are over 100 million people
displaced from one country to another or within their own countries
as a result of wars, persecutions, natural disasters, racial or
religious troubles, ethnic intolerance, political repression, poverty,
and human rights violations.
5773
I think that, without exceeding the general goals set by the
minister today, we could make an additional effort for world
refugees, especially women and children, who make up 80 per cent
of all refugees and persecuted people.
I was very affected by the horrific scenes in Zaire we recently
saw on television. In the Goma region alone, 200,000 refugees
have gathered in the past few days. With its 214,000 refugees, the
new Mugumpa refugee camp is the biggest in the world.
Again, as the Bloc Quebecois did yesterday, I call on the
government to help these hundreds of thousands of sick people
without drinking water or the basic means to survive.
Even though the war in Bosnia is over, there is still a problem.
Some people have returned to Bosnia, but the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees tells us it is still too early. Some are so
traumatized by the war that they cannot return to Bosnia right
away.
There are problems in Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, the Sudan,
etc. But it is mainly what is happening in Zaire that should concern
the Canadian people. We must provide humanitarian assistance to
the African continent. We need special programs to deal with the
human tragedies facing Zaire and other African nations.
Under the Canada-Quebec agreement, Quebec set its levels at
27,000 new immigrants for the year 1997. I must point out that
Quebec is the most generous province for refugees. In 1995 alone,
Quebec welcomed 12,019 asylum seekers, compared to 11,546 for
Ontario, the most populous province in Canada. Quebec welcomes
47 per cent of refugee claimants, compared to 45 per cent only for
Ontario.
(1040)
The minister makes no mention of it. In their recruiting
campaign, Canada and the Canadian government should promote
francophone immigration in Quebec. Quebec is the only
French-speaking country, the only French-speaking nation, the
only French-speaking state in America and, as such, it has to
protect its French-speaking immigration. Quebec believes that it is
enriched economically, socially and culturally through
immigration.
I would like to mention in passing a survey published today in La
Presse, which indicates that the people of Quebec are quite open to
immigration. A survey released yesterday by Quebec immigration
minister André Boisclair shows that two Quebecers out of three are
receptive to cultural diversity and pleased with the number of
immigrants coming here every year.
Quebecers are very tolerant, I have always said so, and they do
not display any signs of xenophobia toward the minorities. This
survey tells us that 67 per cent of Quebecers are receptive to
cultural diversity; 56 per cent believe that immigration promotes
economic development; and 72 per cent regard immigrants as
contributing to the province's cultural richness. Also, 64 per cent of
Quebecers, or 11 per cent more than in 1992, believe that
immigrants work hard to fit into Quebec society.
Here is what this very serious survey conducted in April says. It
shows how open Quebecers are, contrary to what some members
have been saying, members of the Reform Party in particular and
also members of the Liberal Party.
I agree, as I have just said, with the minister that the positive
aspects of immigration should be emphasized. Immigrants make a
substantial economic, cultural, social and political contribution. I
notice that the minister did not address either, unfortunately, the
hostility perceived today in Canadian society toward immigrants
and more particularly refugees.
Contrary to a certain statements, immigrants contribute more
than they receive. They do not tend to use social services as much
as people who were born in Canada. The crime rate is lower among
them than among people of Canadian stock. This needs to be
repeated in this House, and it is the minister's responsibility to
educate the Canadian public on the enormous contribution made by
immigrants and refugees as well, since most refugees are young
and highly educated individuals fleeing persecution and looking for
a better life for themselves, their families and their children. They
come to Canada with all this energy they have. They are prepared
to contribute to economic growth and to employment development.
I will conclude with a few comments on the IRB. Time and time
again the minister has said that the IRB is an independent tribunal,
but in Bill C-49 before us, she is giving herself the power to
remove the IRB chairperson at any time. Under the current
legislation, the chairperson may be removed only after five years,
coinciding with the end of his or her mandate. With this new
legislation, she would be authorized to dismiss the chairperson
after a year or two, then renew his or her mandate, chose someone
else, and so on. For these reasons and others, the Bloc Quebecois is
opposed to Bill C-49.
(1045)
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago the previous Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration rose in the House to announce the
1996 immigration levels. At that time he painted a very rosy
picture of Canada's immigration situation.
5774
This year the current minister paints a similarly rosy picture and
says that this government will be staying the course. However,
there are very serious problems with Canada's immigration
system.
The minister is aware of her own department's surveys which
show that over 60 per cent of Canadians have little faith in this
government's immigration policy. Why do Liberal immigration
ministers stand in the House and tell the country how wonderful
things are when they know that there are major problems with our
immigration system?
It is so typical of this government to put forth its don't worry, be
happy philosophy instead of dealing with today's reality. The
reality is our immigration system is in need of repair. The reality is
that if Canadians are to regain their confidence and give their
support to immigration, the government must act now to make the
necessary changes.
The first issue that needs to be addressed is the type of
immigrants Canada is accepting. Last year the previous minister of
immigration stated that he wanted to see the percentage of
economic immigrants and their families increased to 50 per cent of
the total. However, to be precise, we must remember that the
principal immigrant, that is the individual who actually qualifies
under the point system, made up only 37 per cent of the economic
class. This year, while the number of economic immigrants is
higher, the percentage of principals in that total has dropped to only
25 per cent, which means that there are no more economic
immigrants than there were two years ago. It is just that they are
bringing more dependants with them.
This still means that Canada chooses only about 14 per cent of
the newcomers to this country each year. Or, to express it in other
terms, when we include the dependants of economic immigrants
with a family class immigrant that means that over 85 per cent of
all immigrants to Canada are dependant immigrants.
The ability of Canada to select immigrants based on their
potential to contribute to our economy must increase beyond the
current 14 per cent.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has
reviewed a number of studies that have shown that economic
immigrants have had a positive economic benefit for Canada. The
statistics are there. The average incomes of these immigrants are
40 per cent higher than those of average Canadians.
In addition, over the last 10 years the immigrant investor
program has attracted more than 13,000 business people who have
invested over $2.5 billion to the Canadian economy. These
investments have created over 17,000 jobs. This is the positive side
of immigration and must be promoted.
However, there is a downside even to the economic immigrant
portion of Canada's immigration plan. This past January my
community of Surrey was faced with a tragedy of one such investor
immigrant who killed his mother, his wife and two of his three
children before killing himself. It was later determined that this
individual who committed the horrendous act was over $200
million in debt in his native Taiwan. Despite the fact that this
individual's financial woes were publicly known throughout
Taiwan, he was able to immigrate to Canada on the basis of a
$350,000 investment. Immigration officials apparently were
unconcerned about the other financial situation.
While this may be the most tragic example of the investor plan
going astray, there are other cases that raise even greater concerns.
On May 25, 1992 Canada admitted Lee Chau-Ping and her family
as investor immigrants, as she was supposedly putting money into
a fast food chicken franchise in northern Saskatchewan. In reality,
Lee Chau-Ping never made it past Vancouver as she continued to
run her other more lucrative business of trafficking in illicit drugs.
(1050 )
Despite being under investigation by the royal Hong Kong police
since 1986, Canadian immigration still accepted Lee as an investor
immigrant. This case caused a Hong Kong crown prosecutor to
make this statement: ``Canadian immigration is very much a
laughing stock of criminals and Canada is being used by criminals
such as drug traffickers as a soft spot for the entry of drugs into
North America and as an exit point for the laundering of funds''.
If there is one thing this government should be concerned about
it is its investors program and the likelihood that it will be used as a
money laundering scheme. It is a concern of academics who
specialize in immigration matters and it is especially a concern for
law enforcement officials.
Earlier this year I had the opportunity to meet with members of
the co-ordinated law enforcement unit in Vancouver. This unit
contains members of the RCMP and other municipal police forces
in the greater Vancouver area and specializes in organized crime.
These members informed me that the investor immigrant
program is an absolutely wonderful way for organized crime to
launder money, for once these investors cash in their investment no
bank in the world is going to question large deposits that came from
the Canadian government. I hope that this government is not so
desperate for money that it would close its eyes to funds earned by
criminal activity.
Notwithstanding these concerns, it is apparent that Canada has
reaped the economic benefits from the independent class
immigrant. Unfortunately, it has been equally apparent that when it
comes to immigrants under the family class sponsorship
breakdowns have caused Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions
of dollars.
5775
Nobody argues with the validity of family class unification. It is
a valid reason for immigration. But the underpinning basis of
family reunification is that such immigration is not to have an
adverse economic impact on the country. In cases of family
reunification the sponsor makes a 10 year commitment to provide
for the immigrant.
In the past there did not seem to be any great effort to enforce
these obligations. In 1993 a survey by the department found that 14
per cent of sponsorships were in default, costing the taxpayers
some $700 million in social services.
This government likes to claim that it has made improvements in
getting sponsors to honour their commitments. However, last year
the previous minister made a big deal about setting higher financial
requirements to ensure that sponsorships were honoured. And
under this minister that announcement has gone where most
Liberal promises have gone, absolutely nowhere, which means that
this government will continue to ignore defaulted sponsorships.
Most sponsors and family class immigrants are honest people,
but there are some who abuse the system. My constituency office
became aware of a situation where a woman was trying to sponsor
her fourth immigrant husband in four years. It is situations like this
that create a great deal of cynicism among the general public about
the validity of family reunification programs. Is the program there
to reunite loved ones or is it there for some Canadians to earn a
quick buck by marrying foreigners so they can enter the country?
Finally, we come to the area of refugees. This year the
government is suggesting that Canada will accept between 26,000
and 32,000 refugees. Canada has long had a reputation as being a
compassionate country that accepts its fair share of refugees.
The majority of Canadians have no problem with our accepting
of genuine refugees who have been displaced from their homeland
by war or other domestic disputes. However, the majority of
Canadians also have a great deal of problems with a system that
allows bogus refugees to remain in our country for years.
The minister herself experienced some of these scams this past
summer when she observed the process firsthand at some of our
points of entry. The minister was surprised when the immigration
officer had to admit the Ukrainian refugee claimant who stated that
his claim was not based on a well founded fear of government
persecution but rather on the fact that he was afraid of his
neighbour. The minister then observed a Chilean refugee claimant
who admitted that his claim was based on the fact that he could not
find work in his native Chile.
(1055)
If this is the type of criteria that refugee claims are being based
on, then Canada itself is home to millions of potential refugees.
It is precisely these types of ridiculous claims that have brought
the whole refugee process into disrepute. We now have the trend
where people come to Canada, claim refugee status here and then
get smuggled into the United States.
We are being viewed around the world as a consolation prize by
people smugglers. They might not get their clients into the United
States but, at worst, their clients will be accepted in Canada. That is
the problem with our refugee system. It rewards dishonesty and
criminality.
Last April a Hong Kong man was stopped at the Vancouver
international airport and was found to be carrying four additional
passports to his own. Sure enough, the other individuals from the
same flight were claiming refugee status at the same time. These
four claimants paid the agent thousands of dollars to get to
Vancouver. The presence of these four refugee claimants in
Vancouver is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer thousands of
dollars.
When we finally catch one of these people smugglers red
handed, what do they get? One day in jail as a sentence. Won't that
teach these people smugglers not to mess around with Canada?
These guys must be laughing all the way to the bank.
As bad as the situation was, there are even worse things that take
place. In July Dennis Garcia escaped from a Montana prison where
he was serving a 20 year sentence for viciously assaulting a female
store owner. The judge who sentenced Garcia also designated him
to be a dangerous offender. When Garcia was arrested near the
border of British Columbia, everyone should have been happy that
this dangerous individual had finally been captured.
Unfortunately, that is not the way things work with the
government refugee program. Instead of being immediately
returned to the United States to finish his sentence, Garcia was sent
to Vancouver and brought before an immigration adjudicator.
Garcia claimed refugee status and, lo and behold, he was released
pending his hearing; that is right, an escaped dangerous offender
was released because he claimed refugee status.
Did Garcia show up for his hearing? Of course not. He is an
escaped fugitive. Garcia is dangerous but not stupid. That is a label
that is reserved for our refugee laws that allow such a travesty to
happen.
As long as this government allows cases like Garcia to occur, the
Canadian public will have little faith in our refugee program, much
to the detriment of those genuine refugees who truly deserve our
protection.
This country was built on immigration, which makes it all the
more ironic that so many Canadians have so little faith in today's
system.
5776
The system needs to be made fairer. Perhaps the minister could
start this fairness by renegotiating the Canada-Quebec accord. This
accord gives Quebec a flat rate of $90 million a year for settlement
funds. That is approximately one-third of the total amount that the
federal government spends. Is Quebec receiving a third of the
immigrants to Canada? Actually, the number of immigrants that
Quebec is receiving continues to drop.
When the accord was first signed in 1991, Quebec received 22
per cent of all immigrants to Canada. Last year that figure dropped
to 13 per cent and this year Quebec, which gets to set its own
numbers, will be taking in almost 10 per cent fewer immigrants.
Even those numbers are deceptive. By the Quebec government's
own numbers, between 70 and 80 per cent of investor immigrants
to that province have left Quebec for other destinations in Canada.
Yet despite these numbers, Quebec continues to receive over 33
per cent of the settlement funds, which means that the two
provinces that receive the bulk of Canadian immigrants, Ontario
and British Columbia, receive a significantly smaller amount for
each newcomer they accept.
The current system is not fair and must be amended so that this
government funds every immigrant and refugee at the same rate no
matter what province they settle in. That is what Canadians are
looking for in our immigration system: fairness. They want a
system where everyone is treated in a fair and honest manner as
quickly as possible. They want a system where dishonesty and
criminality are not rewarded. Once the Canadian government can
accomplish these goals, I am sure that Canadians will once again
have confidence in our immigration system and will support it.
* * *
(1100)
[Translation]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[English]
Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 3, 1996,
your committee has considered Bill C-41, an act to amend the
Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement
Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension
Diversion Act and the Canadian Shipping Act, and your committee
has agreed to report it with amendments.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present today on behalf of the constituents of
Simcoe Centre.
The first petition requests that Parliament pass legislation to
strengthen the Young Offenders Act including publishing the
names of young offenders, lowering the age of application and
transferring serious offenders to adult court.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): The second group of
petitioners are requesting that the Government of Canada not
amend federal legislation to include the undefined phrase of sexual
orientation. The petitioners are troubled about not defining the
phrase of sexual orientation. They have a legitimate concern that
such a broad term could include all kinds of sexual behaviour.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final
petition 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. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. Q-75 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 75-Mr. Mayfield:
With regard to the reinstatement of Indian status under Bill C-31 passed in 1985,
from 1985 until 1995, (a) how many income tax returns have been reassessed, (b)
how much income tax has been refunded, (c) for which year(s) did each tax return
apply, (d) what was the total amount of each refund and (e) from which government
department or agency was the refund money provided?
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Since Revenue Canada has no way to
identify the clients who were affected by the passage of Bill C-31,
an act to amend the Indian Act, the department is unable to provide
numbers with respect to any applicable refunds or reassessments.
[English]
Mr. Zed: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
5777
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that, because
of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended
by 54 minutes.
_____________________________________________
5777
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-35, an act to
amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum wage) as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There are two motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-35, an
act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon separately.
[Translation]
The motion will be debated and voted on separately.
I will now submit Motion No. 1 to the House.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-35, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 1 with the
following:
``employee is usually employed or, if the employee works in more than one
province, the minimum hourly rate of the province that is highest, and that is''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's
debate, at report stage of Bill C-35, which, for all intents and
purposes, eliminates the federal minimum wage, aligning it with
the minimum wages established by the provinces.
We supported Bill C-35 with the feeling that we had to do our
work as the official opposition and help improve this legislation.
This is why we proposed an amendment. Let me elaborate.
As you know, the federal minimum wage was set at $4 in 1986
and has not been reviewed since. The situation was a bit
paradoxical: in a given territory, there could be two categories of
workers. Indeed, workers doing the same job in the same company
were not necessarily paid the same salary.
(1105)
Three main considerations must be kept in mind when we deal
with minimum wage. First, those affected are often part-time
workers, employees whose jobs are precarious, and people who
live below the poverty line, or just at that level. In this regard, the
government should have introduced, along with the minimum wage
review, a bill that would have truly targeted the causes of poverty.
We can never say it too often: the issue of minimum wage should
remind parliamentarians that, in Canada, one person in six
currently lives below the established poverty levels. This
proportion increases in the case of certain groups, particularly
single parents.
What does being poor mean in today's Quebec and Canadian
society? We know what it means. It is not a reality that escapes us.
We know precisely what it means. From a statistical point of view,
a person is considered to be poor when he or she must spend more
than 56 per cent of his or her salary on housing, food and clothes.
It would have been a good thing for the government to deal with
this issue. It is hard to square the minimum wage bill with
something like the Employment Insurance Act, which is a factor in
poverty, because we know for a fact that only 38 per cent of the
labour force will qualify under that legislation.
The amendment we are presenting today introduces a mobility
provision whereby a worker employed by a company operating
interprovincially, or conducting business in two or more provinces,
will receive the minimum wage that is most to his advantage. It is a
cause for some concern that the government did not think of this.
When the minister appeared before the committee, we pointed
out to him that the situation was, of course, clear when a worker
was employed by Ontario. When he works in an area coming under
federal jurisdiction but the head office of the company or the place
where he works is in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Prince
Edward Island, understandably everything is crystal clear, and he is
paid the minimum wage in effect in that province.
But what will happen when this same worker is required to work
in one or more provinces, when there is no set place of work? Such
a situation can arise. With the advent of telework, the whole
question of interprovincial mobility and, of course, interprovincial
transport, this is more than just an isolated case. Had the official
opposition not been vigilant, there would have been an omission in
the act that must most definitely be corrected today.
I would remind members that the intention of the amendment is
to have the legislation spell out very clearly that, when a worker is
5778
called upon to provide services or work in more than one place
within the Canadian common market, he will be paid the highest
rate.
You know how widely the minimum wage varies in Canada. It
ranges from $5 in certain provinces to $7 in British Columbia, the
most generous province in this connection and undoubtedly the one
with the most favourable financial situation.
I would like to emphasize, for the benefit of viewers, just how
much the situation varies. This must be borne in mind. We are
certainly not talking about a uniform situation where the minimum
wage is concerned.
(1110)
I will give the example of Alberta, where the minimum wage is
$5. In British Columbia, it is $7; in Prince Edward Island it will be
raised to $5.40; in Manitoba it is $5.40; in New Brunswick, $5.50;
in Nova Scotia, $5.35; in Ontario, $6.85; in Quebec, $6.70; in
Saskatchewan, $5.35; in Newfoundland, $5.25; in the Northwest
Territories, $7; and in the Yukon, $6.86.
It could, therefore, be a great temptation for a employer with
interprovincial mobility to decide that the place of employment of
a given worker is a specific province. If a worker works in three or
four provinces, for example, the employer could have his choice of
province. He could say: ``I consider that the place of work to which
the worker is attached is the province with the lowest minimum
wage.'' This is a trap which must be avoided for, as we have seen,
there is a disparity between provincial wage levels.
When speaking of minimum wage, we must keep in mind that
often non-unionized workers are involved, people who lack the
protection of a large union to which they pay dues, which looks
after the rights of workers, which is certainly not the case for
minimum wage earners.
Generally speaking, this minimum wage covers 10 per cent of
people in the work force. Ten per cent of workers therefore come
under federal jurisdiction. Obviously, therefore, the bulk of
workers are in areas where legislation other than that of the federal
government applies. Nevertheless, 10 per cent of the work force is
involved in the sectors of transportation, banking and
communications particularly, but not exclusively, affected by Bill
C-35. Of that 10 per cent, a very large majority, which the minister
estimates at 60 per cent, are not protected by a union and work at
minimum wage.
It is, therefore, important to ensure that, if the government were
preparing to defeat the official opposition amendment to Bill
C-35-which I doubt, since I believe the parliamentary secretary is
nodding that he will support the amendment by the official
opposition-but at any rate, if the government were preparing to
defeat the opposition amendment, well, then we would find
ourselves in a legal vacuum. In the case of workers with several
different places of work, working in more than one province,
workers having to move about within the broad Canadian common
market, it could be extremely tempting for the employer to make a
decision that would not be to their advantage, choosing to attach
them to the place of work where the minimum wage was lowest, to
the workers' disadvantage.
I will close my remarks by saying that, today, we are just
beginning the process. Bill C-35 is the first indication that the
government intends to review part I of the Canada Labour Code, as
the hon. member for Québec is well aware-and I know she is very
concerned about the plight of workers today. Parts II and III will
also be reviewed.
This review process has given rise to considerable debate on, for
instance, the possible unionization of the RCMP and the issue of
replacement workers. In report after report, year after year, the
government has been urged to bring peace to the workplace and
introduce anti-scab legislation that make the use of replacement
workers an unfair practice and as such subject to sanctions by the
Canada Labour Board. I know that the hon. member for Bourassa, a
long-standing member of the labour movement, has some very
specific proposals in mind.
So as part of this review process, it will be very important to
ensure, of course, that the Canada Labour Code is the locus for
establishing a certain balance of forces, where the legislation
defines a number of positions to be used in dealing with future
labour disputes. But I think it is also important to ensure, in 1996
and in the years to come, that the Canada Labour Code is also a
weapon against poverty. Why not consider including provisions in
the Canada Labour Code that would set limits on working hours
and overtime?
(1115)
The minister told me he was regularly asked to authorize
overtime in the private sector because a federal provision says that
the minister's authorization is required for work in excess of the
statutory number of hours. I think, at a time when one Canadian out
of six lives in poverty, in other words, 2.8 million Canadians in all
Canadian provinces, that we should ensure that the Canada Labour
Code is also a weapon against poverty.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the concerns of
my fellow members with regard to the wording of the amendment
and we have given the matter very careful study.
The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and the
opposition were originally concerned to clarify that employees who
perform work in more than one province be paid the rate of the
province in which they are employed. They were concerned over
any loophole which would permit a lower rate than that of the
employee's province of employment. Now the hon. member is
proposing an amendment that is somewhat different. It is proposed
5779
that where an employee performs work in several provinces, the
minimum wage would be that of the province with the highest rate.
While I appreciate my colleague's concern for clarity to protect
the worker, I believe that the solution will create more problems
than it will solve.
The proposal would be cumbersome to administer. Even one trip
across a provincial border could alter a truck driver's hourly rate.
What would be the justification for this approach? Surely we would
want to establish labour standards that reflect the conditions in the
local area.
The whole approach of this bill has been to align the federal
minimum wage with regional economies. Why would the
government impose the rate designed for one region on an
enterprise within another? Furthermore, in the case of an employee
who makes infrequent trips outside the province, it is unclear how
long the higher rate would apply. Would it apply for a day, a week
or a month?
The amendment would impose unnecessary rigidities on an
employer who might have to refuse small amounts of business in
another province. Surely we do not wish to place additional
complexities and paperwork on businesses, and small businesses in
particular.
The amendment would create inequities within an enterprise.
For example, two employees travel the same distance but one
travels across a provincial border while the other is going in
another direction and does not cross that provincial border. Under
this proposal the two drivers would not be entitled to the same
rates.
Most important, the amendment is unnecessary. Our legal
advisors do not see any difficulties with the present French and
English texts of the bill. The current wording refers to more than
one province where an employee works. It relates to the overall
employment relationship which includes the province where the
employee reports to work, where he or she picks up equipment and
tools, is supervised by his or her employer and where, for example,
the provincial worker compensation laws apply.
Similarly, the term usually or habituellement relates to where the
relationship customarily takes place or commonly occurs, rather
than simply the notion of time. When this was raised in the
committee, the minister explained that in the case of a truck driver
who drives across a provincial border the rate of the province in
which the employee's home terminal was situated would be used in
applying the law.
Very few workers are paid the federal minimum wage. About 2
per cent of workers come under the jurisdiction of the federal act
and even fewer in the kind of employment that would take them
outside the province. Since the minimum wage order came into
effect on July 17, 1996 establishing the rates current in the
provinces at that time, there have been no problems or complaints
on the issue of concern to my hon. colleague.
Given the problems with the amendment proposed and the
assurance of the Department of Justice that the existing bill is
enforceable, I cannot support the Bloc's amendment and ask
members to pass the bill as it stands.
(1120 )
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-35
is to align federal minimum wage rates with the general minimum
wage rates established by the provinces. The involvement of the
federal government in setting minimum wages is only about 30
years old.
In 1935 Canada ratified an ILO Minimum Wage Fixing
Machinery Convention which had actually been introduced in
1928. It specified that workers would be guaranteed a minimum
wage mainly in cases where wages were exceptionally low.
However, it was 1965 before Canada actually began setting
minimum wage rates. The Canada Labour Code covered less than a
million workers so the government of the day did not feel pressured
to establish a federal rule.
Between 1965 and 1986 there were sporadic changes in the
federal minimum wage rate but 10 years ago only one-tenth of 1
per cent, or 7,000 workers under federal jurisdiction were directly
affected. While updated estimates are not available from
department officials, there is a presumption on our part that very
little may have changed.
The big changes for Canadian workers over the last 30 years
have been the diminished opportunities and lack of security which
they now endure. Today one in every four Canadians is afraid of
losing his or her job.
If the government was really concerned about workers and their
wages it would not be sidestepping the real issue. It would be
lowering the payroll taxes that kill jobs. At a time when 1.4 million
Canadians are unemployed, about 2.3 million Canadians are
underemployed and 500,000 Canadians have given up looking for a
job, the best the government can come up with is a plan to realign
minimum wage rates with the provinces. This is not even a decent
band-aid.
If the government was really concerned about helping workers
make ends meet it would be launching a plan, like the Reform
Party's fresh start proposal, that would give workers much needed
tax relief. Canadian workers deserve a tax break because they are
working harder for less money.
The Fraser Institute estimates that the average worker's income
has decreased by over $3,000 since the government was elected
three years ago. Why are Canadians taking home less money? The
government wants to lay the blame by pointing a finger at
5780
employers. However, the real culprit is the ever increasing tax
burden.
In 1996 the average family pays a staggering 46 per cent of its
income in taxes. Twenty-five years ago, when one income families
were the norm, families could pay their way and even prosper.
Today it takes two incomes just to scrape by. One partner works
just to pay the taxes for the household.
If the government was really concerned about Canadian
workers' wages it would get its greedy hands at least part way out
of the workers' pockets. If the government was really interested in
helping workers it would streamline its operations and relinquish
jurisdiction to the provinces in those areas that the provinces are
best equipped to manage.
Take Bill C-35, for instance. On one hand the government is
saying that it trusts the provinces to set realistic and fair minimum
wage rates. However, on the other hand it is saying that it does not
trust future provincial legislatures to set realistic and fair minimum
wage rates so it will retain the right to set its rates whenever it sees
fit. The provinces have already proven that they are better fiscal
managers than their federal counterparts. What governments in this
country have succeeded in balancing their budgets? Provincial
governments.
(1125)
Now is the time for the federal government to show that it is
serious about streamlining and delegating more power to the
provinces. Instead of retaining the right to set the rate, the
government should seize this opportunity to enter into agreements
with its provincial counterparts to give them sole discretion over
the setting of rates. The agreements could feature clauses
stipulating that each province and territory retain a minimum wage
rate. It would be obligatory. That would protect Canada's
international commitments and the free trade agreement.
The provisions of Bill C-35 have actually been in effect since
July 1996. This is not a concern for Reformers since the overall
intent of the bill is positive. However, there is still time to improve
the bill.
Section 178(3) gives the governor in council the option of
``replacing the minimum hourly rate that has been fixed with
respect to employment in a province with another rate, or fix a
minimum hourly rate with respect to the employment in a province
if no such hourly rate has been fixed''.
An amendment has been tabled calling for the deletion of section
178(3). If the government adopts this amendment the bill will
receive our support, although with certain reservations. The
amendment moved by the member for Edmonton Southwest,
seconded by me, is:
That Bill C-35 in clause 1 be amended by deleting lines 1 to 8 on page 2.
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in this House to debate Bill C-35 at report stage. This bill
tabled on May 9, 1996, is to align the federal minimum wage rate
with the general minimum wage rates established from time to time
by the provinces and the territories. Let me say right off the bat that
I support the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon.
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
This is a subject in which I have a great interest. As a previous
speaker indicated, I was involved in the Quebec labour movement
for a long time and, at every convention of the Fédération des
travailleurs du Québec or of the Congrès du travail du Canada,
resolutions were passed requesting that the federal and provincial
governments raise the minimum wage, which is consistently too
low.
I have often criticized the federal government, arguing that, in its
capacity, it should be an example to the provinces in the area of
labour law in Canada. As a member of the International Labour
Organization, the federal government is the one that signs
international conventions respecting minimum wage and other
principles important to the workers.
Like the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, I think that
the best way for low-wage workers to improve their conditions is to
unionize. The unions can do something to improve the plight of
these workers. Those who earn minimum wage are not even
entitled to social benefits. I think that raising the minimum wage is
a great way of fighting poverty.
Under Bill C-35, the rate paid to any particular employee is that
of the employee's province or territory of employment. The
Governor in Council retains the authority to establish a minimum
wage rate that can apply to employees on a provincial or territorial
basis and that differs from the rate set by a province or territory.
(1130)
This bill is important to the official opposition, and it is in our
best interest to support it. Of course, once this legislation is
completed by the antiscab bill I tabled in this House last week and
the other necessary amendments to the Canada Labour Code, we
can then state loud and clear that the Canada Labour Code is in line
with reality at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the
21st. Make no mistake about it, the Canada Labour Code still has
some major flaws.
I support this bill, which-it is important to emphasize
this-concerns more specifically the most vulnerable in our
society. For example, workers who are not covered by a collective
agreement or who hold precarious, often part time jobs,
increasingly concentrated in industrial and economic sectors that
are sensitive to fluctuations, the soft sectors in the economy.
5781
Two thirds of minimum wage workers are women. Many are
immigrants and young people. Of course, the harmonization of the
minimum wage based on the rate in effect in the province or
territory should be hailed. In fact, the Government of Canada has
not raised its ridiculous $4 hourly rate since 1986. This rate is so
out of step with today's cost of living, it seems like an
anachronism. There was an urgent need to raise it as soon as
possible.
It is interesting to compare this $4 hourly rate with the rate in
effect in the Canadian provinces, which average around $5.60. In
Ontario, the minimum wage rate is $6.85, while Quebec raised its
rate to $6.70 on October 1. I must point out that this increase is due
in part to the women who, in May 1995, participated in the ``bread
and roses march'' from Montreal to Quebec City.
In the Prairies, the minimum wage rate hovers around $5 an
hour: it is $5.35 in Saskatchewan, $5.40 in Manitoba, $5 in Alberta.
I do not understand how a province as rich as Alberta can have such
a low minimum rate. The minimum wage in British Columbia and
the Northwest Territories is $7 an hour, compared to $6.86 in
Yukon. It is $4.75 in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island,
$5.50 in New Brunswick, and $5.35 in Nova Scotia.
As I said before, it is quite clear that raising the minimum wage
is an important tool in the fight against poverty. Such a policy
makes the economy of a country or a province more dynamic, in
that it helps reduce the underground economy, while stimulating
the consumption of goods and services.
Also, in the case of a welfare recipient, working outside the
family home becomes more interesting when the minimum salary
is more decent and in line with the costs involved. It is important to
remember that, over the years, the gap between minimum wage and
the poverty line has decreased.
It would have been a good thing to table this bill and to announce
at the same time the implementation of a true policy to fight
poverty in Canada and in Quebec. One Canadian in six currently
lives in poverty. The proportion is even greater in the case of
women, children, immigrants and young people.
(1135)
Canada's population is increasingly poor. I am not the only one
to say so and to deplore this fact. The loss of jobs and the cuts in the
federal public service payroll and in social programs are meant to
help reduce the public debt, but they do little to put a stop to the
impoverishment of our society.
Moreover, this situation does not only affect the poor, but also
social classes which were thought to be immune from a
deterioration of their quality of life.
This is why I can only support whatever attempt this government
makes to help protect the interests of Canadian and Quebec
workers. The federal government should show the way regarding
minimum wage and everything that relates to labour law.
Unfortunately, it is not the case.
Still, the proposed legislation is a step in the right direction. This
is why I support Bill C-35.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion of the hon. member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia relates to the next motion, so
we will postpone that until we deal with the second motion.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. All
those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on Motion No. 1
stands deferred.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-35, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 8 on page 2.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to
add to what I said earlier.
The Deputy Speaker: The mover of the motion is the hon.
member Edmonton Southwest and the hon. member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia is the seconder.
Does the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest wish to speak to
the motion?
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia spoke eloquently on the substance of this bill
during the debate on the motion of the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. We would not further use the time of
the House to say what has already been said.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to conclude this discussion, I want to
say that we disagree with the amendment. It would delete 178(3).
5782
The governor in council has the authority to issue an order
replacing a provincial minimum wage rate. What we are saying
here is that the federal government in a situation which would
occur not very often, I would hope, has the power and will retain
the power to set a minimum wage for employees under the
jurisdiction of the federal government. That is all we want to do.
It would not affect provincial employees, it would affect only
federal employees. Therefore I cannot support this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 2. All
those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
(1140 )
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 2 negatived.)
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred divisions on the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
The Deputy Speaker: There is a request from the deputy chief
government whip to defer the vote until later today at the end of
Government Orders.
* * *
Hon. Raymond Chan (for Minister of Industry, Minister for
the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of
Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for
the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-57, an act to amend the Bell Canada Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House to repeal
section 7 of the Bell Canada Act is an important step in the federal
government's efforts to help Canadian industry compete, innovate
and grow in the information economy.
It follows through on commitments we have made to promote
and facilitate the development of the Canadian information
highway as a foundation for long term economic growth and job
creation.
We are now three-quarters through the government's mandate
and the foundations for the jobs and growth agenda are firmly in
place. Deficit reduction targets have been met and exceeded.
Inflation is at its lowest level in 30 years. Statistics Canada reports
that the number of persons employed was up 82,000 in August,
bringing year to date gains to 153,000 in full time employment.
Building on these accomplishments, the government has
highlighted three elements that form the core of the current phase
of the jobs and growth agenda: youth, technology and trade. At the
heart of the jobs and growth agenda is the information highway
which advances all three of these priorities.
In 1994 the government announced its vision for the Canadian
information highway as an integral part of that agenda. The
government's strategy envisages a low cost, high quality
information infrastructure that gives all Canadians access to
employment, educational, health care, entertainment, investment
and wealth creating opportunities of the information age. We have
a coherent government-wide program for the information highway
and we have been steadily putting these elements in place.
In 1994 we set up the information highway advisory council to
examine key public policy issues related to Canada's transition to
an information society and knowledge economy. Also in 1994 the
federal government released an order in council outlining its policy
on convergence, the merging of formally distinct technologies,
industries and activities such as cable and telecommunications
technologies. This policy focused on three broad areas: network
facilities, Canadian content and competition in facilities, and
products and services.
The government asked the CRTC to hold public hearings on how
best to implement these policies. The commission received more
than 1,000 written submissions and heard 78 oral presentations.
The CRTC's report ``Competition and Culture on Canada's
Information Highway: Managing the Realities of Transition'' was
referred to the information highway council for its review.
The information highway council's final report, released in
September 1995, made more than 300 recommendations. On the
issues of convergence both the CRTC and the council supported the
move toward greater competition. Both also supported policies and
regulations that will allow cable companies to compete in the local
switch telephone market and telephone companies to compete in
the broadcasting distribution market.
(1145 )
Along with the CRTC report, the council's report provided
valuable guidance to the government in formulating its
comprehensive plan which was published last May as ``Building
the Information Society: Moving Canada into the 21st Century''. In
this report the Minister of Industry and other key federal ministers
set out a series of initiatives and milestones for developing
Canada's infor-
5783
mation highway. Included among these initiatives was the
government's policy on convergence.
Canadians now get a range of broadcasting and
telecommunications services from their local telephone and cable
television distribution networks. Recent breakthroughs in
technology mean that each will soon be able to compete with the
other in offering a full range of services.
Soon, a range of industries, including telecommunications, cable
television, publishing and entertainment, will be able to offer
packages of services either in co-operation or in competition with
each other. Convergence will change these industries dramatically
and will bring businesses and consumers an array of new products
and services. It will change the way we work, communicate and
entertain ourselves.
On August 6 of this year, the government issued the final text of
its convergence policy opening the way for fair and sustainable
competition between cable and telephone companies. The policy
statement and implementation principles cover three major areas:
facilities, content, and competition. They clear the way for cable
and telephone companies to compete in each other's core
businesses and further advance a series of initiatives aimed at
introducing competition to the communications industry.
The policy will allow for fair and sustainable competition
between cable and telephone companies. Telephone companies
may offer broadcasting services once the regulatory framework and
tariffs for competition in local telephone services are in place.
Competition could begin as early as the end of 1997.
The policy statement is an important step toward fulfilling the
government's commitment to ensure that Canadians can participate
fully in the information society. It brings to a close a long process
of public consultation and studies. The goal has been to create the
conditions needed for fair and sustainable competition, expanded
consumer choice and continued support for Canadian culture.
The policy is intended to guide the CRTC as it establishes rules
and regulations for broadcasting and telecommunications in the
convergence era. It will also provide greater clarity and confidence
for broadcasting and telecommunications firms as they enter each
other's traditional markets.
The policy statement included a commitment to amend the Bell
Canada Act so as to remove the prohibition on Bell Canada and its
subsidiaries from holding broadcasting licences. The bill we are
discussing today will implement that policy by repealing section 7
of the Bell Canada Act.
Section 7 was put in place in 1968 to prohibit Bell from holding
a broadcasting licence. At the time there was a real concern that
keeping Bell out of broadcasting and especially cable TV was
necessary to prevent Bell from dominating the delivery of
broadcasting services and give the fledgling cable industry a
chance to develop. However, during the years since, these concerns
have been overtaken by a number of technological and market
developments which are leading to the convergence of the
telephone and cable industries.
I would like to point out here that the convergence policy
framework will create more choices for consumers and ensure that
Canadian content remains prominent on their screens. While new
technologies allow telecommunications and broadcasting
companies to offer similar services, the distinction between
telecommunications and broadcasting will remain and will
continue to be guided by distinct regulatory systems.
(1150)
For example, when a telecommunications company provides
broadcasting services, those services will fall under the
Broadcasting Act. Conversely, when a cable company provides
telecommunications services, those services will be subject to the
Telecommunications Act.
Finally, the telecommunications and broadcasting industries are
supportive of the government's goal to foster competition in all
matters on the information highway. The Stentor companies,
including Bell Canada, have made a commitment to make
significant contributions to the Canadian broadcasting system.
Bell Canada is anxious to move ahead with its plans to invest in
the Canadian information highway. By amending the Bell Canada
Act now, the company can plan for the future with a greater degree
of certainty. We cannot afford to delay.
The Clinton administration in the U.S. has launched its national
information infrastructure initiative. The European Union has a
budget of $3.8 billion U.S. to support the development of a new
information infrastructure. In Japan, NTT has plans to wire every
school, home and office with fibre optic cables by the year 2015.
If we do not match the efforts of our competitors, they will seize
the opportunities for network, product and service development.
Failure to build our own information highway will lead to reduced
competitiveness and a loss of high growth knowledge industries
and high quality jobs.
We will also miss the benefits of the so-called enabling effect
cited in the 1992 report of the Information Technology Association
of Canada. The report found that the effective implementation of
technology not only enabled cost reductions and quality
enhancement but also over time led to new products and services to
better strategic management and eventually to new ways of doing
business and meeting customer needs.
5784
Telecommunications is a pivotal enabling technology and
increasingly an integral part of all types of businesses and public
sector agencies. Given our many accomplishments in information
and communications technologies, the convergence of cable and
telephone services offer Canadians many opportunities.
Technologies at which Canadians excel are already creating
whole new industries. Knowledge based industries are growing
faster than any other sector of the Canadian economy. As one of the
most wired countries in the world, Canada has the communications
and network infrastructure necessary to take full advantage of
information technologies such as electronic commerce.
Technology has already eliminated many of the barriers to
convergence. We can help to eliminate the legislative barriers by
passing the bill before us. As the Minister of Industry has said, the
role of government is not simply to reduce the deficit and then get
out of the way. It would be foolish to think that people, businesses
or entire industries will be able to take up the challenge of the
information revolution without government involvement.
Passing the current bill is a necessary step. But once we have
established the policy framework and removed legislative and
other barriers to competition, it will be up to industry to make the
necessary investment and seize the opportunities to provide the
services that consumers want.
(1155)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-57
contains only one clause. The bill's purpose is quite simple: it
repeals section 7 of the Bell Canada Act, which currently prohibits
Bell Canada and any person controlled by Bell Canada from
directly or indirectly holding a broadcasting licence or operating a
broadcasting undertaking.
In tabling this bill, the Minister of Industry is following up on a
recommendation made by the CRTC in its document on the
information highway entitled Competition and Culture on
Canada's Information Highway: Managing the Realities of
Transition. In this document, made public on May 19, 1995, the
CRTC wrote, on page 25, and I quote:
Bell Canada is currently prohibited from holding a broadcasting licence pursuant
to the Bell Canada Act. Given the Commission's view that Canadian telephone
companies have the potential to contribute to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act,
and that they should be allowed to do so, the Commission recommends that the
Government amend the Bell Canada Act to permit Bell Canada to hold broadcasting
licences.
Last August 6, when the Minister of Industry made public his
policy on convergence, he announced that this bill would soon be
tabled.
As you can see, it fits into the broad and immediate context of
the advent of the information highway, and more particularly of the
convergence of telephone, telecommunications and broadcasting
technologies.
As you know, advances in these technologies now mean that they
are converging and must, to all intents and purposes, be able to
merge one with the other. Thus, telephone companies and cable
distributors, to take one example, will shortly be offering the same
services. It is because of this context that the bill is necessary, so
that Bell Canada can eventually transmit television signals, since
cable distributors, for their part, will be authorized to provide
telephone services.
Bell and its partners at Stentor will be able to provide
broadcasting services, as soon as the government has regulated
competition with respect to local telephone services, including
rates, so that cable distributors and other companies will be able to
set up competitive local telephone services.
This convergence of technologies prompted the Minister of
Industry to state in a press release this past September 19, and I
quote: ``The real winners are consumers, who will ultimately have
a choice in who provides their services.'' An interesting statement,
is it not? Will the public see its quality of life improved as a result?
The advent of the information highway will profoundly affect
the lives of individuals in the first part of the next century.
Business, information, recreation, entertainment, work, culture,
consumerism, will all be linked to information highway
technologies.
This is the reason why, although the bill submitted by the
government is not really complex, and might be a mere technicality
in itself, the Bloc Quebecois feels that it cannot be examined
except in conjunction with the entire aspect of the information
highway.
When the Minister of Industry states at the drop of a hat that his
approach, based on competition at all cost, will ensure individuals
and society of quality of life, we believe the minister is being naive
at best, and committing a very dangerous error at worst.
(1200)
Have the federal government's promises about protecting the
interests of Quebecers and Canadians in implementing the
information highway been kept, or will they be kept? That is the
question. In the next few minutes, I shall direct the attention of this
House to the pitfalls that are already a threat to us as individuals
and as a society, and those that will be a threat in the short and
medium term.
The deregulation process in the telecommunications field has
been underway for more than ten years, but the key decision dates
back to 1992, when the CRTC introduced long distance competi-
5785
tion. This marked the end of a long tradition in the
telecommunications industry which has always been a monopoly.
According to the Minister of Industry, the decision should benefit
all consumers. But does it really?
As shown in the report on long distance savings by the coalition
for affordable telephone services, filed in February 1996, most
residential subscribers of companies that are members of Stentor
had enjoyed no substantial reduction in their long distance bills
since the CRTC opened up the area to competition in 1992.
As you know, the coalition is an umbrella organization for more
than 60 associations across Canada. It includes organizations that
represent consumers, senior citizens, unions and other public
interest groups. It is probably the largest coalition of consumers
nationwide.
I would like to quote to the House what it says on page 2 of the
coalition's report, which reads as follows:
``Last December, the members of the Stentor group convinced
the federal government that they should be allowed to keep the
increases-we are talking about increases in residential rates-and
not have to reduce basic rates. If residential subscribers remain
customers of Stentor for long distance services, they will pay not
less than $700 million in 1996 and 1997, and over a ten year period
up to $4.5 billion, an amount that would go to the telephone
companies without giving the subscriber the benefit of discounts on
long distance calls they pay for, discounts to which they are
entitled''.
The coalition goes on to say that long distance rates have gone
down, but significantly so only in the case of wholesale users,
mainly large corporations.
In ruling 94-19 and 94-21, the CRTC announced that it would,
among other things, authorize a re-balancing of rates between long
distance and local services and would therefore allow three
increases of $2 each in the monthly basic service rate over the next
three years, each increase being $2.
In exchange, the telecommunications companies would commit
themselves to reducing the long distance bills of residential
subscribers and small and medium-size businesses by the same
amount. However, Bell Canada and seven other
telecommunications companies that are members of the Stentor
group objected to this restriction and filed a petition with the
government asking that the restriction be withdrawn.
(1205)
Forgetting his promises to consumers, the Minister of Industry
approved this application by the Stentor group by maintaining the
increase in local service rates-$2 in 1996, $2 in 1997 and a review
of the $2 increase in 1998-while allowing market competition to
continue to dictate long distance charges.
Worse, as consumers were hit by an increase in local service
rates without a reduction in long distance rates, the president of
Bell Canada was quoted in the December 21, 1995 edition of Le
Devoir as saying that the government's decision would result in a 1
per cent increase in the rate of return of stockholders' equity for the
year 1996.
For its part, the Fédération nationale des associations de
consommateurs du Québec or FNACQ stated in the same article
that, in the next three years, Canadian households would have to
pay over $1 billion more for local service so that telephone
companies can make as much profit as they want.
An FNACQ analyst, Marie Vallée, added that the CRTC's
original decision would have translated into a first substantial
reduction for residential low and medium volume users of long
distance and for small businesses. Unfortunately, this did not
materialize.
There was some hope that consumers would now have some
breathing room. Unfortunately, on September 6, Bell Canada
submitted a new application regarding residential service to the
CRTC. This application has two components. The first component
is the modernization of the telephone network for some 490,000
customers in Quebec and Ontario by the end of 1997. That is good
news. But there is a hitch. The second component is the proposed
compaction of the rate scale from 19 to 11 levels, which would lead
to an average increase of $1.11 for 850,000 Quebec households.
How will the CRTC rule on this new application for a rate hike? I
am afraid to guess.
But that is not all. Let us talk about business customers. Last
spring, Bell Canada tabled with the CRTC a proposal to harmonize
the rates paid by business customers in small, rural communities.
As you may have figured out, we are moving toward a new rate
increase. In fact, according to Bell, business customers in small,
rural communities will have to pay between $44 and $54 for their
lines, compared to between $39 and $44 in major centres. Should
this increase be approved by the CRTC, it would take effect in July
1997.
Let us think about this for a minute. When a business wants to
modernize its equipment or develop new services, it usually has
three ways to raise capital: reinvesting operating profits in its
modernization, issuing additional shares or borrowing the money
from the banks.
(1210)
Telephone companies have a better system. Because they operate
a monopoly, they can increase their rates as they please, with the
government's blessing, thereby increasing their profits.
This means that, at present, those paying for the information
highway structure, infrastructure and superstructure are mainly the
people taken hostage by the telephone companies. Yet this
infrastructure will be the property of private companies. I find that
indecent.
5786
The effects are both negative and unacceptable to any modern
society. First, basic service will no longer be affordable for
low-income individuals and families. In a world where
communications and information are becoming the cornerstone of
societal relations, those who are excluded will be dramatically
marginalized. Is that the kind of society the Minister of Industry
has in mind? I hope not.
Another negative effect: higher commercial rates will affect
rural businesses than others. As we know, access to
communications services has become essential to any business. If
these services are reduced in any way, or cost more outside urban
centres, the message the Minister of Industry will be sending our
local businesses is that they should move to larger urban centres.
Of course, this would make no sense.
The Minister of Industry must realize that deregulating left and
right as he is currently doing produces ill effects. It is true that it
costs Bell Canada more to provide services in rural regions than in
urban regions. That is true.
It is therefore only normal that the more lucrative urban market
is more attractive to new competitors. The resulting loss of income
from urban sources forces Bell Canada to charge amounts closer to
its actual costs, which, in turn, penalizes the regions. Give the rules
put in place by the Minister of Industry, the telephone companies'
reaction is both normal and predictable. But it is also unacceptable,
totally unacceptable.
The minister certainly cannot believe nor say that consumers and
our businesses will benefit from this competition. The facts prove
just the opposite. Instead of using their own money to invest in
modernization, communication companies pass most of the cost on
to the consumers. Worse yet, the poorest consumers and those
living outside large urban centres are the hardest hit. The Minister
of Industry can no longer afford not to be involved.
Are there solutions? Let me draw the attention of this House to
the solutions proposed by the Fédération nationale des associations
de consommateurs du Québec, or FNACQ, the National
Anti-Poverty Organization, and the Canadian Seniors Network.
These groups propose, based on measures successfully
implemented in California, to first set a monthly rate ceiling of $15
for the basic service provided to households that have confirmed,
through a self-certification process, that their income is below the
poverty line.
(1215)
The shortfall suffered by telephone companies affected would be
compensated with moneys from a universal telecommunications
access fund. These moneys would come from a supplement
charged to the ultimate user of telecommunications services. The
providers of telecommunications services would be responsible for
collecting these moneys and transferring them to the fund. In
return, the fund would compensate the companies providing the
service to the poor.
In the case of businesses located in the regions, the purpose of
the fund would be to ensure a sharing of access and maintenance
costs, which are, of course, higher in the regions than in urban
areas. The fund would be financed through a contribution paid by
the companies providing the telecommunications services.
The proposals of these organizations were made following
CRTC's public notice 95-49, which sought to develop the means to
ensure that telecommunications services continue to be universally
accessible at affordable rates. CRTC's decision in this regard
should be known in the next few days. Let us hope it is the right
one.
Public notice 95-49, tabled by the CRTC on November 22, 1995,
that is before the government's rejection of rulings 94-19 and
95-21, states, among other things, that the CRTC feels local rate
increases, over and above the ones that would result from the rate
rebalancing referred to in ruling 95-21, raise concerns about the
maintaining and affordability of local services. This should
convince the industry minister to rethink his all-around
competition policy.
The concerns of the Bloc Quebecois regarding consumers'
interests are not limited to wire telecommunications. We are also
worried about the consequences, for the public, of implementing
new wireless infrastructures, such as personal telecommunications
services, multimedia services via satellites, direct broadcast
satellites, and broadcasters digitizing.
In fact, beyond the financial consequences for the consumer, the
Minister of Industry has not yet told us where he stands with
respect to the protection of personal information, copyright and
privacy, or with respect to offensive content, child pornography,
production of francophone content, affordability, accessibility and
universality of these services.
We must look at this bill in the larger context of the information
highway. The federal strategy with respect to the information
highway is unfortunately being doled out bit by bit by the Minister
of Industry, despite extensive, in-depth studies by various
organizations. Thus, despite the CRTC report on competition and
culture on Canada's information highway tabled a good year and a
half ago, despite the final report by the information highway
advisory council tabled over a year ago, despite the many
departmental committees on which numerous public servants toil
away and, finally, despite the Minister of Industry's constant
reminders of the need for urgent action, the minister has still only
intervened in the infrastructure sectors. By intervene, all we really
mean is leaving the field wide open for private enterprise.
5787
(1220)
I would also point out that the information highway is not really
being looked at by any standing committee of the House, although
it is an issue of paramount importance for the future of Canada and
of Quebec.
I will, if I may, give you an example of how pitifully little has
been done. There is the document published by the Minister of
Industry last May 23 entitled: Moving Canada into the 21st
Century. Everyone was expecting the government to come up with
an action plan for the information highway. But all we got was a
progress report on implementation of the information highway. The
Bloc Quebecois reacted vigorously when this so-called strategy
was tabled.
The minister's report made no mention at all of important factors
linked to the development of the information highway. Although
the minister wants to encourage virtual transactions with the
public, he does not say how he will ensure that everyone, every
single citizen in this country, will have affordable access to the
information highway.
Furthermore, although electronic marketing will create a new
economy that under existing rules may be able to evade taxes and
even threaten the rights of consumers, the minister makes no
mention at all of this issue. Copyright, offensive content and
foreign transactions are given very superficial treatment.
In fact, the minister mentions only those problems we already
know, without suggesting innovative solutions. Even worse, the
minister's document as well ignored Quebec culture, lumping it
together with Canadian multicultural culture. Furthermore, the
document indicates a willingness to intrude on provincial
jurisdictions.
Finally, the Minister of Industry informs us in this report that the
policy on convergence would be tabled later. It was released on
August 6 by the ministers of industry and Canadian heritage. I may
point out that once again, the announcement was made during the
parliamentary recess, so that the government would not have to
face the usual barrage of questions and criticism.
In a press release, the Bloc Quebecois expressed its reservations
about the government's policy statement. So the ministers of
Canadian heritage and industry seem to have forgotten that the big
players in the telecommunications and cable industries will look
after their own interests first, and that the law of the jungle will
prevail. The policy statement on convergence has created a climate
of complete uncertainty as to the future of telecommunications and
broadcasting services in this context.
The bill now before the House comes as a result of this policy
statement. Let us see what it says.
(1225)
First of all, by allowing telephone and cable companies to
provide the full range of communications and broadcasting
services, the policy statement on convergence makes vertical
integration of services inevitable.
Consequently, despite the ministers' guarantees to the contrary,
it is obvious that all of the companies involved will see joint
financing as an interesting way to ensure a competitive edge. With
number crunching, they will find it easier than ever to ensure that
no legal stone is left unturned. Major clients will be attracted by
price reductions, which will be inaccessible to the general
consumer, who will still unfortunately be a prisoner of his monthly
bill. This is what the Bloc Quebecois predicted last August, and
now we see it happening.
In this battle between the giants of industry, they will no doubt
be able to guarantee their risks and their profits, by joining forces
through the creation of new structurally distinct companies in
which they will be co-shareholders. Already several American
companies have joined forces with Canadian ones and have a
strong presence in both regular and cell phone service.
Under the guise of healthy and durable competition, the
government is moving convergence into the jungle of world
competition, where there have already been many, far too many,
victims.
You will understand that I regret the federal Minister of
Industry's decision to allow market forces to dictate the physical
and technical implementation of the information highway. And yet,
consumers finance most of it through significant hikes in their
monthly bills. I also deplore the fact that the minister is neglecting
one of the main stakes in the information highway, namely content
development and distribution, whether in the areas of
entertainment, professional services or teleshopping.
And yet, it is a consumer market worth tens of billions of dollars.
What positions will Canadians and Quebecers take in this market?
The answer to this question lies to a large extent in the way issues
regarding copyright, tax legislation enforcement, consumer
protection, security, privacy, the respect of cultural, moral or civil
values will be dealt with at the national and international levels.
Unfortunately, these unavoidable issues are being ignored by the
industry minister.
And what about the accessibility issue, the danger of a two tier
society, one made up of those who are connected and those who are
not; those who know how to use it and those who are unable to. I
believe that the minister should without delay allow the House to
have an input in the analysis and resolution of the critical stakes in
the information revolution.
You will agree that this information revolution is going to
completely reshape, for better or for worse, social, cultural and
economic relationships within society for the next century. So far,
the Bloc Quebecois is the only voice to raise this issue in the
5788
House. We urge the ministers of industry and heritage to do the
same.
In conclusion, I inform the House that the Bloc Quebecois will
support Bill C-57. Our position reflects the fact that the Bloc
Quebecois is in favour of healthy and ongoing competition within
the telecommunications sector resulting in profitable and
competent telecommunications companies.
However, I must emphasize that the Bloc Quebecois will never
let the federal government get away with neglecting its duty to
prevent them from competing at consumers' expense.
(1230 )
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to make a few remarks today with respect to
Bill C-57, the amendment to the Bell Canada Act.
Right off the top it is clear that this legislation is a housekeeping
amendment and Reform supports its speedy passage. Bill C-57
simply removes the restriction preventing Bell Canada from
holding a broadcasting licence, thereby allowing it to get into the
cable business at some point down the road.
Bill C-57 flows from the government's convergence policy
announced in August. Convergence has become one of those words
that is bandied about a lot. People sometimes use it to sound
impressive, but convergence simply means the coming together of
different technologies and industries into a new competitive
environment. In this case we are talking about cable companies
getting into the business of providing telephone services and
telephone companies becoming cable providers, both in direct
competition with each other.
As the process of convergence pertains to this bill, we are
referring to Bell Canada being allowed to hold a broadcast licence.
In the late 1960s the Bell Canada Act was amended to prevent Bell
from getting into the cable business in order to protect the fledgling
cable industry.
Today with the likes of Rogers and Shaw, companies which have
grown enormously since their beginning in the protected
marketplace they have had, now the playing field is a bit more
level. So this is really an administrative prelude to the more
difficult and challenging task of actually getting convergence and
the prospective competitors up and running.
The CRTC, which Terence Corcoran of the Globe and Mail has
called the Canadian roadblock to telecommunications competition,
is currently holding hearings with stakeholders on how best to
proceed with the nuts and bolts of the government's convergence
policy. I certainly do not envy it that task. Much of it will be
concerned with the arcane technical details that must be worked out
in order to make sure that any new system functions smoothly for
both the providers of the service and for consumers alike.
What is certain however is that convergence will benefit the
consumer. It is for that reason that Reform urges the government to
push ahead as swiftly as possible in its implementation. Witness
long distance competition as an example of consumer benefit.
In 1992 the CRTC permitted resellers to enter the long distance
phone market. Competition in other words. To begin with there
were many players, some big, many small. Those consumers who
switched early will recall dialling multiple access codes and
passwords in order to be able to call long distance with their newly
chosen provider.
Slamming, or the practice of moving a consumer from one long
distance provider to another without their consent, was rife. Many
small companies fell by the wayside under the strength of the larger
firms.
Along came 1994 and the ease of access provisions. Then we
could simply pick up the phone and our long distance call was
billed to the chosen company.
During all of this, intense marketing was taking place. Door to
door campaigns and multimillion dollar TV blitzes with
Hollywood stars were launched in order to woo our patronage.
People switched because they saw that prices actually had dropped
right across the board. Even the Stentor companies that own the
networks were forced to become competitive, all without the due
interference of the prodding CRTC. Wonder of wonders: private
sector competition in an area of former monopoly control and the
consumer benefits.
Well, it will be the same with competition in local phone service
as well as in cable. Pricing and service packages will become more
attractive and competition will keep the choices interesting. New
entrants into monopoly fields will shake up the old ways of
thinking and marketing and operating. Stodginess and
complacency will thankfully become things of the past.
(1235)
The convergence of phone and cable, which we have come to be
so familiar with, will open doors to new types of service simply due
to the inherent properties of the technologies. But there are new
technologies coming on line by the time convergence gets up and
running that will further stimulate and spur competition. I refer to
PCS, personal communications service, the next generation of
cellular based telephones, and LMCS, local multipoint
communications system, or wireless cable.
Instead of having an 18-inch dish outside your house for direct to
home satellite service, assuming it ever gets up and running that is,
how about an 8-inch dish on top of your television delivering high
5789
quality digital TV and audio services and high speed Internet
access as well? It is just a couple of years away.
Industry Canada is going through the process of granting the first
batch of licences right now and PCS is already hitting the market.
New technologies make it a more secure and a far more flexible
form of wireless telephone service than current analogue or even
digital cellular. The types of things it can do make it more akin to
land line phone service than anything yet available.
I recently heard an interesting quote. It said that nowadays one
should not invest in companies that still employ professional ditch
diggers. The inference is that wireless is the way of the future. The
once mighty cable and phone companies have more to worry about
than just each other with these new technologies coming on the
scene. The issue is not without politics either, as if anything in this
place ever is without politics.
British Columbia's telephone company, B.C. Tel, was to have
been barred from entry into the cable business based upon a
historical reality. That reality is the fact that 75 years or so ago,
there was not enough interested Canadian capital available to build
B.C. Tel's initial infrastructure so it went south of the border for the
money to build the system. This was before the cultural engineers
in Ottawa decided that foreign capital was a bad thing in a business
like a phone company.
As a result of being 51 per cent or so foreign owned by GTE Inc.
of the U.S., B.C. Tel apparently violates all sorts of culturally
sensitive rules made by the Ottawa bureaucrats. In its questionable
wisdom, the CRTC recommended in its convergence report in 1995
that B.C. Tel be denied entry into the cable business due to this
foreign content. Let me say that much consternation ensued in B.C.
and the Liberals felt some of the heat that might come if B.C. Tel's
future in the cable industry was denied.
In its wisdom and in an apparent victory for the industry minister
over the heritage minister and her protectionist ways, the cabinet in
approving the convergence policy has decided to let B.C. Tel into
the cable business after all. Perhaps the thought of a hoard of angry
British Columbians was not all that appealing.
We have a bright future for Canada's telecommunications sector.
We lag behind in some technologies like direct to home satellites
and PCS but we are ahead in others like cable Internet access and
LMCS.
Large numbers of jobs will flow from convergence, high tech
jobs, and that certainly is good news. In this first legislative round
over convergence, I am glad the Liberals have finally come to their
senses but I also wish to urge them to move toward turning policy
into reality just as quickly as they can. The benefits are simply too
great to permit much delay.
(1240 )
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the bill we are debating today is one of the shortest
allowed by the rules of debate of this House. It deals with one of
Canada's oldest institutions, Bell Canada, which was incorporated
as long ago as 1880.
Neither the length nor the legal wording of the bill can do justice
to the sweeping changes which have marked and will continue to
mark this company's evolution. We really have to read between the
few lines of this particular piece of legislation to see the numerous
advantages it offers consumers. This is why I personally welcome
the opportunity to speak today to discuss how these few lines of
text will affect the lives of Canadians living in the region served by
Bell Canada, that is, Ontario and Quebec.
Bell Canada has acquired a world class reputation in the field of
telephone services and technology development. This bill will
enable the company to put its reputation for excellence at stake in
the field of broadcasting, including cable TV operations. It will
allow Bell to offer a range of services based on new technologies
that are coming into the market.
It is extremely important for legislation that is presented in this
House to reflect the changing nature of the world in which we live.
Broadcasting and particularly telecommunications have always
been really the two solitudes of Canada's communications system.
From the beginning these two fields have been divided by laws,
regulation and technology. Technology in particular was a barrier
to convergence of the two industries. Now those technological
barriers are indeed fading. We are essentially living in an era where
time and space are being redefined.
The technological revolution makes it possible for the two
solitudes I was talking about earlier to unite and to complement
each other. The truth is we now need to change our laws and our
regulatory environment to facilitate our entry into this new era of
technology.
In 1968 this House prohibited Bell Canada and its subsidiaries
from holding a broadcasting licence. At that time the purpose of
this restriction was very noble indeed: to prevent Bell Canada from
dominating the delivery of broadcasting services and to protect the
fledgling cable industry. However since that time, as Canadians are
well aware, these concerns have been overtaken by a number of
technological and market developments that are leading to the
convergence of the telephone and cable industries.
In the future, broadcasting and telecommunications will stake
their claim on the same territories. Cable distributors will be found
in the area of telephone services, and telephone companies will be
at work in the area of broadcasting. This new competition between
the two great branches of Canada's communications system will
5790
stimulate investment and innovation. Above all it will give
consumers the benefit of an even wider variety of services.
Mention of Bell Canada often conjures up images of a great
untouchable monopoly. This is no longer the case as competition
has opened up several areas of the telecommunications market,
including long distance services. Now Bell Canada will have to
face competition from cable distributors and new entrants in the
local telephone service market.
(1245 )
The new wireless technologies will provide alternatives to the
traditional cable and wire services. For example, wireless
broadband or local multi-point communication systems
technologies will offer everything from TV programming to
Internet access, from multi-media applications to telephone
services. Satellite services are another competitive alternative to
wire and cable based distribution systems in rural and remote areas.
Consumers will be able to select the type of local telephone
services they want on the basis of choice, quality and price.
In this new environment, it is only fair that Bell Canada should
be able to meet head to head with its competitors in their respective
fields. Now that cable companies are well established and about to
take on the telephone services market, Bell Canada will have the
opportunity to take on the cable distribution market.
Bell Canada's extensive telecommunications distribution
network will be able to carry all the products and services which up
until now were only offered by cable companies and all the new
products that will be introduced as soon as cable companies are
able to offer telephone services.
The convergence policy statement and principles released on
August 6 will give consumers more choices and will help ensure
that Canadian content prevails. Even smaller specialty service
providers will be able to access large distribution networks like
Bell Canada's and carve out profitable niches for themselves.
Regardless of whether they subscribe to Bell Canada's network,
a cable network or new wireless networks, the emerging
information highway will provide consumers with access to a range
of new employment, health care, educational and entertainment
opportunities.
Canadians, regardless of where they live, will be able to open
links from their homes to training institutions, educators and
distance education. They will be able to access many government
services 24 hours a day. Telecommuting will enable many
Canadians to work at home through a network which allows them
to be in contact with their employers, colleagues and clients. This
new work scheme will also cut the costs traditionally associated
with working.
When this short bill becomes law it will have a far-reaching
impact on the development of Canada's information highway. It
sets the stage for true competition between what until now has been
the two solitudes in Canada's communication industry. This
competition will lead to new innovations in products and services
that drive the growth of the information highway and open up an
new era of opportunity for confident producers and consumers.
For these reasons I urge all members of the House to support the
bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the speech by my colleague from the Liberal
Party. He announced all those great things the public will soon
benefit from.
I would like to ask him a question. Since the unemployment
level is close to 23, 24 and even 25 per cent, since the unemployed
have trouble making ends meet, since the monthly telephone bill
increases by $2 each year and another $1.11 will soon be added to
that, how does he think that these people, one in four in Canada
now, will be able to afford the range of services he just described?
As a government, is the Liberal Party not creating a two tier
society, one for those who have money and one for those who will
have to do without services whenever there is not enough money? I
would like an answer to that question.
(1250)
[English]
Mr. Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the
hon. member opposite who said that he was paying attention to
what I was saying. Based on the question that he asked, it is
obvious to me that he must have either just entered the House or
was not paying attention to the TV screen in the back lobby.
This bill actually opens up competition for cable and telephone
companies. Competition usually results in better service and a
wider array of services for Canadians at a lower cost.
As a member of Parliament who has travelled the country
extensively from coast to coast to coast, on the issue of
unemployment and the related fields of social security and youth, I
can say that there is a great call in Canada, including in the
province of Quebec, to create the type of information network and
infrastructure to help people with the issue, for example, of
distance education.
The 21st century is only a few years away. For anyone to attempt
to block legislation such as that which the government has put
before the House would clearly indicate to me that the hon.
member is not looking to the 21st century with a great deal of
enthusiasm, nor is he looking for ways to help the 1.4 million
5791
Canadians who are unemployed or others who are on social
assistance.
Let us remember that any industrial strategy that an
industrialized country like Canada undertakes will include a very
effective infrastructure, not simply bridges and roads, but also the
type of infrastructure which is required in the field of
telecommunications.
It is high time that members understand that our country's future
economic capacity will largely be increased by the type of
investment it makes in telecommunications, in computer networks
and in those sorts of things which speak to building a global
economy.
This bill will allow many things to occur. Above and beyond
that, it will allow for the sort of competition that speaks to
innovation and creativity in Canada's marketplace. That will
generate jobs. It will give hope to those individuals who the hon.
member professes he wants to help.
One of the things of which I am aware is that people, the
unemployed in particular, are moving away from the concept of
income support just for the sake of income support. Unemployed
Canadians want income support plus the tools required to re-enter
the workforce. We cannot do that using old fashioned rules and old
fashioned approaches.
The hon. member is bringing in unemployment as it relates to
this bill. If he was a bit of a futurist, if he understood how the world
is changing, then he would know that these are the types of bills
which he should be supporting.
If he looks at the issue of distance education and the interaction
between teachers or professors and an individual Canadian at
home, I am sure he will understand that this bill is improving the
chances of those unemployed people to which he referred.
The government is on the right track. I am sure it will stay the
course. At the macro level the deficit has been lowered and that has
resulted in lower interest rates. We are also getting our fiscal house
in order. On the other side, which is equally important, is the type
of investment we are making in people and the type of investment
we are making in the information network which exists and which
needs to be improved. When we continue to invest in people we are
speaking about prosperity, of giving the tools required for people to
take on the challenges of the 21st century.
(1255)
Knowing that the hon. member understands all these things that
are occurring in the world, I am quite surprised he would limit
himself to what I would consider a pretty empty question.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the
speech of my colleague, both on the monitors and here in the
House. I must say that affordability and accessibility of services are
not empty questions.
There is a real possibility we will end up with a two tier society if
we do nothing to prevent it. There will be those who can afford the
services and those who cannot. There will be those who will know
how to use the tools and those who will not. If we are not careful
about this, we could create information ghettos which would be
hard to escape.
I am surprised that my colleague across the way is singing the
praises of technology. I have been working with information
systems since 1968, for 28 years now, and I understand quite well,
probably better than anybody in this House, what is at stake in this
situation. As I have experienced how difficult it is for companies
and individuals to adapt to technological changes, I must caution
the Liberal government not to make such changes unless it is very
sensitive to the needs of society as a whole and most of all to the
needs of the neediest in our society.
This is not an insignificant issue, it is the fundamental purpose of
a society to go forward, but we must do so all together as we want
to do in Quebec and as we want to do in Canada, I hope.
[English]
Mr. Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is picking
on the wrong member of Parliament. This is the same member,
through his youth initiatives, who has been able to talk to and
recommend to the minister that we should have technology youth
initiatives for at risk youth. I understand that polarization of classes
in this society is going to occur between those individuals of
technological know-how and the have nots. It is a known fact.
People have to understand that for governments it is not a
question of either/or and we do understand that in this House. We
always think that only one policy direction can be taken and it is
exclusive.
Policy directions and choices do not have to be mutually
exclusive. Both can be done. If there are people in this society, who
through no fault of their own cannot access certain technological
instruments, does not mean that you deny everybody else. What
you do is work hard at making sure those individuals also have
access to those technological improvements that our society can
offer.
The point the hon. member made is well taken but he should only
look at the Minister of Industry's program of computers in the
schools to find out that the Liberal Party has already responded to
his question.
5792
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the second reading of Bill
C-57, an act to issue a broadcasting licence to Bell Canada to allow
it to compete in the cable industry.
What is at stake here with the bill is not the principle of
deregulation as such, but the results obtained as opposed to the
results expected by the minister responsible for the
communications sector.
You will recall that, when the Liberals formed the federal
government in 1993, they promised to pursue the deregulation
objective in the telephone industry and the communications sector.
They promised especially that, with this deregulation, consumers
in Quebec and Canada as a whole would end up benefiting from
reduced rates. However, since this deregulation objective has been
set into motion, the effects have been totally the opposite.
(1300)
Far from arriving at a reduction of these rates, we were
confronted with rate increases, even in the sector where they had
promised the most reductions in communications rates, that is long
distance rates.
Data have been checked out. Since 1992, most residential
subscribers, mainly those of Stentor, which is a partner of Bell
Canada, have not seen one cent of reduction in the long distance
rates. Not one cent of reduction since 1992, while they were
promised, especially in the long distance market, a substantial
reduction of these rates.
The only ones whose long distance bills went down are the major
consumers, most of which are large corporations concentrated in
major urban centres such as Montreal and Toronto.
Everywhere else, all regular customers in Quebec, all the people
who voted for this government in Canada and for the Bloc
Quebecois in Quebec did not see a penny in reduction in long
distance rates. As for local rates, the situation is almost disastrous.
Not only has there been no reduction in rates but, by deregulating
left and right and promising just about anything, they compromised
the basic principle of cross-subsidizing telephone services.
Under the cross-subsidization principle, operating surpluses
generated in major urban centres, especially for long distance, were
used to subsidize local service, which, in some small communities
throughout Canada, costs more than in major centres.
The cross-subsidization principle was replaced by that of rate
rebalancing. What was the result of this rate rebalancing? Since
1994, basic telephone service rates have risen by $2 per month, per
year, over three years. In other words, in three years, the monthly
bills of consumers in Quebec and Canada will be $6 higher than if
the principle of cross-subsidization had been maintained.
The most outrageous in all of this is that Bell Canada is taking
advantage of these CRTC rulings, which Bell Canada itself
contributes to since it provides documentation to the CRTC. Bell
has a range of experts who do not carry as much weight as
consumers or their representatives. But, instead of using these
higher revenues taken from the pockets of consumers to remain
competitive or modernize, Bell uses them to increase its
stockholders' rate of return.
Mr. McLennan, the president of Bell Canada, made no bones
about it. He was quoted in the December 21, 1995 edition of Le
Devoir as saying as that the rate increases approved by the CRTC
would result in a 1 per cent increase in the rate of return of
stockholders' equity for the year 1996.
This is not modernization. Bell Canada is taking advantage of
increases authorized by the CRTC to dig into the pockets of
consumers and increase the return on investment of its
shareholders. In fact, a spokesperson for the Fédération nationale
des associations de consommateurs had this to say at the time:
``Canadian households will have to pay more than $1 billion in
increases over the next three years for the telephone companies to
achieve the level of profits they are hoping for''.
In other words, deregulation, CRTC decisions, what the minister
says, his policies and directions, all that is not designed to serve
consumers, as he claimed, nor to reduce long distance rates for the
average consumer or local rates, but to increase all these rates and
take out of the pockets of consumers the money Bell Canada needs
to sweeten the package offered to its shareholders.
I find that absolutely despicable. Especially given that Mr.
McLennan was going around this year forecasting $700 million in
net profits for Bell Canada, or a 40 per cent increase over last
year's profits.
(1305)
Now, they have the gall to ask for more rate increases to be
approved, so that they can fill their pockets even more, with the
blessing of the minister, who keeps talking about abstract and
vague concepts and does not bother to monitor the impact of his
decisions and directions.
When you are looking to deregulate and ensure that
communications systems meet the needs of the 1990s, into the next
century, as my hon. colleague so aptly pointed out, you must ensure
at the same time that a procedure is in place to follow up and
monitor what is going on in terms of price increases. Soon, with
such increases for basic telephone services, andother services too,
communications will become a luxury item. Average families will
no longer be able to afford these services.
5793
Bell Canada and its competition offer an incredible range of
services. But, as the hon. member for Portneuf said, who will be
able to use these services?
This issue raises a lot of questions. Here is another example of
rate increase based on deregulation without monitoring, as applied
by by the minister responsible for communications: Last spring,
Bell Canada asked the CRTC to increase the rates of its business
clients located in small rural communities.
Some small businesses, referred to as VSBs or very small
businesses, located in rural communities saw their basic rate jump
from $44 to $54 per month, a $10 increase. This puts small
businesses located in rural communities at a further competitive
disadvantage, since the increase in densely populated areas, that is
in major urban centres, was only $5. The increase imposed on
small businesses located in rural communities is more than twice
that of their competition in major urban centres.
This is not normal, particularly from a government that claims to
support small rural communities and regional development. The
government is killing entrepreneurship by playing a part in such
decisions.
This is a serious matter. The Quebec vice-president of the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Mr. Cléroux,
condemned this decision made last spring regarding small
businesses in rural communities. He said the situation of a number
of these businesses is precarious, adding that such an increase
would adversely affect their performance and could even threaten
their survival. Such are the effects of this government's
deregulation, a process which does not involve any monitoring and
which is irresponsible.
When the industry asks the government to support deregulation,
as we do, the government must monitor the situation and provide a
framework. It must not let the situation turn into a free for all. It
must not let anarchy set in. More importantly, it must not let the
shareholders of Bell Canada, Stentor and all the others raid the
pockets of consumers in Quebec and Canada. That is not the
purpose of deregulation. The purpose is to have better service,
service that is competitive and is more concerned with what
consumers can afford than with making money for the richest
shareholders in Bell Canada. It is not right.
Finally, last September 6, and I tell you this because it is a matter
of great importance to me, Bell Canada had good news for us. I said
to myself that any good news in the matter of deregulation brings
with it news that is not so good, and I was right. Last September 6,
Bell Canada announced that it was modernizing all its telephone
and communication facilities in small municipalities in Quebec
and Ontario.
I believe some 500 or 550 municipalities, including 300 in
Quebec, were involved. This was good news, excellent news,
because for years, municipalities and economic development
corporations, as well as the federal government, have been pushing
Bell Canada to modernize its exchanges. Why? You would be
surprised.
At a time when the focus is on telecommunications, the very
latest in service, the information highway, all these ultramodern
services, you would be surprised to learn that over 300
municipalities in Quebec and over 200 in Ontario do not even have
9-1-1 service.
(1310)
The networks are so antiquated that they do not have 9-1-1, and
conference calls are not possible. The vast array of services offered
by Bell Canada is not to be found in these municipalities. But the
advertising is.
It is frustrating for people to receive advertising on a range of
services with a 30 per cent discount on 10 ultramodern
communications services offered by Bell Canada and to be told by
head office that they are not entitled to these services, that they
may not take advantage of the 30, 40, 50 and 70 per cent discounts
because their system is completely behind the times, ready for the
junk heap.
We were happy last September 6 at the marvellous news that
Bell Canada was going to modernize its networks. At last, no more
lives will be at risk. It is a serious matter when you do not have
access to 9-1-1 service in communities. Situations can arise where
citizens' lives are in danger and Bell Canada is doing nothing.
They are happy, except that there is a hitch, and it is this: Bell
Canada will be passing on to these small communities the cost of
modernizing the network in the form of a major hike in rates for
local service. In other words, three municipalities elsewhere in
Quebec, as in Ontario, located in urban or semi-urban areas, had
their modernization paid for by all Bell customers, but those
remaining, small rural communities, will have to cover the cost
themselves. This is no small matter.
If I look at my riding, where two municipalities and parishes
have these outmoded communications systems, monthly rates will
increase by approximately $4. In addition to this $4, there are the
increases already planned by Bell. I would remind you that they are
talking of a $2 hike in 1996, $2 in 1997, $2 in 1998, which makes
$6 more on local rates. Now another $4. Do you realize what this
means over 25 months for telephone service charges? A rise of
close to 100 per cent.
Is such a situation normal, when everywhere else with a high
population density systems were modernized from the funding of
the entire client base? Now they will be demanding a rate increase
on a case by case basis to meet the costs of such modernization.
Small rural communities are required to be cost-effective, to fit
in with the movement toward market globalization, to compete
with major centres, as well as internationally, and so we end up
with situations of discrimination such as this.
5794
About a year and a half ago, a coalition for the modernization of
Bell Canada service was formed in my riding. I would like to take
this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of that coalition,
which may have prompted Bell Canada's decision to speed up
modernization. No rate increases were called for, mind you.
Today, I would like to single out the following for their excellent
work: the mayor of Saint-Hyacinthe, Claude Bernier, who is also
reeve of the regional county municipality and one the key players
in the coalition; Jean Messier, Mayor of Saint-Damase; Mr. Guillet,
Mayor of the Parish of Saint-Damase; Mr. Adam, Mayor of the
Village of Saint-Pie; Rosaire Martin, Mayor of the Parish of
Saint-Pie. I salute, as well, Mario de Telly, Director of the
Saint-Hyacinthe economic development corporation. I am grateful
for their support and the strong stands they have taken in this
matter for the greater good of their fellow citizens.
As I have said, this coalition had only one purpose: to obtain for
a population marginalized by Bell Canada the broad range of
modern services which technological advances have now made
available.
(1315)
Bell was not, however, ever asked to increase rates inordinately,
as it did in the plan it submitted to the CRTC this past September.
We are calling for the government to get a little more involved in
this situation, not only for the sake of Saint-Pie and Saint-Damase,
but also for the other 300 Quebec and 250 Ontario municipalities.
In the name of its deregulation policy, in the name of its
communications policy, the government must require the CRTC
not to allow any anomalies such as there are in Saint-Pie and
Saint-Damase in my region, and in more than 300 other
municipalities in Quebec and Ontario.
The government has to act responsibly, because you cannot treat
people in rural areas like second class citizens. They have the same
rights as everybody else, and they are entitled to the basic service
provided by Bell Canada and other telephone companies. And they
also have the same right as anyone else to the services provided by
Bell Canada.
I was astonished to see Mr. McLennan announce at a press
conference that Bell Canada would make a profit of $712 million
this year and probably even more next year, which will mean more
money for the shareholders. Meanwhile, after announcing this
increase in profits and increased dividends for shareholders, he
announced that in the course of the next 25 months, basic service
rates in small rural municipalities would go up by 100 per cent.
Here we do not find compassion nor any concern for dealing
fairly with the various regions in this country.
Sure, we want Bell Canada to modernize its equipment. Sure, we
want deregulation which, if the minister does his job and if this
government does its job, might improve rates for the consumer, but
at the same time, we do not want small municipalities which are
already at a disadvantage because of their location, compared with
more centrally located areas, to be charged more by a big
corporation that is federally regulated.
We hope the CRTC will respond to appeals from the coalition in
my riding, and I mentioned some prominent members of the
coalition earlier, and that it will require Bell Canada to use part of
its $700 million in profits to modernize its equipment without
gouging the consumer. I also speak on behalf of Quebec's 300 rural
municipalities which are in the same boat as the municipalities of
Saint-Pie et Saint-Damase in my region, since the UMRCQ, at its
last convention, voted almost unanimously to pass a resolution
along the lines of the coalition founded in Saint-Hyacinthe against
rate increases to pay for updating facilities.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to thank the hon. member for his intervention. It is
interesting. There are some points that I would like to comment on
and perhaps ask questions of.
The Bloc Quebecois has been at pains to point out the difficulties
that change brings on people. There is an element of truth in what it
says.
However, it seems to me that unless we open the field that these
big companies have dominated for so long and allow new
technologies to have their place, to have new entries into the
marketplace make their play, then we are simply going to be bound
by the status quo.
I have heard my hon. colleague mention the number of
communities he has in his constituency. I share many of the same
concerns that he has. I have rural communities that do not have
telephone service or they have the old telephone service that they
cannot use for fax communication and for Internet communication.
These people are waiting for the lines to bring in the technology
that is available to people on modern telecommunications systems
and they do not have them. This is not a matter that I am unfamiliar
with.
(1320 )
It seems to me, however, that the means for dealing with this is
not simply to maintain the status quo, that it must be opened up to
the new technologies, that it is not going to be for a very long time
that the most distant and most remote parts of our country have the
benefit of a land line, a telephone company putting in polls,
5795
stringing wires and doing all the things we have seen done for the
last 50 years. That is not going to happen. What we have to do is
open up the marketplace so that the new technologies can bring the
modern services that will put these points in communication with
the rest of the world.
I also listened to the member speak about the difficulties with
people not having 911 numbers. This too must be available for
people in the same way with the communication means that are
possible.
I would like to ask the member if he does not see the new
technology and new avenues of competition as really being a
blessing that will bring to people in the remote frontiers of our
country the means of communication that they have not had in the
past? If he does not see that, how does he intend to see these people
who are without communication means get them under the present
system?
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Madam Speaker, I welcome my Reform
colleague's comments and questions. We must set the record
straight: we are not against deregulation, except when it has such
perverse effects, when, instead of the promised rate reductions, we
end up facing rate increases. Another perverse effect is that-to get
back to my Reform colleague's remark-competition benefits
major centres and big consumers.
However, in rural and semi-rural regions, Bell and its
competitors are not so eager to provide good services to their
customers. That is why deregulation should be followed up to
determine its impact on local communities. I can tell you that the
deregulation of telephone services has not been good to rural
communities so far.
It is up to the minister responsible for communications to ensure
that rural communities can benefit from the positive impact of
competition in the area of telephone and communications
services-and there is indeed a positive impact. Under the current
policy, there are now two types of citizens: the people living in
densely populated areas, who receive good communications
services, and those who live farther away from major centres, who
are poorly served by communications companies.
There is no need to go very far. Saint-Pie and Saint-Damase are
only about 50 kilometres away from Montreal and some 10 or 15
kilometres from Saint-Hyacinthe. But just because of this short
distance, telephone companies are not so eager to provide good
services to the population, and that is not normal.
I agree that deregulation can bear fruit, but the fruit has started to
rot even before the tree has reached maturity. This is the minister's
fault. We are asking the minister to remedy the perverse effects of
deregulation and ensure that Bell Canada and its competitors
provide the same high quality services to all citizens, whether they
live in cities or in rural communities. That is not the case today.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to my hon. colleague's remarks on this important issue
and I would like to get his view on the fact that, at present,
technological advances-and we are all for technology and we
believe in it-are not accessible and apparently cannot be made
equally accessible to all consumers.
(1325)
Precisely because large urban centres are profitable for
telephone companies, that is where the competition is and,
naturally, urban consumers will have access to excellent services at
a presumably reasonable price. But in rural areas, Bell Canada
remains the only provider. The competition does not reach there; it
would cost them too much.
Bell Canada, which used to be able to derive part of its revenue
from urban centres to make up for the higher cost of providing
service to rural areas, can no longer do that and, as a result, people
living in rural areas will not enjoy the same grade of service or
good prices as their urban counterparts.
Does my hon. colleague not think that our friends from the
Reform Party should take up the position of the Bloc Quebecois to
ensure that technological advances and deregulation benefit all
citizens and demand that the Minister of Industry take steps to
ensure we achieve this desirable end.
Mr. Loubier: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Portneuf
has taken the words right out of my mouth. I had written, to
conclude my response to our colleague from the Reform Party, that
the Reformers might consider joining us in our pursuit to ensure
that all our fellow citizens may enjoy the benefits of the
deregulation process as soon as possible and have their rates cut.
I am reaching out to the Reform Party. If ever you experience in
your rural communities the same unfair situation my fellow
citizens of Saint-Pie and Saint-Damaze are facing following Bell
Canada's recent decisions, I urge you to join forces with us, and I
will be pleased to join with you on this issue.
On other issues, it may be a different story, but on this one, I
must say that we think alike and that is a good thing. The purpose
of this coalition was to get the minister to yield, so that there will
not be first-class and second-class citizens in Quebec and Canada,
but only one class of citizens served by these large corporations and
also by medium sized communications companies.
Your analysis, which you shared with us earlier, hon. colleague
from the Reform Party, is exactly along the same lines as our
analyses and those of the Bloc member for Portneuf. If our parties
can, for this once, join forces in the interest of our fellow citizens,
we will do so.
5796
In the meantime, let me tell you that, over the next few weeks,
the CRTC will be hearing representations from various groups on
the application for rate increase presented by Bell Canada on
September 6. I urge you to do as some of us have done and write
the CRTC, asking that the system be modernized without rates
being raised.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-57, an act to amend the
Bell Canada Act.
This bill seeks to allow Bell Canada to hold a broadcasting
licence or to operate a broadcasting undertaking which, until now,
the company was prohibited from doing.
This legislation is part of the regulatory changes undertaken by
the government to allow competition among the various players in
the communications sector. Telephone companies will now be
allowed to operate in the broadcasting and cable broadcasting
sectors, while cable companies will be able to use their networks to
sell telephone services and to provide access to the information
highway.
We agree with the objective to promote competition and
convergence, and we support the bill. However, this legislation
only solves Bell Canada's case. The government must still grant
the same privilege to other companies providing telephone
services, including Quebec Telephone and BC Tel.
Let us not forget that, with the support and the co-operation of
the public, the Bloc Quebecois worked very hard to show to the
government the major role played by Quebec Telephone in eastern
Quebec's economy.
(1330)
The Bloc Quebecois asked that Quebec Telephone also be
allowed to provide broadcasting services. The government
recognized the soundness of the official opposition's arguments
and, on August 6, when it launched its policy, it also announced
that Quebec Telephone and BC Tel would be allowed to access the
new convergence market, and that an order in council would be
made to this effect.
We are concerned that this bill was tabled without any order
being made regarding Quebec Telephone and BC Tel. Madam
Speaker, I ask you to remind the government that it would be
greatly appreciated if the order was made before the final vote on
this bill, so as to give equal treatment to all telephone companies.
We cannot talk about a bill on Bell Canada without mentioning
the recent telephone rate increases approved by the federal
government. The new competitive environment was supposed to
result in a lowering of the rates, including for long distance
services. In fact, prices went down only for major users and
companies.
As for Bell Canada's clients, they will have to put up with two
successive increases of two dollars, in 1996 and in 1997, and with
an undetermined one in 1998. The government overturned CRTC
decisions that would have give residence customers and small and
medium size businesses a rebate on long distance calls.
In the end, the government's attitude towards the industry means
that it would be up to the consumers instead of investors and phone
company shareholders to pay for the development of
communications networks and for their adaptation to the
information highway.
For the industry, getting assistance from the government means
that the companies do not have to take any risk or invest any
money. They make the consumers pay for their investments, make
huge profits which are, for the most part, tax deductible, not to
mention the deduction they might get for their contribution to the
party.
Several companies are not at all interested in developing
networks in rural areas, because it is less profitable than developing
networks in urban areas. Ever since the government has introduced
competition at the local service level, it has become obvious that
regions will be adversely affected.
Putting an end to cross subsidization between the rural areas and
the cities will be devastating, since it will result in an increase in
rates and reduced access to services.
First, the rates will go up, as of July 1997, businesses in rural
areas will pay $5 to $10 more than businesses in urban areas.
Also, residence customers will face an 87 per cent increase over
a period of a little more than two years, if you add to the rate
increases the cost of modernizing telephone exchanges.
These increases are occurring as the chairman of Bell Canada
announces that his company expects its net income to grow by 40
per cent and to generate $712 million in profits.
Even if it talks about accessibility, the government has not
promised to set up any kind of system to provide universal access
to telecommunications, as was proposed by the Fédération
nationale des associations de consommateurs du Québec, and has
not found it necessary to ask the CRTC to examine this issue.
Therefore, in the communications area, there is a huge risk to see
the gap widen between the urban areas and the regions, between the
people who have easy access to and those who are starved of
information.
This gap will only emphasize the cultural isolation of the
regions, deny the local economies the tools they need to make up
for their geographical isolation and to fully take part in the market
globalization.
5797
The fact that the opposition supports the federal initiative set
out in this bill in no way means that we agree with all the
government policies concerning the communications industry, far
from it.
(1335)
While the government has thoroughly addressed issues such as
competition, deregulation and markets with regard to the
information highway, it seems to have neglected to look at what
will be offered to the public.
These technological innovations open the door to promising
changes. However, society must take the time to adapt to these
changes and to find the best way to benefit from them.
These new communication technologies have been dubbed
``information highway'' because, just like highways, they allow
people to communicate more rapidly. But even if one likes to drive,
highways are only useful if they lead to interesting places.
An information highway without any interesting content,
whether educational, artistic, scientific or other, would be as
useless and boring as a highway that would stretch over hundreds
of kilometers without any exit, without beautiful scenery, and that
would bring us right back to our starting point.
Yet, this is exactly what the government is doing. It wants to give
our country an information highway but has no plan to develop
meaningful Canadian products in both official languages.
I am talking about products developed here by our own creators,
that would reflect the culture and the interests of our society and
that would be accessible to the public. These products would also
represent us in the global forum which the information highway is
becoming more and more everyday.
Of course, the minister is even less concerned with the
importance of developing French language products that would
allow Quebecers, Acadians and other French-speaking
communities in Canada to benefit fully from the opportunities
offered by these new communication technologies.
The government is talking about recognizing Quebec as a
distinct society, but its actions do not match its words. In this case,
it should ensure a French content in all communications-related
areas.
The industry minister is so obsessed with the economic aspect,
the competition issue and building infrastructures that he is even
forgetting the price-quality ratio and seems to be stuck on the word
price.
Forgetting the word quality is forgetting the millions of
taxpayers and consumers who pay high taxes and high telephone
and cable bills and who want to have more for their money.
Recently, the government has shown again its lack of
commitment to protect Canada's and Quebec's cultures when it
authorized two American audio programming service companies,
Power DirecTv and DMX, to broadcast in Canada without having
to comply with CTRC rules on minimum Canadian and French
language content.
Of course, the minister wanted to reassure Canadians and, in all
the information she gave, she forgot to mention that DMX will
broadcast 17 American channels that are not authorized by the
CRTC.
These American services will be competing with the services of
Canadian companies, which do meet CRTC requirements and
which invest here in the production of Canadian content, which
employ our own technicians, artists and creators.
Canada negotiated a ``cultural exemption'' clause in NAFTA so
that it could protect Canadian cultural industries. The Liberal
government has given up enforcing this clause, and, bit by bit, is
opening the door ever wider to Americans. The Liberal Party's job
creation promises will thus come true, but largely in the United
States, as far as culture is concerned.
Another case where the government has opened the door to
American products is that of satellite television. The government
was unable to help set up a Canadian direct to home satellite
broadcasting service.
(1340)
Some 400,000 Canadians, 80,000 of them in Quebec, living
largely in rural areas without access to cable services, subscribed to
satellite services originating in the United States. This represents
millions of dollars lost to Canadian industry.
There will be important changes in the near future in satellite
television technology. Consumers who spent a lot of money on
satellite dishes may well find themselves with equipment that is no
longer compatible with the new technology.
The government is refusing to conduct advertising campaigns to
inform the public about these changes. It is refusing to protect the
public by requiring that dishes be leased until equipment adapted to
the new technologies is available, in order to save consumers the
expense of these changes.
By thus allowing retailers to continue to sell satellite dishes that
will soon be useless because they are based on old technology, the
federal government is completely neglecting its responsibility to
protect consumers. Yet, section 5 of the Act to establish the
Department of Industry, which requires the minister to promote
science and technology in Canada, also stipulates, and I quote:
``-the minister shall exercise the powers and perform the duties
and functions-in a manner that will promote the interests and
protection of Canadian consumers''.
5798
There is still time for the minister to redeem himself. First of
all, people who have purchased satellite dishes since January 1,
1995 ought to be compensated when they are required to make
changes to accommodate the new technology.
This would affect close to 400,000 Canadians, 80,000 of them
Quebecers, who have been the ones taken for a ride. It has been
known since 1994 that dish technology is going to become
obsolete, now that CBC and all stations have gone digital. That was
known when the dishes were sold.
They are still being sold in Canada, and purchasers are not even
being warned by a government label or some other means stating
``these antennas are purchased at your own risk. This is an
outmoded technology, so you cannot come after us claiming
compensation later on.'' The government has a responsibility
concerning these companies, which are selling obsolete technology
without any scruples.
Second, the minister ought to warn consumers not to invest in
outdated technology. The government ought to carry out a serious
information campaign, even going so far as to ban sales of this
satellite technology during the transition period, and to allow only
short-term leasing, so as to protect the public against unscrupulous
vendors.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois has demanded, still demands,
and will continue to demand unrelentingly that the government
take consumer interests and regional interests into greater
consideration, where price and quality as well as content and
services are concerned.
We will be closely monitoring how much expression the
government will allow francophones, how much funding it will
give them to permit full, quality expression in French. We will
continue to criticize the federal government's lack of vision with
respect to culture and consumer goods.
(1345)
Since the Bloc Quebecois was elected to the House of Commons,
we have seen time and time again how the government has no
compunction about selling off Canadian culture, bit by bit. Not a
day goes by in this House without a government member rising to
say we want to destroy Canada, but I accuse the Liberal
government of wanting to destroy this country by selling Canadian
culture off bit by bit, day after day, month after month. And that is
the truth.
When the day comes when a country has no more culture, when
Canadian culture has become American, do not ask Quebec to save
you again. You took from us the name of our country and our
national anthem, but we will make ourselves a country where we
have our own culture, where we can develop our potential.
Meanwhile, we will support this bill, provided the case of Québec
Téléphone and B.C. Tel is settled before we are asked to vote on
third reading. Enough is enough.
We are now backing down from promises made to B.C. Tel and
Québec Téléphone. You can be sure we will vote against this bill if
B.C. Tel and Québec Téléphone do not get a fair deal from this
government.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Therefore, this
bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from October 22, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary
measures in relation to members of certain administrative
tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak on Bill
C-49 which came out originally as a housekeeping bill.
The bill deals with the administrative changes to boards,
agencies and tribunals. For the most part it makes fairly minor
changes, or what would appear to be minor changes. What it does
not do in all of these boards is improve the accountability. It does
not improve the competence of the people who are appointed or the
quality of the appointees.
It was the hope of the Reform Party that the government would
follow through with some of its promises in the red book to bring
greater accountability to these politically appointed boards and
commissions. The red book promised:
A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the
institutions of government-and make competence and diversity the criteria for
federal appointments. Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal
program.
A Liberal government will examine the size and relevance of existing boards and
commissions to achieve cost savings by shrinking some boards and commissions and
eliminating those that no longer play a useful role. To fill the vacancies that remain, a
5799
Liberal government will review the appointment process to ensure that necessary
appointments are made on the basis of competence.
I would like to focus on a specific area of Bill C-49 that relates to
the Immigration and Refugee Board. First of all, Bill C-49 has not
been passed by Parliament and already the Immigration and
Refugee Board has implemented the changes. It would appear that
the IRB has little respect for the parliamentary process as it has not
waited for legislative debate and passage before implementing this
new process. This just reinforces the Liberals' arrogance and total
disregard for the parliamentary process.
(1350)
Prior to this amendment the refugee division was required to
have a minimum of two members to hear every refugee claim. If
both members hearing a claim differed on the final determination,
the negative decision was always overruled. This bill now changes
the minimum requirement to one member so that if the member
rules that the claim is not valid, their decision will now stand.
At first glance I could favour this amendment. It would appear
that it would be quickly processing or allowing double the work to
be done in half the time. However since this change is already in
effect at the IRB, I have learned that the majority of cases are still
being heard by panels of two members due to pressure and
interference by refugee lawyers.
These lawyers can choose whether they want one member or two
members to hear their case, depending on who the member is. If the
lawyer does not like the single member, then they request a panel of
two members to increase their chances that their client's claim will
be accepted. This certainly puts into question the arm's length
approach that is intended.
I have also learned that members are being pressured into
increasing the number of positive decisions, something the IRB has
assured me time and time again does not happen but I keep hearing
about it from people within the system. How can someone make an
unbiased and objective decision with pressure from the board like
that placed on them?
I ask: Where has this process become more efficient and cost
effective? The IRB is costing taxpayers about $77 million a year.
Members of the board have been and continue to be patronage
appointments comprised of former refugee lawyers and advocates
that depend on refugee claims for their livelihood. How objective
would you be if your bread was buttered by the very people that are
now appearing before you?
The entire purpose of the IRB has to be questioned. Guidelines
are issued to IRB members that really put the entire process into
question. For example, a woman arrives, claims to be single with
children, claims to have been abandoned by her husband and now
fears persecution in her country. The guidelines pertaining to
gender related claims indicate that a member is in great difficulty
to deny this woman refugee status even if her claim is questionable
because the IRB is non-adversarial. The IRB member cannot
investigate the woman's allegation because it may put the woman
at risk. The woman is then given the benefit of the doubt.
This guideline is very well known to immigration lawyers and is
often used as a tactic to ensure that their client remains in Canada.
After the woman is allowed to stay in Canada, she sponsors her
husband who she originally claimed abandoned her. This is a case
of blatant abuse of the refugee determination process. What is the
purpose of hearing cases like this one when we know full well that
the outcome is predetermined by the IRB guidelines?
One of the purposes of the Immigration Act is to provide
protection to genuine refugees fearing persecution. I fail to see
where this is addressed in a guideline such as the one I just
mentioned.
What have the Liberals done to deter this type of abuse?
Nothing. Something has to be done to ensure that genuine refugees
are granted the protection they need and that bogus refugees do not
use this avenue as a means of curtailing the normal immigration
process.
The abusers of the system are causing genuine refugees to be left
fearing for their lives while these abusers jump the immigration
queue and benefit from Canada's social and health programs. This
is unfair to those who rely on this system as a genuine and
legitimate way of finding protection and safety.
The IRB thinks it is doing its job by providing statistics to the
minister every year showing how many cases have been processed
and how many refugees are now in Canada. However, what it fails
to mention is the large volume of backlog cases that leave genuine
refugees in limbo for an unacceptable length of time. This cannot
continue. The IRB must now face the fact that it has failed the
immigration system by allowing the backlog of refugee claims and
by way of this bill it has made it worse.
(1355 )
There are qualified public servants within the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration who could assume the responsibilities
of the Immigration and Refugee Board and would process the
refugee claims in a more objective and cost effective manner. I see
no purpose in giving political appointees a place to sit for $86,000 a
year when there are qualified people already in place to do the job.
Another improvement in the immigration system would be for
officials at the ports of entry to be granted more responsibility in
the initial determination of refugee claims made upon arrival. They
are the ones on the front line who see firsthand what documents are
not present. They are in a position to ask questions before the
applicant can be coached by lawyers on what to say. Right now all a
person has to do upon arrival in Canada is claim to be a refugee and
they are allowed to stay and have their claim heard, even if the
5800
immigration official knows that they used fraudulent means to get
here and are not genuine refugees.
There are few if any options open to the immigration officers at
the ports of entry. Therefore, what is the purpose of having
immigration officers at the ports of entry if we are not going to
allow them to do their job and make decisions? What have the
Liberals done to improve this? Nothing.
The Reform Party is committed to and relies on a grassroots
approach to its policies. This government needs to take lessons
from the Reform Party. Rely on the front line people. They are the
people who can make a difference and can provide real insight into
what needs to be done to improve our immigration system.
This government is not meeting Canada's humanitarian
obligations by allowing illegal refugee claimants to stay in Canada.
What have the Liberals done so far? Nothing. A positive move
on the part of Liberals would be to amend the Immigration Act by
eliminating the IRB altogether and returning this responsibility to
the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Then again that
would save Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars a year-
The Speaker: My colleague, I am going to give you the floor
again right after question period. It being 2 p.m., we will now
proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
5800
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
attention of the House is riveted today on a momentous event, a
history making occasion and an occurrence that will affect every
member. I am referring of course to the third annual confectionery
caucus Hillowe'en party.
One hundred and forty members participated in Hillowe'en II
last year. Hillowe'en III will be even bigger.
Canada's value added confectionery manufacturers will display
their products and will help raise awareness about this century old
Canadian industry's contribution to our economy. Members, their
staff and their children can come together in this non-partisan
gathering in the best tradition of the Hill.
As a member of the confectionery caucus, I am proud to be
associated with an industry that supports the employment of over
7,000 Canadians and generates over $1.6 billion in factory sales.
I invite all members, their staff and children to join the
confectionery caucus and the CMAC tonight in Room 200, West
Block from 5.30 to 7.30 for great glorious gobs of goodies.
The Speaker: That sounds like a sweet message.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
recently participated in the fast organized in my riding of Quebec
by a coalition of organizations to express their rejection of poverty.
This 13-day relay fast allowed hundreds of men and women to
express their basic demands aimed at reducing poverty among
women, children and the most disadvantaged in Canadian society.
I therefore urge this government to stop reducing the deficit on
the backs of the poor and give the UI money back to the people.
In 1993, the Liberals condemned the fact that there were 4.2
million poor people in Canada. There are now 4.9 million poor
Canadians, an increase of 700,000, and yet no one on the other side
of the House is raising the alarm. This silence is disturbing. If I
were cynical, I would say to the government that the time has come
for them to take concrete actions so they will look good to the
voters.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of all members of the House and all Canadians, I
congratulate the outstanding performance of Canada's air force
team who last week defeated six U.S. competitors and won the
world renowned top gun fighter competition in Florida.
(1400 )
This was a real team effort by pilots, maintenance and other
ground support personnel from Canadian forces bases right across
Canada. The fighter pilots are based at 4 Wing Cold Lake in the
riding of Beaver River.
I congratulate Captain Ross Granley of Red Deer, Captain Brian
Murray of Markham, Captain Dave Mercer of Montreal and
Captain Steve Nierlich of Toronto who won the best individual
score in aerial combat competition.
Nothing else inspires wide eyed, heart thumping excitement
quite like the flash and thunder of fighter jets streaking across our
skies. I experience this thrill often when I am home in Beaver River
as they race overhead.
5801
The Canadian men and women who equip, fly and maintain
these marvellous machines for training, active duty or
international skill competitions have our deepest admiration and
appreciation. Way to go, top guns.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the
Beauce region is leading the way. Three levels of education-high
school, college and university-and the private sector worked
together on a joint project: the business innovation and
technological transfer service or SITTE in French, which is
supported by the federal government and whose mission is to help
businesses design or modify equipment or prototypes and analyze
manufacturing processes.
I want to stress the significance of this co-operation among the
private, education and parapublic sectors in our region.
Achievements like this can make the difference between regional
development and the international competitiveness of local
businesses.
I salute the initiative of the Beauce community. This is a first in
Quebec.
To supplement government funds, $263,000 was raised in a drive
among businesses in the Beauce region. The committee was
chaired by Marcel Dutil of the Canam-Manac group. The SITTE is
a great project that looks to the future of the Beauce region.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to recognize
October as Women's History Month. It is imperative that all
Canadians recognize the historical contributions made and the
diverse roles that women play in today's society.
The theme for this year's celebration is women and the arts.
Women in Canada have left a cultural legacy in the arts and their
achievements are an integral part of our national history and
identity. Women have been active and successful in every arena of
the arts, writing, sculpture, carving, painting, pottery, photography,
theatre, television and film, to name a few.
This month we also have the honour to commemorate Persons
Day, the day that Canadian women were first recognized as persons
before the law. We have a lot to celebrate and I am certain that all
members join with me in congratulating women from coast to coast
to coast on their past, their present and their future achievements.
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government has designated the month of October Women's History
Month. There is no better way to celebrate women in our
communities than to highlight their contributions and
achievements.
I wish to congratulate Elvira Saadi, a two time Olympian and
head coach of Canada's gymnastic team at the Atlanta Summer
Olympics, for her work as a coach and teacher. A member of the
Cambridge Kips Gymnastic Club, Elvira Saadi was named the
1995 Coach of the Year by the Canadian Gymnastic Federation.
On behalf of the people of Cambridge, I congratulate Elvira for
the care and effort she has put into the training of young Canadian
gymnastic athletes.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next
week is Veteran's Week, when we honour the sacrifices our
veterans made for our freedom. These brave soldiers selflessly
fought for a free Europe and for the freedom which Canadians
enjoy today. Now it is our turn to protect them.
Recently, Allied veterans living in Canada had their pensions
revoked. They came to depend on their pensions for survival, and
rightly so. These were hard earned pensions awarded because they
fought side by side with Canadian soldiers.
It is unfair to revoke these pensions now that Allied veterans are
in their most vulnerable years. These defenders of freedom deserve
the security of the pensions they were promised. I ask all members
of this House to take an active role in advocating the restoration of
pensions for Allied veterans.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, single persons between the ages of 60 and 74 are being
discriminated against in that they are not eligible to a seniors
benefit like their fellow citizens of the same age who receive
spouse's allowances.
(1405)
Such discrimination on the basis of marital status goes against
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Minister of Human Resources Development argues that
Canada cannot afford to make changes to its program to correct this
injustice. But the minister must see reason and decide to implement
fair and equitable measures.
5802
Right now, he is hiding behind the new seniors benefit, which
is not slated to take effect before the year 2001.
Our society must not put up with this kind of discrimination any
longer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the spirit of this week, I rise today to
commend the minister of agriculture on his amazing Halloween
performance. He has truly given new meaning to the term ``trick or
treat''.
The minister has tricked farmers by failing to deliver
three-quarters of the actual agriculture promises in the red book,
keeping only 7 of 28. Specifically, the minister has cut agriculture
research, failed to defend agriculture aggressively in trade relations
with the Americans, quickly abandoned his commitment to
preserve and strengthen article XI of the GATT and has fallen short
of creating a national whole farm safety net.
When the minister attempts to treat farmers with the promise of
reforms, he tricks them again by not following through, as most
recently demonstrated by his unspectacular announcement of
Canadian Wheat Board reforms. The minister is pushing costs into
farmers' laps through his cost recovery schemes. Reform thinks it
would be a real treat if the minister would make some of the cost
disappear, starting with the oversized Pest Management Regulatory
Agency.
If the minister does not start to perform soon, farmers may wave
their magic wands and turn him into a pensioned pumpkin. That
trick would be the greatest treat of all.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal's elimination of the Crow benefit and rail abandonment
will have a devastating effect on western farmers' pocketbooks and
on our road system.
The Trans-Canada Highway system is already overloaded with
tourist traffic. Increased traffic compromises safety and efficiency
on our national highway system. The Liberals have a responsibility
to ensure that the Trans-Canada Highway meets these growing
demands.
The Trans-Canada No. 1 West Association, headed by Regina
Mayor Doug Archer, presented a transport brief outlining the
importance of twinning the Trans-Canada from Kenora, Ontario to
Vancouver, B.C. The Trans-Canada West Association makes the
point that investing in Canada's Main Street will pay for itself in
job creation by bringing more trade and tourism dollars to the west.
The Liberals have handed out an $87 million interest free loan to
profitable Bombardier in Quebec. The New Democrats challenge
this government to invest in twinning the Trans-Canada west to
bring jobs and growth to the west. This can be done in the next
budget by dedicating 2 cents a litre for one year of the 14 cents a
litre in gas taxes the federal government collects in excise and GST
in gasoline sales.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the establishment of the United Nations tribunal on the Law of the
Sea, with its seat in Hamburg, completes the conflict resolution
machinery under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea of 1982 which has now finally entered into force.
From the United Nation conferences on the Law of Sea of
1958-1960, on to the most recent 1970 to 1982 marathon, Canadian
diplomats have led in successfully arguing the case for third party
dispute settlement, especially judicial settlement. It is to be hoped
that when Canada finally ratifies the 1982 convention we may be
able to secure the election of a Canadian judge to the new court.
* * *
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each year the
United Nations and the International Labour Organization
announce statistics on the number of children exploited in the
world's labour forces. This year's figure places that number in
excess 100 million boys and girls under the age of 16.
Canada has long supported efforts to counter exploitive child
labour, as demonstrated recently by a $700,000 commitment to the
ILO's international program for the elimination of child labour. I
applaud the government for this and look forward to continued
efforts in this regard.
As Canadians we are proud of institutions like CIDA and its
overseas development assistance programs which pursue
integrated approaches while taking into account culture, education,
poverty and other variables in this complex issue.
Moreover, at the Liberal Party's recent biennial conference the
party adopted a resolution on protecting the world's children,
further confirming the party's commitment to these pressing
issues.
As chair of a subcommittee that is currently studying the topic, I
look forward to the continued support of my colleagues and that of
5803
the Minister of Foreign Affairs in recommending improved ways to
protect the most treasured and vulnerable in society, our children.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
leader is upset because the Liberal convention was such a success.
His frustration is understandable; after all, his party was never able
to develop, let alone put forward, a meaningful electoral platform.
(1410)
He feels frustrated looking back on the Bloc's convention in
April 1995, where delegates spent most of their time developing
strategies to change the temporary status of their party instead of
developing party policy and direction.
The separatist member for Roberval can shout and threaten all he
wants, the fact remains that he heads a party that has lost its
relevance since Lucien Bouchard left to run the government in
Quebec.
The Bloc's separatist blueprint no longer meets the people's
expectations, as they will be told loud and clear in the next election.
* * *
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a survey
released yesterday by the Quebec minister responsible for relations
with the public shows that Quebecers are increasingly tolerant and
open to ethnic and cultural diversity.
A majority of people believe that immigration promotes
economic development, with 72 per cent regarding it as
contributing to the province's cultural richness. Young Quebecers
are the ones who have the most positive and dynamic attitude in
this respect. This bodes well for the future of Quebec.
Comparisons with the rest of Canada are striking. While only 29
per cent of respondents in Montreal consider that there are too
many immigrants in their city, in Toronto and Vancouver, that
percentage rises to 46 per cent and 49 per cent respectively.
This goes to show that the people of Quebec have the most
positive attitude toward immigration in Canada. I can personally
attest to that. Newcomers who choose Quebec as their new home
can expect a warm welcome.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a memo from the Prime Minister's office is instructing
Liberals to tell Canadians lies about the Reform Party. This is
known politics as a fax attack.
The Liberal memo is full of misleading and dishonest
statements. It is an abuse of power of the Prime Minister's office to
smear Reform. Is this the Liberal way?
Reform launched its fresh start platform to encourage debate on
the serious issues facing Canadians today. The Liberals resort to
slander. Is this the Liberal way?
The Liberals' pre-election strategy is to slander Reform. They
offer no policies of their own. They hurl invective because they
have no vision. Is this the Liberal way?
Gutter tactics resorted to by the Prime Minister's office demean
the political process, insult Canadians and confirm that the Reform
Party is indeed the Liberals' chief political opponent.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is
it a coincidence? Is it a well organized strategy?
In any case, the timing could not have been better for the
Mouvement national des Québécois and the Société
Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Montreal to launch their regional tour to
mobilize people against Bill 86.
The announcement was made on the eve of the socio-economic
summit, during which Lucien Bouchard will try to rally
participants around common objectives relating to job creation and
economic recovery.
Are these two organizations attempting to thwart the
reconciliation efforts of Premier Bouchard? The Bloc Quebecois
should answer this question and tell us officially on whose side it
stands regarding the linguistic issue.
As for me, the member for Brome-Missisquoi, I said it before
and I will say it again: Quebec's National Assembly must put the
idea of a referendum on hold for 10 to 15 years, in order to
revitalize Quebec's economy.
5804
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to rise today and congratulate Helen
Newton from Minden, Ontario.
Mrs. Newton was selected to receive one of three TV Ontario
teaching awards from a long list of teachers from across the
province.
Children across Ontario often read the delightful book Flat
Stanley. Mrs. Newton's class makes its own Flat Stanleys to swap
with classrooms around the world in a project that blends
old-fashioned writing and geography with surfing the Internet.
Since the school does not have access to the Internet, Mrs.
Newton takes the kids' adventures home to her personal computer
and sends them to classrooms in Hawaii, Texas, France and the rest
of the world via her modem.
Congratulations, Helen Newton.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is desperately trying to
convince Canadians that he has kept his promises.
Well, Canadians will not be fooled by his twisting of the facts.
Let us look at the major promises.
Fact No. 1, the Prime Minister promised to eliminate the GST.
This empty promise has not been kept.
Fact No. 2, the Prime Minister promised to create employment
opportunities for Canadians. This empty promise has not been kept.
The reality is that this government has created fewer jobs than the
previous government over the same period of time in office.
(1415 )
I could go on and on, for the list of empty promises is long.
Canadians will remember that the Prime Minister has not met his
commitments to the people and they will grade him much lower
than his self-serving 78 per cent.
_____________________________________________
5804
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government's investment policy discriminates against Quebec and
has done so since 1981. The fact remains that the federal
government does not invest enough in Quebec, considering its
demographic numbers.
The figures are there to prove it. Thousands of jobs have been
lost in Quebec because the federal government does not distribute
its investments equitably. Over a period of 15 years, , Quebec has
obtained only 16 per cent of federal investment and 14 per cent of
investments by Crown corporations.
How can the Prime Minister blithely insist that all is well, when
his own government refuses to deal fairly with Quebec in the
matter of structural spending that creates jobs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has invested money in the
whole country, in every province of Canada.
Unfortunately, sometimes the Bloc Quebecois does not realize
this. For instance, in the National Capital Region, the Bloc
Quebecois tends to count all federal investment as being on the
Ontario side, without considering the fact that one third of the
Canadian government's operations are on the Quebec side.
Besides, if we exclude the national capital, I still think the
distribution is pretty fair.
We have a system that establishes a certain balance in our
society. We have equalization payments that go to the weakest
sectors in the Canadian economy. We have a formula under which
last year, we were able to send an additional $500 million to
Quebec because Quebec's revenue fell far short of the forecast, and
also because of interest rate levels.
For instance, because the government took charge of the
country's finances in a very systematic way, the Quebec
government over the past 18 months was able to save $625 million
in interest rates alone, which represents an enormous amount for
the people of Quebec. However, the leader of the opposition is
afraid to mention these positive aspects.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has just admitted quite frankly something we have
reproached him with for a long time. The money is invested on the
Ontario side, leaving Quebec with transfer payments,
unemployment insurance and transfers for social assistance. That is
the government's policy.
Will the Prime Minister admit that by concentrating federal
investment in Ontario and paying unemployment insurance and
making social assistance transfers to Quebec, he is practising a
policy of pauperization, which is the kind of policy we do not want
any more in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we regularly announce investments made in Quebec, so
much so that we are criticized by the Reform Party because for
instance, we helped a company that is on its way to become one of
the biggest aircraft manufacturers in the world. It ranks sixth today
and will soon rank fourth.
5805
However, we also helped the province of Alberta develop their
tar sands because we know that it is very important in the interests
of all Canadians to develop the technology and the potential of
these reserves so they can be used later on.
That is what Canada is about. It means being able to find what
works in each part of the country so that everyone can benefit. If
the oil companies make money in Alberta, they pay taxes to the
central government, which redistributes the money to all Canadian
provinces, which means Quebec as well as the other provinces.
Unfortunately, because of Quebec's weak economy, we have to pay
more equalization payments to Quebec, which we do not do in the
case of Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, amazingly,
the Prime Minister fails to understand that the federal government
collects taxes from Quebec, year after year, but Quebec gets far less
in return in the form of procurement of goods and services.
Mr. Pettigrew: That is not true.
Mr. Gauthier: When the federal government buys elsewhere
using the money of Quebec and the federal government invests
elsewhere with Quebecers' money, does it not realize that Quebec
now knows that federalism is making Quebec poor, and
underinvestment-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gauthier: The ministers are shouting, because the truth
always hurts.
Mr. Loubier: Yes, it hurts.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if it would make them shout more, I
would tell them this: do any of them know that underinvestment by
the federal government has cost Quebec an average of 8,000 jobs
annually, the real jobs Quebec needs? And yes, I am a separatist
because we are sick and tired of being exploited by the federal
system.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to come from a province that in the
thirties helped Alberta when it was in trouble. Today, Alberta is
helping Quebec, so that year after year, Quebec gets about 24 to 25
per cent of federal spending, while it contributes 21 per cent.
Mr. Bergeron: That is not true.
Mrs. Picard: That is wrong.
Mr. Dion: The opposition keeps trying to find specific programs
where Quebec gets less than its share. These always seems to be
programs that require spending to be focused in the National
Capital Region, for the benefit of all Canadians and Quebecers as
well, since so many of them work in the National Capital Region.
And we will fight separatism. In fact I want to thank the Leader
of the Opposition for showing his true colours, and calling himself
a separatist.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs does not know
what he is talking about and the Prime Minister is afraid to answer
the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs talks about political
programs, when billions of dollars are being invested annually by
the federal government, but not in Quebec.
When opposition members, with figures to back them up, say
that Quebec has not received its share of federal government and
Crown corporation investments, the government can create all the
diversions it wants, but one fact remains: according to the
government's own figures, Quebec has missed out on over seven
billion federal dollars over the last 15 years.
My question is for the Prime Minister, if he dares to answer it.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the seven billion dollars not
invested by the federal government in Quebec over the last 15 years
that should have been invested there given the size of its population
represents over 8,100 jobs a year lost to Quebec through his fault?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not necessarily familiar with the statistics the
member has just given. He spoke primarily of years during which I
know Lucien Bouchard served as a minister in the previous
government.
Mr. Young: There are gaps in his memory.
Mr. Manley: What I know is this: on October 21, 1996, we
invested $87 million in Canadair. On October 21, 1996 we invested
close to one million dollars in Matériaux Techniques Côté; on
October 11, $4.25 million in Ericsson Communications; on
October 9, almost one million in the École polytechnique. There
are many examples.
(1425)
I fail to understand why the Bloc Quebecois always wants
Quebec to have such a negative image, when it is a powerful
province.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is trying to lead the debate off track. We are
talking about investments in federal government buildings, land,
and rolling stock, and he is talking about specific projects. If he
wants to play that game, 1,000 question periods would not be
enough for him to get through all the investment projects in
Ontario. That is the reality of the matter.
5806
The federal government does Quebec out of $1.3 billion in
procurement annually. Now we learn that Quebec is receiving far
less than its share of federal government and crown corporation
investments.
How was it that the Prime Minister was patting himself on the
back over the weekend for his government's fine performance,
when the federal government has had it in for Quebec for at least
the last 15 years, depriving it of billions of dollars in investments
and tens of thousands of jobs? I would like him to explain that to
me.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ministers are ready to reply to these attacks, so there is
no need for me to rise in my place.
If the hon. members truly had Quebecers' best interests at heart,
instead of creating political uncertainty, instead of calling
themselves sovereignists for a year and a half, and then admitting
today that they are separatists, if they were truly concerned with
what is best for all the people of Quebec, they would be following
our lead and pushing for political stability, so that the private sector
would invest in Quebec, just as it does in the rest of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the
Liberal convention last weekend the Prime Minister bragged at
great length about the Liberal way and Liberal values. Today
Canadians have seen exactly what that Liberal way means: a dirty,
American style smear campaign full of distortions and
misrepresentations.
Canadians want to debate the real issues facing us. Reformers
want to debate those same issues as well. Yet it seems the Prime
Minister and his very Prime Minister's Office would rather wallow
in the political mire.
I ask the Prime Minister this. Who authorized this political
smear campaign? Was the Prime Minister aware of this fax attack?
If not, does he approve of his party's and staff's dirty tricks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry, we just said that the Reform Party and their
leader had a great reception in Washington with Newt Gingrich. If
he regrets his visit and if he wants to say so we will withdraw that.
We said that they oppose anything we do to build unity in this
country. Whenever there is controversy about the two official
languages in this House they are always opposed to having the
reality confirmed: that we are very proud that English and French
are the two official languages of this nation.
If they want to say that they support bilingualism in Canada, in
the next letter we send-the same type of letter that they send
themselves-of course we will say that they have converted to
rationality and Canadianism and vote for things that will help to
keep this country together.
We travel the land. When anything divisive comes up in the
House of Commons you have members who get up to try to score
cheap political points against the government. They hope they will
gain votes by division. We gain votes in promoting unity from sea
to sea.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
type of arrogance you have just heard voiced by the Prime Minister
right now is exactly an indication of what is wrong in this country,
just because there are differences in political beliefs, just because
we happen to have differences on policies about the Official
Languages Act.
(1430 )
This kind of behaviour from this Prime Minister is nothing more
than a bold-faced lie. It is as simple as that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, we are in the heat of debate. And
from time to time in the heat of battle we use words that are
unparliamentary. Would the hon. member please withdraw the last
few words, ``a bold-faced lie'' before we proceed.
Miss Grey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the House and
for you I withdraw that comment.
May I also say that when I sat back here as the only member of
my party when we went through the Meech Lake debate and the
Charlottetown accord debate I was labelled an enemy of Canada
and someone who had no respect for Canadianism. I refute that.
Just remember which side won on the Charlottetown accord.
We thought we had seen the end of this kind of stuff when the
Tories were turfed out of office in 1993. These kinds of smear
campaigns just go on and on. We are wondering if we see the ghost
of Mulroney past in the Prime Minister's Office now.
I ask the Prime Minister this. Is this kind of smear stuff the
Liberal way? Does this malicious fax attack reflect Liberal values?
Does this American style smear campaign represent the Liberal
way? How is this integrity in action?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member is willing to pretend that Reform
members voted for gun control, fine. But I was in the House of
Commons and I know they all voted against gun control. Do they
want to change their stand on that? I do not think that it is a smear
campaign when we relay the facts of their votes in the House of
Commons.
Who thought that the blacks and gays should go to the back of
the shop? If they did not say that, fine, I would be happy. However,
5807
it was said and the people of Canada have the right to know what
was said. If Reformers want to withdraw that I will be happy to say
that they regret what they said.
If Reformers want to say that the investment in Bombardier is as
good as the investment in the tar sands I will write it in the next
letter. They never attack us when we do something for Alberta but
if we do something for another part of Canada they complain. This
is the road to division. We want to help everybody in every part of
the country so they will all have the same opportunities.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister said we voted against gun control. I would like it on
the record here today what the truth is. Two of our members, the
members for Calgary Centre and North Vancouver, supported Bill
C-68 according to their constituents' wishes.
It is the responsibility of all of us as members of Parliament to
represent those people who we came here to represent. I know there
are many members of the public across Canada who are disgusted
with what they have seen in this and what they are listening to on
talk shows. They are tired of this kind of political smear campaign
and all this dreaming and dressing up that the Prime Minister is
doing right now.
(1435 )
Canadians want to talk about tax relief. They want to talk about
increased funding for health care because they have seen the
system ravaged under these Liberals. They want to make sure that
my party's leader, who offered a one on one debate with the Prime
Minister, a one on one debate with no gimmicks, no frills, no
gadgets, just the two of them, dancing toe to toe.
Will the Prime Minister debate with the leader of the Reform
Party of Canada, one on one, on the issues, only on the issues and
the facts of lower taxes and more jobs?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am here at least three days a week, more than any of my
predecessors. I am in my seat in the House to debate with the leader
of the Reform Party. He is the one who said that he is wasting his
time debating in the House.
He is travelling the country in a bus while as a member of
Parliament he should not be afraid to be in the House of Commons
to face off every day. But he would rather be sitting in the back of a
bus preaching about his conversion.
Not long ago he was giving us a tough time on medicare. Now he
has been converted on the road to Damascus. Now he wants to
spend money on medicare.
I remember he said that we were not cutting enough and when he
said that medicare should be transferred to the private sector. We
want to make sure that every citizen, whether they have money or
not, will always have medicare available to them in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
atmosphere is particularly highly charged today.
My question is for the Minister of International Trade. At the
beginning of this month, the European Union announced its
intention to lodge an official complaint with the World Trade
Organization concerning the American Helms-Burton law with its
extraterritorial measures. The following day, Canada announced its
intention to take part in this process initiated by the Europeans.
Since Canada justified its participation in the European
complaint by saying it was its duty to protest against the American
law, how can the minister explain that Canada has not yet called for
the formation of a special group under NAFTA to settle this dispute
once and for all?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, we continue with the
protest under NAFTA, but we are also in a position to join many
other countries in having this matter adjudicated before the WTO.
We are readying to prepare a case in support of the European
Union.
One of the strengths of the position Canada has put forward is
that we have been able to get the support of countries right around
the world that know the action by the United States is wrong. We
will continue to work with those countries in a unified way to
continue in our action, and the WTO is a good forum for the next
step.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, title 4
of the American Helms-Burton law, which this government has not
yet attempted to counteract, by the way, forbids the entry into the
United States of Canadian businessmen and their families, under
the pretext that their companies are supposedly trafficking in
American properties in Cuba.
Does the minister not agree that the best way to counteract this
definitively is to call for a special working group under NAFTA?
(1440 )
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the two issues, both title III and title IV, are
intertwined and will be dealt with together, in terms of the WTO
and the NAFTA. We will also be continuing at the OECD where
5808
there is a multilateral agreement on investment. This is very key to
the investment rules, the protection of Canadian company assets in
other countries.
We will continue to work with other countries. We will continue
to use a number of forums to protest Helms-Burton and to get the
message across clearly to the United States and other countries that
unilateral extraterritorial action attempting to impose their will,
their foreign trade policy on Canada or any other country is totally
unacceptable.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot believe that the Prime Minister and the Liberals are
defending the sleaze and the American-style smear campaign-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members on both sides to be
very judicious in their choice of words. I would especially ask hon.
members not to use the word ``sleaze''.
Mr. Solberg: For the record, Mr. Speaker, this government has
closed more hospitals than any government in the country with $3
billion in health care cuts. It is time that was on the record.
During the last election campaign the Tories ran attack ads and
the Liberals could not believe it. They went ballistic at some of the
ads. The entire country went ballistic. We spoke out against it. Now
they are doing exactly the same thing. How can the government
justify that hypocrisy?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Again, my colleagues, there are certain words that
trigger responses on both sides. I know the hon. member would not
want to use the word ``hypocrisy'' again.
I am going to permit the right hon. Prime Minister to answer the
question as he was on his feet.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very surprised. It was just a political debate. Of
course I said that they voted against the gun control bill. Two voted
for it. Some of my members voted against it. It was part of the
debate, but the policy was my party's, passed by a resolution of the
party two years ago and we implemented the gun control
legislation.
The Reform Party is opposed to gun control, but two of their
members voted for it. That is good. We accept that. All of that was
in the article. There was all the normal debate.
When we said that they were very comfortable a year and a half
ago when Mr. Gingrich was the new political star in the United
States, the member for Calgary Southwest took the first plane and
was seen on TV holding hands with Newt and so on. It is amazing
that I was not invited by Newt and I do not know why.
(1445)
It is part of the political debate in the United States when the
Republicans talk about a tax cut before they balance their books.
We do not subscribe to that. We know that and we think we have to
stay the course. Suddenly Reform changes its position. If I am not
mistaken Reform has had four different positions on the GST in the
last three years so it must have another one for the election. Who
knows?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has a lot of gall lecturing us on the GST.
When the Prime Minister went to China, we did not accuse him
of supporting summary executions in cavorting with the leadership
of that regime and that is something they believe in. I want to point
out the little inconsistency here.
My question is a follow-up to the question of the caucus chair of
the Reform Party. Will the Prime Minister commit to meeting the
leader of the Reform Party in a one on one debate out of this place
where we can have a full fledged debate on the issues, not on a
bunch of smear campaign ideas from the Americans?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am here face to face with him every week, so he can ask
me all the questions from the Reform Party in question period. He
can ask his own members to shut up, and ask all the questions
himself and I might reply to them. Sometimes I might feel that my
ministers can plug them easily too. It is part of the political debate.
Reformers should learn one thing: In politics it is better to have a
thick skin or they will not go very far.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will try
to find out if there is still a government or if the election campaign
has already started.
At last weekend's Liberal convention, the delegates passed a
resolution urging the government to allow assisted suicide for
terminally ill patients who often face intolerable suffering. In
response to this resolution, the Prime Minister repeated that there
was no urgency.
Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's comments that
he has decided to avoid all controversial issues, even the most basic
ones like assisted suicide, and that he refuses to get involved in the
great debates facing Canadian society?
5809
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Liberal Party
discussed this complex and difficult issue last weekend.
The Liberal Party of Canada passed a resolution for Parliament
to review this matter. We are currently considering it in caucus, in
cabinet. We will then decide how to proceed.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after the
Supreme Court gave its ruling two and a half years ago, the
Minister of Justice said he would announce later the measures they
intended taking.
After Sue Rodriguez died, he again said that measures would be
announced. After the Senate committee hearings, he reiterated that
they would take action and that the status quo was unacceptable.
Once again, they are deferring this until later.
Why is the Prime Minister so intent on deferring this debate until
after the next election?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Senate committee has been
reviewing this matter for the past three years. They have
considered the moral, ethical, medical and legal issues. The Senate
committee did not reach a consensus on these issues. During last
weekend's convention debate, we recognized that this is a very
complex matter.
(1450)
All aspects must be examined. As I said, we as a government
intend to review all this in detail in caucus, in cabinet, in order to
develop a position.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was at the
meeting with Mr. Gingrich in Washington. We also met with a
number of Democrats. We also met with a number of people from
human rights concerns in Washington while we were there. I will
tell you that we were as different as anything we could get from
that right wing extremist element they are talking about. When I
read that in a newspaper, Mr. Speaker, I was furious. I demand and
we demand an apology from the Prime Minister now.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, now they do not want to admit that they were praised by
Mr. Gingrich. I remember, I read that. Mr. Gingrich said the
Reform Party was the way of the future. When I compare the two
parties, both have increased their support to 10 per cent.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will not attempt
to list all of the praising that has been done of the present Prime
Minister, from his homeless friends to all the others. I will not even
try to list those.
If the Prime Minister is so certain of himself, why will he not
accept an open debate with the leader of the Reform Party? What is
he afraid of?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I travel around the world, people realize that Canada
is one of the few countries, if not the only one, where there is a
question period five times a week with no notice on any questions
that can spring up from the opposition.
The Prime Minister sits in the House of Commons with virtually
all of his ministers ready to reply to questions and they want to
have a debate on top of that. Fine, there will be an election and
there will be debate. But the main debate is here in the House of
Commons where all members are elected. This is the main place
for debate.
I have been here for 33 years and this is the first time that the
leader of a party wants to have a debate outside of the House
because he does not feel that he is performing very well in debates
in le salon de la race.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the government released the report of the Liberal task
force on disability issues. This committee, which did not include
any member of the opposition, in essence reiterated the
recommendations already made in 1995 in the unanimous report
tabled by the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status
of Persons with Disabilities, following months of consultations.
How can the Prime Minister justify such a duplication of time,
money and effort, except, once again, to try to buy time and to let
organizations calm down, while financing, with taxpayers' money,
his platform concerning people with disabilities?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we did receive, yesterday, the
report of the task force on disability issues, which was very well
run by the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
This is a very interesting document, which will have a
significant impact on the government's action, and particularly the
Department of Human Resources Development. As for myself, I
have already pledged to ensure that all Canadians, including those
with disabilities, can make a full contribution to our society.
5810
(1455)
I am convinced that a number of proposals made by the task
force will help us fulfil this commitment. In the coming weeks, I
will meet with my colleagues, the Minister of Finance, the Minister
of Justice and the Minister of National Revenue, to follow up on
this very interesting report.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, still more rhetoric but no action. Rather than
giving itself a nice passing grade like the Prime Minister did on the
weekend regarding the fulfilment of his red book promises, will
this government finally take action and follow up on the
recommendations of the human rights committee, before the end of
its mandate? Enough promises: we want action.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that our friends
opposite, Bloc Quebecois members, love action. This government
is a responsible government. It wants to make sure that a
remarkable consultation exercise such as the one conducted by our
colleague truly reflects the concerns of Canadians with disabilities.
Check with them and you will see that, more than ever before,
they feel they have had an opportunity to be heard by the
government. There will be action, but it will meet the needs and the
objectives of these people. We will not take action for the sake of it,
as would members of the opposition.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In July, France announced an almost total ban on asbestos, as of
January 1, 1997. What does the government do to protect the jobs
of workers in Quebec's asbestos mines?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member that the federal
government is pursuing this issue very vigorously with its trading
partners, with the province of Quebec and with the asbestos
industry.
Let me remind the hon. member that the Prime Minister wrote to
his counterpart, Mr. Alain Juppé, on October 6. As a result of that
letter, today in fact we have a panel of Canadian experts in France
providing scientific information and background to the French in
terms of our policy on controlled or safe use of asbestos.
Let me also remind the hon. member that it was the Prime
Minister, when he was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in
1983 who signed a 10 year, $15 million agreement to establish the
Asbestos Institute that has pursued scientific inquiry into the safe
use of asbestos and developed new asbestos products.
I would hope the hon. member sees that this government has had
a long history of commitment to the asbestos industry in Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today's
Globe and Mail headline reads: ``Liberals turn sights on Manning:
PMO issues attack memo suggesting Reform Party be linked to
U.S. extreme right wing''. I would like to thank the Prime Minister
and the Liberals for targeting Reform. I take it as a compliment that
they feel we are a threat to this government and that our policies
and platforms have something to offer.
Let us check on innuendo. It is a fact that Bombardier has
donated $170,000 to the Liberals since 1993. It is a fact that
Bombardier has done its research on those planes. It is a fact that
the Minister of Industry yesterday did not answer my question on
criteria fully. It is a fact that the son-in-law of the Prime Minister is
on the board.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to put his question now.
Mr. Silye: Given these facts, will the Minister of Industry or the
Prime Minister explain to us what technical advancement is being
developed at Bombardier for $87 million?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in spite of the offensiveness of the preamble to the
question, the substance of the question is good.
(1500 )
In deciding to make this investment we looked at the criteria that
were described when we announced the technology partnership
program and the fact that we were engaged in a risk sharing venture
of research and development, in this case the development of an
extended version of the Canadair regional jet. We looked at the
ability of that product to be marketed internationally. We looked at
the number of jobs that were involved: either being sustained or
created by the investment. We looked at the likelihood of the
government recouping its investment fully. As I said yesterday,
when we pass 400 planes we will make a profit on it.
The member lists some facts. It is a fact that despite our trade
surplus the only high technology sector in which we have a trade
surplus is aerospace. It is a fact that this company, Canadair, is one
5811
of our finest companies and one of the best in the world. We will
invest in our winners.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting that when we start to use a little innuendo like the
government members do they find it offensive. What is good for
the goose is good for the gander, so either you take it or you don't.
On the issue of research and development the criteria that were
used in this instance are still very suspect. The Minister of Industry
picks the one company that is already number six, with $6.6 billion
in assets, with cash in the bank of $200 million, with profits of
$100 million. That company has enough money to do a lot of its
own R and D. Were there matching funds by Bombardier for R and
D and if so, how much? And is this just the first part of a three-part
instalment?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no, it was not matching money. In fact there was three
times the money from the company in this investment. The ratio of
the Canadian R and D is 25 per cent.
The hon. member should know it is implicit in his question that
if a company succeeds, then it should not be helped. If he were to
understand a little bit about the structure of this industry which is a
very important industry to Canada, he would know that every other
country, and there are not that many, that have a fully developed
aerospace industry, are supported either by state ownership or by
indirect support through defence procurement or other measures.
We have a study, and I will be happy to give him another copy, so
that he can see what those support mechanisms are. In this case the
kind of thinking that he brings to this file, as evidenced in his
question, is the very thinking that 40 years ago led to the
destruction of the Avro Arrow and set Canada's high tech sector
back years.
* * *
(1505 )
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on two
points of order dealing with the decorum during question period
from the party of the fresh start opposite. It is the first time in eight
years in Parliament that I have risen on a point of order with respect
to decorum.
The member for Medicine Hat, in exchanges during question
period, was heard to repeatedly refer to the right hon. Prime
Minister as a sleazebag. This was clearly heard by people on this
side of the House. In addition, some members on this side heard an
unfortunate four letter word that was uttered after we objected to
the use of the word sleaze.
The second point of order with respect to the decorum of the
House has to do with the actions of the member for Beaver River
who, in an exchange with the member for London West, made a
gesture which we believe was inappropriate.
The Speaker: We all agree that today was a rather spirited day
on both sides. I intervened on two occasions because the nature of
the words raised hackles on both sides of the House.
I did not hear the word to which the hon. member referred. I did
not see any gestures. If the hon. member wishes me to look at the
blues I will, and I will revisit the television tapes. As for the
gesture, I do not say this facetiously but how can this be recorded?
I would urge members on days such as this, and we have them
from time time, that we try to discipline ourselves as much as we
can and try not to use offensive words.
Today, according to my count which is not official, we had 10
questioners rise in question period. We average around 17 on any
given day. Sometimes the questions are a little bit long and
sometimes the answers are a little bit long. When the answers are
protracted, words are exchanged in the House. Not that I condone
it, but this has been going on for years. It is something that we learn
to live with as parliamentarians. I would urge members, however,
to conduct themselves as parliamentarians and, as much as
possible, to stay away from those words that seem to incite both
sides of the House.
I would rule that the hon. member does not have a point of order
but surely a point of debate.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
because I was named, I think I only have one recourse and that is to
ask you for just a few seconds of your time. If blowing a kiss to the
member for London West is offensive then all I can say is, forgive
me.
(1510 )
The Speaker: If I had my way, which I do not always have, it
would be better to kiss each other to death than to fight each other
to death. If that is the offensive gesture, I hope we would let these
points of order just sit here for today. We will be back tomorrow,
same time. I am waiting for you.
5812
5812
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That debate on the motion relating to the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of
Committees of the Whole House and on any amendments proposed thereto shall not
be further adjourned.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 144)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-135
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Brien
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Ringma
Rocheleau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams -79
5813
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bélair
Bélisle
Canuel
Cohen
Cowling
Dubé
Fillion
Gallaway
Jacob
Mitchell
Pomerleau
Serré
St-Laurent
Torsney
Wood
(1555)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the
motion and the amendment.
The Speaker: Resuming debate.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
the member for Vancouver North was on questions and answers
when the debate stopped yesterday. Are we continuing from that
point?
The Speaker: From the information I have, we were finished
with the time allowed and therefore I am proceeding now with the
debate.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my point
of order is the same. My understanding was that the hon. member
for North Vancouver still had some time remaining on questions
and comments.
The Speaker: Now we are on debate.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a little confusing sometimes. After the exciting
question period we had today, we kind of wonder whether we are
following proper procedure.
What I am going to talk about this afternoon is what is a promise.
What is it, really? A promise is sometimes defined as something
that one person makes. But I have found during my lifetime that
usually if I made a promise there was somebody else involved. The
consequences sometimes bore more strongly on the person to
whom the promise was made than on me when I made the promise.
(1600)
There are promises which are made verbally. In my experience I
have also made a lot of promises that were signed. When I went to
banks to borrow money, to dealerships to buy implements, I usually
had to make a promise that if I took delivery of the implement I
would also have to pay for it and also service it properly if I wanted
a guarantee or warranty on it.
One of the most important promises I made in my life was to a
beautiful young girl whom I tried to convince she had no better
man to look for than me. That was not so easy. I spent quite a bit of
time at that. In the end I did have to sign my name to really fulfil a
promise and to convince her that I would do what I promised.
After 35 years, sometimes I do not think I have totally kept my
promises because there have been a few harsh words between us,
although I promised there would never be because I was the perfect
gentlemen and would be the perfect husband.
We sometimes do not quite fulfil our promises. As we have
heard over the last couple of days sometimes these promises go
back to Scripture. I listened to an interview with Mrs. Billy Graham
on the issue of divorce. She had made a promise to her husband,
saying that she should stay with him through thick or thin, health
and sickness, richness and poverty. She was asked if she ever
intended to break that promise, that she would not say with her
husband until death did they part. She said: ``No, I never thought of
reneging on that promise, but a lot of times I have thought of
speeding up the process that he would leave me sooner than later''.
We do have to honour our promises even if sometimes we do not
want to fulfil them in the context that we agreed to.
What does a signed promise mean? A signed promise means that
if we do not abide by the contract or the promise, somebody will
probably bear some very severe consequences, not just the person
who made the promise but the other party to the promise.
I found out early in my life that if I wanted to have credibility it
did not really matter whether it was a promise made verbally or a
signed promise. In the end it had the same results if I reneged on it
or partially fulfilled it. I think one of the most pleasant experiences
I had in keeping a promise was to my two youngest grandsons. As
it happened, we had been given by our daughter and son-in-law the
privilege of looking after the boys for the weekend while they went
on a short holiday. Since grandpa wants to impress his grandsons, I
made a commitment to take them to McDonald's on Saturday
night. This was in the middle of winter and I had forgotten that
weather conditions could change drastically from Friday to
Saturday.
About 2.30 in the afternoon my wife said ``you know, grandpa, I
think you will have to break your promise because that storm is just
to bad and you cannot take your grandsons out on the road''. We
had about 12 miles to travel.
When I suggested to my grandsons that there might be a little
problem with the weather they found all kinds of excuses to throw
at me, saying that it was not that bad outside: ``We have been with
dad through a lot worse storms than this. You have the old 4x4 and
we have the cell phone. There are all kinds of way we can get back
and forth''.
5814
(1605 )
Finally I realized that I probably could not wiggle out of this
promise. At 35 degrees below zero we decided to take the old 4x4
and head 10 miles down the road to McDonald's about six o'clock
in the afternoon. There were not many people in that McDonald's.
When I walked in with my wife and the two little grandchildren
they kind of looked at me as if to say ``hey, is this man a little sick?
Why is he taking those two little kids out on a night like this?''
When I explained to them that I had made a promise, my grandsons
looked at me and said ``grandpa, he can do it. We'll get home. He
can keep that promise''.
I was the proudest grandpa that day because I was the only one
with two little children there, stupid and foolish as it seemed, but I
did keep my promise. I gained a lot of respect from my grandsons,
even if I would have rather had it the other way.
Sometimes a broken promise can be very hurtful. To me, it really
worked the other way and I gained a lot of respect. It cost me a little
extra caution, to drive more carefully and to be a bit more cautious
on the road, but we did get home safely and I felt very good about
keeping that promise.
When I look at some of the tragedies that we see in the world
today where promises were not kept, it is sad to see that we
probably do not give enough attention to what a promise is.
In the olden days I heard my dad and my grandfather say that the
handshake was a promise and it was a deal and that was enough.
Today that does not seem to be true any more. We have to have
things legally drawn up and we have to abide by the guidelines.
What has it cost this government to break a number of promises?
One of them is the promise of the GST. We have seen that promise
broken. We have seen that now it will cost other taxpayers about
roughly $1 billion. I do not know how this government is going to
face the electorate next time, especially in the west where this $1
billion is going to come from.
The other thing I would like to touch on is the Canadian Wheat
Board. We know that this government promised during the election
that it would hold a referendum especially on barley marketing.
That promise has not been honoured. It may be honoured yet before
this Parliament is over, but it has caused a lot of hard feelings. It
has more or less developed a lot of tension between different
farmers, different families even and different communities.
Is it really worth breaking a promise which creates this tension
and distress in the farming community? If I had been the
agriculture minister that is one of the first things that I would have
honoured, holding a plebiscite. That is what democracy is about. It
is to let individuals decide what is best for them in their businesses,
in their homes and in their governments.
About a year ago I saw news stories where Mr. Beswick did
resign over the friction inside the wheat board on which type of
marketing was better. He stated that the bungling of the wheat
board had cost barley producers $180 million that year. We can
understand why there is friction between farmers and why they
would like this to be resolved.
That gives us a small idea not just that the $180 million was gone
but that there was confusion and friction in the agriculture
community. What did that do to that community? It pitted farmer
against farmer. It also pitted business against farmers. When a
farmer loses a dollar business loses just as much or more.
(1610 )
I have recently been approached by a number of business people
who were very upset that this has gone to the point where some
farmers have been charged horrendous penalties through monetary
forfeitures. One of the farmers is in jail and it looks like there may
be another one in jail very shortly because he is going to refuse to
pay some of his fines. I am wondering where it is going to end.
We do not need this type of friction or tension in the community
especially today when I see grain prices drifting lower and lower
every day.
Why are we debating this issue about promises when I ponder
some of the statements that have been made and look at what the
four members of Parliament did to establish a task force minority
report on the independence of the Chair or the Speaker of the
House? I wonder how these four members, at that time being in
opposition, could now just ignore what they said.
I would just like to read into the record exactly what was said.
This is what they said about the independence of the Chair: ``In
order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to
reduce the level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the
government party two of the junior Chair officers should be from
the opposition so that the four presiding officer positions are shared
equally by government and opposition''. Further down in the
statement they say: ``If the Speaker were from the government
party, the deputy speaker would be from the opposition, the next
officer from the government-'', and so forth.
I would say that is a tremendous statement. That goes to show
that these four members, while sitting in opposition, were really
determined and honest in analysing the partisanship that was
happening in Parliament at that time.
I am wondering why it would be so hard to fulfil that little
promise today. This promise is not going to cost them anything
financially. It is not going to give them any more or less power in
5815
this House. It would only, I would think, supplement their stature in
the public that they honoured this small promise that was intimated
to be made if they were elected.
I think it was probably important at that time to the government
to add this to the appendix of the red book to show that this
government wanted to democratize this Parliament the way it
should be democratized, that it should be a House where there is
equal opportunity, that it should be a House where the guidelines
and partisanship were neutral or as neutral as they could hope it to
be.
When we look at the debate we have been entering into for the
last day and a half, it is astounding that this little promise could
create such a partisan debate when I see that there has not been a
single member from the Bloc or from the government really
supporting this statement that was made in the last Parliament to
reinforce the idea that this should be a House, through the Speaker,
as impartial as possible.
We can see what it has done in the debate. It has kept us thinking,
but the decision that we are going to make tonight will not be one
that is going to be beneficial to the House unless something historic
happens.
(1615 )
I wonder how the government would feel if the member for
Kingston and the Islands decided to honour his commitment
through the statement he made when he was in opposition. I
wonder what the Liberal government would say if this member for
Kingston and the Islands said: ``I am going to stick by my
statement of four years ago or so, walk the floor and join the Bloc
or the Reform to honour the commitment that my nomination as
deputy chairman could be held''.
I would like to see what the Liberal government would say. That
is the way he could honour his commitment. If he made that choice,
I am sure not going to say that I would not honour his intentions.
He could sit as an independent. He could join one of the other
parties. That is the way this member could stay true to his
commitment of four years ago.
It would be a tremendous credit to the House if this member
fulfilled that commitment. I would really appreciate it and I think
everybody would respect him more for it. It would probably be a
pretty strong pill to swallow but I think it would be well accepted.
Whether it would be accepted by the government is another issue. I
am sure the opposition or the independents in the House would
welcome another member on this side.
From what we have heard from the hon. member for Kingston
and the Islands, he is an honourable member and a very fair
member on the committees he has served on. I would love to see
this member make that final decision. It would be precedent
setting. It would be something this House would remember for
perpetuity. I do not think we would run into the situation ever again
where that would have to be debated.
He made this commitment before an election and he knew the
statement he made was correct; so much more power to the
member to fulfil it.
How is this government going to face the electorate in the next
election when it cannot keep this one little promise which did not
cost this government a single nickel? All it would have done is
made this House more democratic. It would have fulfilled some of
the promises the Liberals made to be honourable, fair and to treat
people equally. It would only be a plus to them.
If I had to go back and campaign on a little broken promise like
this, I am sure my electorate would not believe any big promises I
made during the campaign. If I was not true to the little promises,
the teeny-weeny promises that were costly neither to government
nor to opposition, then how would people ever believe me on the
bigger promises like the GST, like the referendum on barley
marketing, like a few others I should mention? I do not want to
create too much hostility on the other side. At that point we could
run into another lively debate like we had during the question and
answer period.
I enjoy listening to the comments from members on the other
side because I know they will try to distort the issues somewhat and
there will be some political rhetoric. I can deal with a little of it but
when it gets too thick and too foggy then at times it becomes
difficult to sit quietly and seal my lips.
(1620 )
We know today that we cannot even dare blow a kiss to
opposition members. They get too excited. It irritates them. I
would not want to cause a riot in the House just because of a few
comments I might make.
I would really like to see how some of the members on the other
side are going to deal with the issue of breaking the promise to
make the Speaker impartial and to make the Speaker as effective as
possible in the House when they have not even tried to accomplish
that in the vice-chairmanship of all the standing committees. We
have seen how democracy operates there. We see the whip walking
into the room, counting the heads and identifying the people who
might all of a sudden vote against the government.
We have seen it happen a number of times that when someone
voted against government policy they were demoted, taken off the
committee and replaced by somebody else. I find it very hard to
believe that is democracy. It is not keeping the promise to make the
procedures of the House more democratic and to have more free
votes.
I wonder what the electorate will say in the next election,
especially after some of the comments made in question period
today about the way the government is trying to divert attention
from the real issues. We are being called extremists. The
government is reneging on a little promise to make the Chair more
5816
impartial. How can we be the extremists? The extremism comes
from the other side. That little democracy which could help the
House-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time
has expired.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see a quorum in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: I will ask the clerk to count the members
present.
There is certainly not a quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
[Translation]
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: There are now 20 members in the House,
it would appear.
(1625)
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate the member for Kingston and the Islands. I
believe he will be the first person in the history of the House of
Commons who will have come to the position of deputy speaker
under closure. I think that is really something. He has been a very
memorable member.
An hon. member: May he rest in peace.
Mr. Abbott: May he rest in peace.
He has been a very memorable member. I think of him as
constantly popping up with his Reform green book. While
entertaining, nonetheless it has not been quite as entertaining as
this whole process. He was one of the authors of the idea of the
continuing effort to reform this archaic institution to create more
independence in the Chair in an effort to reduce the level of
partisanship.
We all agree that we have no difficulty with the qualifications of
this member but there is a complete lack of understanding of the
principle involved. I realize it is really difficult for the Liberals to
understand principle but we had people from the other side of this
House saying this whole thing of creating impartiality, of getting
people from the opposition to be officials in the House, it was not a
promise.
In reality it was contained in their pulp fiction, the appendix to
their red book. To try to weasel out of this promise, which was a
promise simply because they chose to include it in the appendix, I
find is really very unfortunate and perhaps says something about
their attitude toward the issue of integrity in government.
Over the weekend 1.4 million documents were distributed in
newspapers. The document was called ``Commitments are only as
strong as our will to fulfil them''. I do not know if these documents
were all from the 1.4 million Canadians who are unemployed, but
on the front of this document it was noted that this was a statement
by the Prime Minister. I would like to read from this Liberal
document:
There are no vague ``philosophies'' and empty promises in ``Creating
Opportunity''. The Red Book is full of specific plans to improve our society, our
economy and our collective strength. One of the reasons that Canadians so
enthusiastically support the Red Book is because it was crafted after significant
consultation with Canadians from every corner of our country. We asked what was
important to you. We listened. And we're still listening. In turn, you have given [the
Prime Minister] the most important mandate in the world: your trust. He and his
government are fulfilling, and will continue to fulfil, the commitments you helped to
create.
Let us take a look at the last couple of weeks and let us be very
blunt. We are talking now about facts. I know Liberals do not like
to talk about facts. When the Prime Minister was addressing young
people in a high school in Manitoba he told a story that he sat on a
corner on a chair with a homeless gentlemen. It rather piqued the
interest of the reporters and they asked ``who is this person, when
did this happen and what is going on here?''
It was found that this story, taken to be true by these young
people in Manitoba, was without basis in fact. The story that the
Prime Minister had told these young people of Canada was a
falsehood. He did not sit on corners with homeless people. He did
not consult with homeless people.
(1630)
The closest he could come was in the interim period when he had
previously been elected and then re-elected when he happened to
run into somebody on the street. That was the Prime Minister and
his imaginary friend.
On the same trip this person we are supposed to trust was telling
us that one of the great things he and his government had done was
to move interest rates down from 14 per cent and 15 per cent. It
depended on how much farther he went west how big the number
got. He started at 13. Then it became 14 and then it became a 15 per
cent interest rate that the Liberals were facing when they came into
government. The difficulty is that the number was only 9.5 per
cent, a minor discrepancy. This is the person Canada is supposed to
trust.
``As a result of the 14, 15 and 16 per cent interest rates'', he said,
``we have saved the taxpayer $7,000 in interest payments''. Then it
was $8,000 in interest payments and by the time he got out west it
was $9,000 in interest payments. In fact the number is $2,700, a
little less than $9,000.
5817
We are talking about integrity. We are talking about integrity
of government and people who will stand to be counted and tell
it like it is.
I am repeating only facts, which is important. I will quote the
Prime Minister from television in Winnipeg: ``It was a big gamble
we took when we decided to have a detailed program like this. I
didn't expect that everything will have been perfect, but we will
have been well above 90 per cent by the time we will call an
election, probably close to 100 per cent''.
I guess what actually happened was-
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): It sounds like his
imaginary friend.
Mr. Abbott: His imaginary friend got the better of him again.
I guess the people over at the PMO who are so good at putting
out distortions of truth decided that 90 per cent was a little too
much. They said to the Prime Minister: ``Why don't you go to the
people on the Liberal convention weekend and use 78 per cent? Do
not use 79. That sounds like we are fudging it. We don't really want
to get down around 75 because then people will be talking about
three-quarters. Why don't we choose 78 per cent?''
We did fundamentally the same thing. The Reform Party put out
a score card and came in at 30 per cent. We said the Liberals had
not addressed the issue or even come remotely close to solving the
issue of interprovincial trade barriers.
What did the Liberals say? This is their brand new pulp fiction, a
record of achievement. Now there is a joke. Page 18 of the
document states that a Liberal government will be committed to the
elimination of interprovincial trade barriers within Canada and will
address the issue urgently, and they have a check mark.
We noted they had not even come remotely close to it but they
put it in the red book. We are talking integrity. They clearly
indicated that as far as they were concerned they had achieved the
objective of doing away with interprovincial trade barriers.
Why was it on Monday morning, when I was in their policy
session, the following National Liberal Women's Commission
resolution passed? It read:
Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada encourage the Government of
Canada to commit itself, in all matters of internal trade, to facilitating removal of the
number and complexity of impediments to interprovincial trade.
If, when they put out this pulp fiction on Thursday they had
already done it, why was the National Liberal Women's
Commission passing a resolution saying they should do it the next
day?
I have another one by the Liberal Party of Canada, Ontario. It
read:
Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada request that the federal government
pursue a comprehensive agreement to complete the Economic Union of Canada by
introducing a constitutional provision stating that Canada is an Economic Union
wherein goods, services, people, and capital can have full mobility within the entire
nation''.
What a great idea but they just did it the day before, did they not?
They said so in their book. What is this? That was not good enough.
The Liberal Party of Ontario passed another one. It read:
Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urges the federal government to
negotiate with the provinces to ensure the portability of professional qualifications
between provinces.
(1635)
The Prime Minister, this person with the imaginary friend, had
just finished telling us they had done it. Why did they put out this
book when in fact they had not done it, to the extent they even
passed resolutions to say they should do it?
Now the big whopper is ``an agenda for jobs and growth''. This
government promised Canadians jobs, jobs, jobs. Is that not
terrific? It was like the promise that we would have independence
in the chair in this place by putting opposition members in the chair
of this place. ``Oh, gee, we are not going to do that''. There is
another broken promise.
What about jobs, jobs, jobs? I would have been just totally
mortified if my caucus had done what the National Liberal Caucus
did at the convention. Believe it or not, this is really something.
They actually put in:
Whereas the twin forces of economic globalization and rapid technological
change have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout all
sectors of the labour market;
Whereas the rate of unemployment remains stubbornly high with too many
people competing for too few jobs;
Whereas the young people, in particular-
I should parenthesize that they are 18 per cent unemployed.
Whereas the young people, in particular, are finding it increasingly difficult to
obtain full time employment;
This is a resolution of the National Liberal Caucus. It is the most
brilliant idea the Liberals have:
Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada recommends that work sharing be
promoted with employers and unions as part of the effort to redistribute working
time-
That is the most brilliant idea the people on the other side of the
House have come up with. Then they have the audacity to send out
from the Prime Minister's office, at the expense of taxpayers,
distortions about where the Reform Party is coming from and that
somehow we do not have any new ideas.
We do have some ideas. For example, one distortion of truth was
that our program would rob the poor to pay the rich. Let us take a
look at exactly what the Reform Party would do. We would
5818
increase the basic personal income tax exemption from $6,456 to
$7,900, giving tax relief to every taxpayer.
We would increase the spousal amount from $5,380 also to
$7,900 which would level the playing field for parents who choose
to stay home to look after young children. It would help families
meet their needs in a more demanding economy.
We would eliminate the 3 per cent and 5 per cent federal surtaxes
introduced by their brother in the federal Tories as part of our
commitment to simplify and flatten taxes.
We would cut the employers unemployment insurance premium
by 28 per cent, thereby reducing the job killing payroll taxes.
We would extend the $3,000 to $5,000 child care deduction to all
parents including those who care for their children at home.
It is a matter of coming up with new ideas. It is a matter of
making sure the people at the bottom end of the scale are looked
after first. That is what the Reform Party is about. In this instance a
family of four with one income earner would see an immediate tax
reduction of 89 per cent. There would be one million fewer
taxpayers at the bottom end of the scale as a result of the initiatives
of the Reform Party.
At the top end of the scale for a family of four with one income
earner earning $100,000 the reduction would only be 3 per cent as
opposed to 89 per cent at the bottom end.
And these people have the audacity to say we are robbing the
poor to pay the rich. These people are robbing the poor to pay the
rich. We will do a complete turnaround so that the people at the
bottom end of the scale are the people who are the most
advantaged. I just do not understand these people opposite at all.
(1640)
As my colleague from Lisgar-Marquette noted, if the Liberals
cannot keep the small promises, how in the world can they keep the
big ones? Here we have an issue of honesty, integrity and moving
forward in the impartiality of the running of the House and they
cannot even do that. When the National Liberal Caucus has to
resort to their very best idea of job sharing, give me a break.
We have some ideas. We would create jobs through smaller
government. We would put an end to overspending and lower taxes.
We would make government smaller by eliminating waste,
duplication and red tape. In particular, if we take a look at the
portfolio I am responsible for, we would take a look at why the
heritage minister felt compelled to come up with a $20 million
Canada Information Office. What an absolutely brilliant idea when
every department and every ministry of the government has its very
own information office.
In addition, there is also Inquiries Canada with a budget of $4
million. Why did we need this? Maybe we have a bit of a clue in the
way in which the Liberals went about hiring the people for the
office. It does not come under any rules and regulations with
respect to the normal hiring practice of government. I wonder why.
I wonder if maybe they may be choosing to hire exactly the people
they want. I will bet there is an election coming and they want to
have some people they will be able to hand pick at taxpayers'
expense to bring into this office.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): No, no.
Mr. Morrison: They wouldn't do that.
Mr. Abbott: Let us take a look at this. What they have done in
addition we will never know.
Mr. Morrison: Don't be so cynical.
Mr. Abbott: What am I supposed to say when the Liberals turn
around and under a cabinet order provide no information or details
to anyone about how the funds are spent? The cabinet has closed,
slammed and locked Canadians out of this $20 million enterprise.
No one will ever know anything about what is going on.
We might have a clue about what is going on over there if we
take a look at what the Prime Minister's office does with its
research funds. It sends out Liberal propaganda to Liberal
sympathizers that are absolute distortions of the truth about the
Reform Party and has been caught at it.
Although we have had a degree of tongue in cheek in the way we
have addressed the issue, we must also take a look at how solemn it
is. It is very solemn because we have a government and a Prime
Minister who are so arrogant and power hungry that they will
virtually do anything to maintain power and control over
information from the office I just named. They will do virtually
anything in terms of what they say about people they are concerned
about who have different or new ideas.
Why is it that we have a situation where we do not have a
resolution to the so-called two founding nation problem or however
they choose to describe it? We do not have resolution to the point
where we almost lost the country a year ago.
For 30 or 35 years the Liberals and Tories have stumbled around
with that portfolio, not getting anywhere and making the situation
worse. Reform, or any other Canadian, can come along with a fresh
new idea and say: ``Why don't we try it a different way?'' If we are
unsuccessful in a particular direction maybe we should change
direction. The minute we do that with the Liberals they
immediately choose to throw out the mindless invective. They
immediately choose to go into overdrive and say all the mean,
nasty, negative, distorted statements they can make about their
adversaries.
5819
(1645 )
What the Reform Party is out to do, and we will do it in spite of
the Liberals, is we are out to create an honest, open, frank, candid
debate in this country about real issues, about real solutions, about
getting things turned around so that the people of this country once
again can see the future as they want it to be. We are turning it
around so that we have the opportunities for our people, for the
people of Canada.
What can I say? Again, the member who has been proposed for
this function, fine, but the way in which he has been proposed and
the way in which the Liberals once again have broken a solemn
commitment is very sad.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the
Liberals must be down in the market talking to their imaginary
friends. I do not see a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: There clearly is not a quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
[Translation]
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: There are now 20 members in the House.
[English]
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I heard the last
speaker refer to the Prime Minister and accuse the Prime Minister
of telling a falsehood to young people. Those were his precise
words.
(1650)
The traditions and the procedures of the House are quite clear. I
am sure it is not necessary but I would refer the Speaker to citation
489 of Beauchesne's. He will note the lengthy list of examples of
how it is unacceptable in the House to question the veracity of a
member.
One cannot use the expressions: above the truth; attempted to
misrepresent; deceive; falsehood; misleading; misled; dishonest
insinuations; dishonest answers; fabricated; intentional deceit;
misleading the public; not telling the truth; not the complete truth;
wilfully misled; untrue statement. One certainly cannot use: false;
fabrication; false representations; false statement; falsehood;
falsify.
I would therefore ask the Speaker to rule-
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. The hon.
member for Kootenay East has in fact left the Chamber. We will
check the blues and if the situation is as the member indicated, the
Chair will certainly make a ruling on it.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are certainly not ready for the question.
I thank the hon. member opposite for making that intervention. I
notice it is the first intervention that has been made for quite some
time by hon. members opposite. Obviously they are having an
exceedingly difficult time trying to justify this move by the
government. Indeed, they do not wish to participate in the debate to
try to defend the actions of their government.
Perhaps it would be interesting to recap what has brought us to
this point on this issue. Clearly, there has been another broken
Liberal promise.
We seem to have been subjected over the last day and a half to a
number of allegations from across the way that the Reform Party of
Canada is wasting taxpayers' money and wasting the time of the
House of Commons. I see that the few hon. members who are left
across the way are nodding their heads. They agree that we are
wasting time.
What this is all about is a matter of principle. Unfortunately,
there does not seem to be a lot of that in evidence on the other side
of the House these days. In fact, I would submit that principles are
in exceedingly short supply in the Liberal Party. The opinion across
the way is that the Reform Party has a problem with principles, but
we feel it is the Liberal Party of Canada which is constantly lacking
in that department. Liberal members will not even get up to defend
the position which they have taken on this issue.
Why are we in this situation in the House? Yesterday the
government put a motion on the floor of the Chamber to appoint the
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to the vacant position of
Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. This was done
despite the fact that the member himself was a co-author of a
document some years ago when the Liberal Party of Canada was
sitting on this side of the House. At that time four members of the
Liberal Party drafted a document which became an appendix to the
infamous red book. That book was the Liberal Party's platform
which it took to the people of Canada during the 1993 election
campaign.
The appendix was called ``Reviving Parliamentary Democracy''.
It is certainly a grand title, something I think all Canadians believe
we are in dire need of in this country, ``Reviving Parliamentary
Democracy: The Liberal Plan for House of Commons and Electoral
Reform''. Number 10 dealt with the independence of the Chair, in
other words the independence of the Speaker in the House of
Commons. It stated:
In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the
level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the government party, two of the
junior Chair officers should be from the opposition, so that the four presiding officer
positions are shared equally by government and opposition.
5820
(1655)
It went on to say:
One of the most significant results of the McGrath round of procedural reforms
was the decision that the Speaker should be elected by secret ballot by all members.
This has gone a long way toward assuring members of the independence of the
presiding officer.
The three deputy Speakers, however, remain in effect government appointees. As
a consequence, when one of the junior officers is in the Chair, his or her
independence and authority is less well established. Their authority would be greatly
enhanced and the non-partisan nature of the Chair greatly augmented if the British
practice of alternating the Chair positions between government and opposition were
adopted. Thus, if the Speaker were from the government party, the Deputy Speaker
would be from the opposition, the next officer from the government and so forth.
This is all quite admirable. Certainly all members of Parliament
from all parties would agree that a procedure such as that should be
instituted.
I note that in one part it is stated very clearly that the authority
would be greatly enhanced if this procedure were adopted because
deputy Speakers are not elected. It was the feeling of that
committee of the Liberal Party of Canada that this type of process
should be put in place. That is why it was added as an appendix to
the red book. The Liberals ran on this issue. It was a promise they
made in the days and weeks leading up to the 1993 election.
Earlier my colleague from Lisgar-Marquette spoke about what
is a promise. He talked about the sanctity of marriage vows. He
made a good case that it is one promise many Canadians believe is
a promise that one simply does not break. The marriage vow of
until death do us part means that couples stay together through
thick and thin and through tough times. They work out their
problems but they keep their promise. He quite eloquently made
the case for that.
What constitutes the keeping of a promise? The member went on
to say that there are many kinds of promises. Some are simply
implied, some are spelled out, some are verbal and some are signed
contracts. In other words, they are legally binding in the sense that
one has signed one's name to the promise.
What constitutes the keeping of a promise? Simply put, in the
case of government it has a very short time span in which to keep
its promise. It is up to the government to display to the general
public that when its members run for election either in a general
election or a byelection that they will keep their word.
There is an old saying that a man is only as good as his word.
That is something I was raised with. It is common knowledge in
Peace River country where I come from. I heard that many times
from my father when I was a youngster. I would submit that is a
generic term which also applies to the other gender. We all are only
as good and our credibility is only as good as our word. We have to
keep that.
(1700)
It reminds me of a promise that was made by a number of
Liberals during the election but certainly none more so or more
strongly or strenuously than the Deputy Prime Minister. The
promise I am speaking of is the GST.
I get back to my point. What constitutes the keeping of a
promise? Clearly the Deputy Prime Minister during the election
campaign spoke many times that if they did not abolish, scrap or
get rid of the GST she would resign. That is the promise that she
made. Indeed finally through the pressure of the Reform Party of
Canada and from the media and from the general public she was
forced to honour that promise and resign.
I get back to what I was saying earlier. What constitutes the
keeping of a promise? To my way of thinking, simply resigning and
then saying ``I'm going to run again'' is hardly the keeping of a
promise. Clearly what she implied when she said ``I will resign if
we do not scrap, kill, abolish the GST'' was that she would quit,
give up her seat.
I do not believe that the people of Canada believed that what she
really meant was that she would just give it up until a byelection
could be called at the cost of some $.5 million and then seek
re-election to that same position. I do not believe that is keeping a
promise.
A number of my colleagues have spoken quite eloquently about
this subject. What the viewing public needs to understand is what is
happening today and what are we really discussing here. Is it
simply that the Reform Party is upset that the government intends
to appoint the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to one of
the positions of deputy speaker of the House of Commons? Of
course that is not the case.
I want to go on record as saying that I do not have any personal
vendetta against the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
That is not the case. I am certain that is not the case for any of my
colleagues who have been speaking out. Many have reiterated
during their remarks that this is not a case of attacking an
individual or casting aspersions against an individual. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
The reality is we believe a promise has been broken. Promises
are very important, especially to this government. It has been said
already today and indeed yesterday during the debate that this
particular government and this particular Prime Minister have been
going on and on at some length during the past, and certainly last
weekend was an example of that during the love-in of the Liberal
convention held here in Ottawa, about how many promises they
have kept.
5821
Clearly when a promise is as simple as this one is to keep, it
is not a difficult promise to keep, the government could pick any
opposition member. It does not have to be someone from the
Reform Party. It could be anyone from the Bloc Quebecois or one
of the independents to fill that position of deputy speaker. Then
it would have lived up to its promise.
This particular member who represents Kingston and the Islands
clearly would have lived up to the commitment that he made I
believe to the people of Canada and to the electorate when he
co-signed the document which was attached as an appendix to the
Liberal red book.
Reformers believe that this debate is so very important. We are
talking about integrity. We are talking about honesty. We are
talking about credibility. We are talking about believeability.
(1705)
From the red book in a chapter called ``Governing with Integrity
I quote directly the promise that was held out to Canadians before
and during the 1993 election:
If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity
in our political institutions must be restored.
The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens
to whom it is accountable. There is evidence today of considerable dissatisfaction
with government and a steady erosion of confidence in the people and institutions of
the public sector.
This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the
behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political
leadership. The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or
that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of the public business
behind closed doors.
I submit that part of this page out of the Liberal red book of
campaign promises, ``Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for
Canada'', could have been written this afternoon.
It could be applied to the Liberal Party of Canada, to the existing
government. We all know that it was written as a Liberal attack
against the former Progressive Conservative government.
Lord knows it deserved to be chastized for the way it behaved
over nine years, the way it betrayed Canada, the way it betrayed the
promises it made to the Canadian people during two successive
elections, 1984 and 1988.
It could have just as easily, I submit, have been written about the
government we have in Canada today. I see that same arrogance
that the Liberal Party was attacking in this document. I see that
same arrogance very much in evidence around this place today.
I would like to go on in the time that I have remaining and talk
about a specific promise that was made leading up to the election,
another promise by the Liberal Party of Canada, one that I was
personally made aware of during the election campaign. It
impacted directly in some of the support that the Liberal Party got
and some of the heat that the Reform Party of Canada took for
being honest with the electorate.
This promise, like the promise of allowing for the appointment
of alternating positions to the deputy speaker's position in the
House of Commons, was contained in a side document to the red
book. It is entitled ``Food Security for Canadians and a Fair Return
for Canadian Farmers''. It is the Liberal agricultural policy
proposals backgrounder dated May 1993.
This document under the subtitle ``International Trade and
Marketing: General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades'' states: ``The
nature of agricultural production, trade and the global forces of
change make it inevitable that farm and trade policies will have to
be altered. Canada must make use of the GATT negotiations to
aggressively defend and clarify article XI to maintain our supply
managed programs, since the ongoing GATT negotiations provide
an opportunity to make these changes in a multilateral framework
of commitments and rules''.
That sounded very good: ``aggressively defend and clarify
article XI''.
(1710)
That is what the Liberal Party of Canada and its candidates ran
on in the 1993 election. I am sure all my colleagues in the Reform
Party remember that. Certainly any Reformers who had dairy farms
in their riding remember it. Reform was honest with dairy farmers,
the supply managed sectors of agriculture, in what they were
facing, what was coming down the pipe and Reform took the heat
for that. We took the heat in all-candidates forums, on radio open
line shows, but Reform stuck by what we said because we felt we
had to be honest with Canadians during and after an election.
By the time the Liberals recognized what we were saying about
this all along-
The Deputy Speaker: You have one minute.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): One minute. Boy,
times flies when you are trying to make real points.
The promise to defend to the death article XI of the GATT, by the
time the Liberal Party understood that the Reform was right, that
this was going to be gone, it had lost it as a bargaining chip.
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Is the
House ready for the question?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order. Under the present House rules, Standing Order 57, I
have read carefully through the closure notice and I did not notice
anything specifically in that rule that does not allow for a 10 minute
questions and comments portion following 20 minutes speeches.
5822
Could the Chair clarify Standing Order 57 and why we are not
having any questions and comments?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member was kind enough to
indicate to the Chair his concern in this regard earlier and the
answer is as follows. Standing Order 57 states there will be 20
minute speeches only during the period of closure, the debate we
are in now.
Standing Order 43 states that unless provided otherwise there
will be 20 minute speeches plus question and answer.
I agree with the member that it would have been better if
somebody had said under Standing Order 57 that there will not be
questions and answers, but it is by implication. In a commentary
under Standing Order 43 it is indicated there are not questions and
answers under closure debate.
There is of course the availability of unanimous consent. If the
member wishes to ask for unanimous consent that there be
questions and answers during this closure debate the Chair would
be happy to entertain that motion.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I will
decline from so moving because I strongly suspect the Liberals will
not allow it.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in addressing this motion I would like to start with the Liberal red
book and end with the Liberal red book.
Let us start by assuming that there was some good will there that
went into the creation of that document, that there were honest,
noble members of the Liberal Party who said, sitting in opposition:
``We need change. We have to respond to the people of Canada who
are saying let us have change, let us revise the rules of the way we
are doing things. Let us do things better''.
I assume that even the member for Kingston and the Islands was
one such person and the report he put forward which forms a
contributing document to the red book was made in good faith.
Having said that, what happens to it?
(1715 )
When the Liberals were in opposition I think they were sincere
and honest in saying that we really must have this. Now they flood
the government benches and oh what a difference it makes.
In the creation of the red book the Liberal Party brass, the
creators of strategy asked what it is that the people of Canada want.
They had a pretty clear message at that point of what the people of
Canada wanted, which was integrity and honesty in government.
Their red book was created by that stimulus. They said: ``Fine, let
us promise to the people of Canada what it is that they want, and
we will put all that in the red book''. It has wound up as a book of
promises and the government says it has kept 78 per cent of them.
We give the government 30 per cent at the most.
One of the contributing documents for the red book which has
already been cited today is the document ``Governing with
Integrity''. Having read it in my role as an opposition member I
totally subscribe to it. It states: ``If government is to play a positive
role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political
institutions must be restored''. The Liberals felt that was true at the
time and I am sure it was, but it is still true and it has still not been
achieved.
Again from ``Governing with Integrity'': ``This erosion of
confidence seems to have many causes. Some have to do with the
behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant
style of political leadership''. Hold on. This is the Liberals talking
about the Conservatives. ``The people are irritated with
governments that do not consult them or that disregard their views
or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed
doors''. That is the Liberals talking in the creation of their famous
red book in 1993.
Lest anyone say this is sour grapes or this is just a westerner
talking, let me quote from an article written by Michel Venne in Le
Devoir yesterday about the unhappiness of the Canadian electorate:
[Translation]
``For the past week, the Liberal Party of Canada has been
congratulating itself in a way bordering on indecency, given that,
since the Liberals took office in 1993, the country has come within
a hair's breadth of disintegration, while poverty and voter cynicism
keeps growing from coast to coast.''
[English]
That is the view from Quebec. The Quebecers say that the
cynicism of the electorate is prevalent from coast to coast. Let us
look at the reasons for that cynicism. Let us examine some of the
specific promises made in the Liberal red book.
Number one: ``We will restore Canadians' faith in themselves
and their government''. Has that been done? The answer is a
resounding no, and we will get that no from province to province
from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
They also promise: ``We will implement new programs only if
they can be funded within existing expenditures''. That is a very
nice promise. Certainly it was probably their intent at the time to
keep the promise to implement new programs only if they could be
funded within existing expenditures.
5823
(1720)
How about the latest foray by the Minister of Canadian Heritage
into flags at $23 million, and the establishment of-let us call them
what they are-government propaganda offices across the country
at a cost of well over $100 million? These are new programs that
were unfunded and magically, funding has been found for them but
not for other things.
There is an example close to us in Ottawa, in Chalk River,
Ontario. A superconducting cyclotron needs $3 million of bridge
financing to keep it going but the money is not to be found. The
government cannot find $3 million or even half of that amount,
presuming that the rest would come from private industry. No, the
money is just not there.
The same case can be made for Whiteshell Laboratories in
Manitoba. The government simply cannot find the money or the
means to make its promise of looking at the privatization of that
laboratory. It has simply been left to wither on the vine.
These were promises made and promises not kept. The
government, when it wants to implement new programs, we have
the example of the grant of a loan to Bombardier in Quebec. Was
that necessary? Well it was only necessary from a political point of
view. New money is found for anything that suits the purpose of the
government.
Promise No. 4: ``We will exercise unwavering discipline in
controlling federal spending and we will re-order current spending
priorities to make sure the maximum return is obtained on each
investment''. It really sounds good: unwavering discipline in
controlling federal expenditures. Look around and we find example
after example of the flagrant disregard for that.
Just to show that the Liberals did keep some of their promises let
us look at a kept promise. Promise No. 7: ``A Liberal government
will cancel the $5.8 billion purchase of EH-101 helicopters''. They
kept that promise. The only problem is that it has cost us a few
hundred million dollars just to keep the claimants away and we still
do not have a replacement three years later. They kept the promise
but to the detriment of the country.
Let us go on to some of the other many unfulfilled promises
made by the Liberals. Why did they make these promises? They
made them purely to get elected. I will reiterate my opening
statement that without a doubt some statements were made in
honesty at the beginning and some of those were incorporated
honestly into the red book. However, they went on from there to
say: ``No, winning is the thing. We must win and we must win at
any cost. Therefore, do not mind what promises are made, we will
just see how we can cope with that''.
Another promise: ``The Liberal government will replace the
GST''. That one has been pounded into the ground so I think I will
leave that for others to hit.
Here is another promise: ``A Liberal government will work
closely with provincial governments to achieve the maximum
possible co-ordination of tax policies''. We have seen where that
one has gone in recent months. It has made a hiatus in the Atlantic
provinces and other provinces are totally unhappy about it.
Another promise: ``A Liberal government will be committed to
the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers within Canada and
will address the issue urgently''. What has been done on that? I
recall there was a little effort made in 1994 and perhaps there are a
few minor items going on but the work that is desperately required
is not happening.
(1725)
Promise No. 17: ``The Liberals will manage this trading
relationship with the United States in a way that best serves
Canada's interests''. They are talking about the GATT, the NAFTA
and such things. Let us look at examples from the last year or two
with respect to our trading with the Unites States in fish, in
softwood and in wheat. We do not have anything which is serving
Canada's best interests. There are problems. That is not to say that
they have not put some effort into it. Of course they have, but it is
insufficient. Once again it amounts to a broken promise.
Let us move on through the pages. The Liberals said they would
prepare for the transition from school to the workplace and provide
a constructive outlet for the skills and talents of younger Canadians
who are the innocent victims of Canada's prolonged recession.
They said they would enhance the opportunity for job training and
improve the literacy and numeracy skills of Canadian workers, and
improve access to employment for women and single parents by
making quality child care more available.
Those are wonderful words. It is an admirable aim for the
government to have said: ``Look Canadians, this is what we are
going to do for you. We are going to make 100 more promises like
this, but unfortunately we are not going to be able to keep them''.
As a promise it was wonderful. It was certainly a worthwhile aim.
That is indeed what the government should be doing. It should be
keeping the promises which were made in this book.
Let us go on to other promises along the same line. The Liberals
said that a Liberal government would gather information on these
developments of job training, skills and disseminate it to all those
responsible for the education of our children. That has not been
done.
In collaboration with provincial governments the Liberals would
introduce a voluntary national achievement test in math, science
and technology. Again, that is a very worthwhile aim. I laud the
Liberals for having thought of all these wonderful things, but I do
not laud them for having put them in this book and then not having
kept those promises.
5824
They were also going to work with business, labour and
provincial governments to provide funding to establish
apprenticeship programs for the new economy. Once again, what
could be better than to establish worthwhile apprenticeship
programs? This country needs more of them, but we are not getting
them. The Liberals have simply not delivered on their promise.
Let us turn the page. What do we have? ``A Liberal government
will provide the necessary funds and administrative support to
launch pilot projects in community projects across Canada within
the first year of a Liberal mandate. We will invest $100 million a
year in the Canadian Youth Service Corps''. I have to say that is not
a totally ignored promised. There has been something done.
I have in my own riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan a very
worthwhile project concerning the Canadian Youth Service Corps.
The trouble is, it only involves 16 or 17 young people. The promise
was to invest $100 million a year. That is not being done. Again I
will give credit for what is being done, but what is not being done is
what we are calling the Liberals to task for.
All of these are examples of broken promises. They are good
intentions. If the Liberals want good parliamentary government
and good government across the country, they should read their red
book again. They should read again the contributory documents
that were made probably in good faith to say what the red book is
all about, that they are the basic documents. They should read them
again and ask themselves if they have kept their promises to the
Canadian people, starting and ending with the promise to have a
deputy speaker who represents the opposition in the House. It was a
good intention. They simply did not measure up to it.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5824
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.) moved:
That this House unequivocally reconfirms the undoubted rights and privileges of the
House of Commons, won from the Crown and which became part of the law many
centuries ago, and in particular the unfettered right of the House and its committees to at
all times compel the attendance of persons and require them to answer questions and to
compel the production of such papers and documents as the House or committee
considers necessary for the due carrying out of its mandate.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if this motion were to be voted on today it
would cause this House of Commons for the first time in its
129-year existence to publicly articulate, declare and confirm its
absolute right on behalf of all citizens to send for persons, papers
and records.
The authority to require the attendance of persons, to have the
persons answer questions and produce documents, as well as the
right to institute inquiries, are essential elements of our
parliamentary process. They are part of the law of Canada. They
are founded in the Constitution Act of 1867 and the Parliament of
Canada Act. Each of Beauchesne, Bourinot, Erskine May, Maingot
and the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993 has recognized this
historic and longstanding body of parliamentary privilege.
Unfortunately these powers are not commonly understood by or
in some cases respected by parliamentarians, the executive branch
and the public. That is why I have moved this motion on what I
consider to be a very important matter for Parliament.
Let me draw to the attention of the House some of the problems
that have been encountered in this area, that have arisen in the past
and that continue to recur today.
In 1991 the then solicitor general and Correction Services
Canada refused to provide to a committee of the House the
complete, unexpurgated reports of inquiries into escapes from
correctional institutions of an individual by the name of Leger and
another individual by the name of Gingras. Each of those
individuals had escaped and had killed innocent Canadians.
Inquiries were held and the House of Commons committee on
justice at that time was undertaking a review. As I said, the solicitor
general and Correction Services Canada refused to turn over the
unexpurgated versions of those two reports.
In the end it took approximately 12 months to receive the
reports. We had a number of lawyers, a number of parties,
committee hearings, privilege moved in this House and ultimately
the unexpurgated reports were provided under the basis of a House
order which was consensually agreed to. That process which took
12 months is not sufficient. Everyone in the House knows it. That is
one example of why the House should adopt this motion at this
time.
I am also personally aware of confusion and sometimes
ignorance at the Department of Justice where lawyers continue to
advise their clients as lawyers to the clients, but we must forgive
them in some cases. They are in fact advising their clients. They are
not advising the House of Commons. They are not advising
parliamentarians, they are simply telling their clients the limits of
their legal rights. In some cases this manifests confusion and, I
regret to say, ignorance of the law of Parliament.
5825
(1735)
Clearly this is not acceptable to parliamentarians. I am sure there
are many other examples being experienced by parliamentarians in
committee from time to time. I know there are some instances
extant right now.
Why this motion now? The Canadian House of Commons has
never formally articulated this element of parliamentary privilege.
It is noteworthy, however, that other parliaments have done this,
especially when confusion has arisen. For example, the House of
Commons in the United Kingdom reconfirmed its power over
witnesses in 1947 and the Senate of Australia did the same thing in
1975.
The way to reconfirm and re-assert the authority of the House of
Commons and clear up the confusion is by the adoption of a
resolution such as this. In my remarks I want to discuss a bit more
of the background to this motion, the purpose of privilege and the
enforcement remedies available to the House. Finally I will
comment on some practical implications.
Why do we have this particular authority or power to call for
persons, papers and documents? The power to send for a person's
papers and records is central to the ability of the House and its
committees to discharge their responsibilities. This was confirmed
in the first report of the standing committee on privileges and
elections in February 1991 dealing with the Gingras and Leger
matters to which I referred earlier.
There is a phrase of which members may be aware where the
House has been described as the grand inquest of the nation.
Historically, the House of Commons has been considered to be a
grand inquest in the United Kingdom and also in Canada.
Lord Coke first described the House of Commons in this way in
the 17th century, and courts have continued to use that phrase ever
since. The House of Commons and the other place act as a kind of a
check on the executive branch and I will talk a little more about
that later.
What is the legal basis of this particular privilege? First, section
18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which I will not read because it is
there for reference. Second, it has been restated in sections 4 and 5
of the Parliament of Canada Act. Of course, a recapitulation of all
of that is in Standing Order 108(1)(a) of the House. It states, and I
will paraphrase: ``Standing committees shall be severally
empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be
referred to them by the House and to send for persons, papers and
records''. In effect, that is a comprehensive delegation by the
House to its committees of that power to call for persons, papers
and records.
The courts have commented on this and I just want to note that
for the record. The Supreme Court has stated its opinion on several
occasions. It has described these privileges as fundamental. It has
stated: ``It is clear that the privileges inherent in legislative bodies
are fundamental to our system of government''. This was in the
case of New Brunswick Broadcasting Company v. Nova Scotia.
Second, the court has commented that these privileges are
necessary. It has said that parliamentary privilege and the breadth
of individual privileges encompassed by that term are accorded to
members of the Houses of Parliament and the legislative
assemblies because they are judged necessary to the discharge of
their legislative function.
Third, these privileges are a part of our Constitution. They are
part of the fundamental law of our land.
By this brief review of the statutory basis of parliamentary
privilege, it will be noted that it is within the scope of the House or
its committees to inquire into any matter within Parliament's
authority to enact legislation.
(1740)
What are the documents that must be produced? What are the
questions that must be answered?
For the reasons I have just discussed, Parliament and its
committees have a very broad range of powers. No person may
ignore the order to appear, nor decline to answer a question, nor
refuse to produce a document. To do so is a contempt of the House
for which the House may exercise its lawful power to enforce
sanctions which include the power of detention.
Here are some of the authorities I want to cite for the record: ``A
committee is not restricted in the scope of questions it can pose and
a witness must answer all questions put to him''. That is from
Maingot, page 163.
``Committees may send for any papers that are relevant to their
orders of reference. Within this restriction, it appears that the
power of the committee to send for papers is unlimited. Witnesses
must answer all questions directed to them even over their
objection that an answer would incriminate them''. That is from
Beauchesne, page 239, citation 862.
Canadians may be asking what protection is afforded to a
witness who provides such evidence or documents. Even if a claim
were made that a witness violated a statute's provisions by
providing information or documents to the House or a committee,
that witness would automatically be clothed with the protection or
immunity of the House and cannot be prosecuted.
This immunity is described in Beauchesne as follows: ``Every
witness attending before the House or any committee thereof may
claim the protection of the House in respect of the evidence to be
given''. That is page 237, citation 853.
``Nothing said before a committee, or at the Bar of the House,
may be used in a court of law. Thus a witness may not refuse to
5826
answer on the grounds of self-incrimination''. That is Beauchesne,
pages 27-28, citation 109.
Finally, article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688, which the Supreme
Court of Canada noted in the 1991 Patriation Reference and which
is part of the public and general law of Canada, states: ``That the
freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought
not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament''. Forgive me for going back 400 years to find that one.
The enforcement mechanisms that are available to the House are
available to the House and not to committees. These are the
procedure to be used where a witness refuses to appear as set out in
Beauchesne, among other volumes: ``If a witness should refuse to
appear on receiving the order of the Chairman, or if a witness
refuses to answer questions, this conduct may be reported to the
House and an order immediately made for the attendance of the
person at the Bar or before the committee.
``On further refusing to obey, the witness may be ordered to be
sent for and brought to the Bar in the custody of the
Sergeant-at-Arms, or may be declared guilty of a contempt and
ordered to be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms''.
That citation is from Beauchesne, page 238-239.
In my research, I went back another couple of hundred years to
the year 1704 and found the case of an unfortunate Mr. Lee of
Clement Inn who I am sure was not an ancestor of mine. He might
have been. In any event, Mr. Lee had failed to respond to an order
of a committee of Parliament. The resolution of the House of
Commons in the United Kingdom which was adopted found him
guilty of contempt and required that he be taken into the custody of
the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Even a former Canadian Prime Minister has been held in the
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. That was in 1873. Sir John A.
Macdonald failed to attend a committee meeting of which he was a
member and was ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The former Prime Minister was not discharged until after the
reading of his doctor's affidavit indicating his ill health that existed
at the time.
(1745)
In 1913, not that long ago, Mr. R. C. Miller refused to answer
questions before the public accounts committee. The matter was
reported to the House. He was summoned to the bar but he
persisted in his refusal to answer. The House committed him to the
Carleton County jail until prorogation or until the House otherwise
decided. That citation is at page 30 of Beauchesne's.
Occasionally the matter of crown privilege arises. It is not truly a
privilege but a claim that is put to the House of Commons and
Parliament on behalf of the crown that usually involves a matter of
state. Rather than being an absolute exception to the rule, the
matter is taken under advisement by the committee or the House
and is disposed of on a common sense basis. I put it that way so as
not to derogate unnecessarily at this time from the main principle
found in my motion.
I would like to recap for a moment. I have discussed the legal
basis for the privilege. I have talked about why the privilege
applies, the remedies and the enforcement. Why is this motion
important to us? I have thought this through carefully and I think
there are three or four reasons.
First, it deals with the public perception of the role and the
authority of the House of Parliament and the other place. In my
experience the production of documents is the single greatest
obstacle I have ever encountered as an MP during my work at
committee. The existence of this circumstance is eroding the
public's confidence in Parliament. Parliamentarians are more than
just a debating club and a cheering section for the government. If
parliamentarians cannot get the information our committees are out
of business; we cannot do our job.
My second point is fairly simple. If we do not establish the
principle all other questions regarding exceptions, privileges and
privacy are all moot. We will never be able to deal with the
exceptions until we have the principle.
Third, I reiterate how other houses in the Commonwealth have
dealt with the matter. Perhaps I will avoid too much detail
recognizing that the clock is running faster than I am flipping pages
of my speech.
On August 13, 1947 the House of Commons in the United
Kingdom reconfirmed its authority to require the attendance of
witnesses by resolving:
That the refusal of a witness before a select committee to answer any question
which may be put to him is a contempt of this House, and an infraction of the
undoubted right of this House to conduct any inquiry which may be necessary in the
public interest.
The attorney general of the United Kingdom at that time said:
We are now putting the matter beyond all possibility of doubt by this motion.
The mover of the motion, Mr. Morrison, said:
The point is not one on which any doubt can be allowed to continue. It should be
cleared up and the motion is to make the position entirely clear for the future as
regards any committee of the House.
The Senate of Australia passed a similar resolution in 1984.
My final point is that we can clear up doubt on this matter once
and for all by confirming this privilege with a motion. We must act
in such a way as to fortify and buttress the powers of Parliament,
the rights of Parliament and the privileges of Parliament as they
exist now and as they have always existed. This resolution does not
create new law. It simply confirms what is there. The House has not
passed a resolution of this type in its entire 129-year existence.
5827
There is some ignorance, denial and confusion out there with which
we must deal.
(1750)
It is an embarrassment to me as a parliamentarian that for 129
years we have muddled along without articulating it. We simply
assumed that all the authorities and authors who have written for us
would do the job. It is not their job; it is our job. It is our duty as
parliamentarians to deal with the issue in this way and the time has
come to deal with it.
The House will confirm the principle. It will be there for all
parliamentarians, all writers, all the Beauchesnes who write about
Parliament and study our rules.
I hope the debate will not fall on deaf ears. I would like to think
this motion could be passed but of course it is in the hands of
members. I thank members for giving the matter their
consideration.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my friend and colleague, the hon.
member for Scarborough-Rouge River and I am pleased to speak
to his Motion M-142. And in doing so, I am in good company, since
I have the hon. member for Gaspé at my side to support me, should
I become weak.
Motion M-142 reads as follows:
That this House unequivocally reconfirms the undoubted rights and privileges of
the House of Commons, won from the Crown and which became part of the law
many centuries ago, and in particular the unfettered right of the House and its
committees to at all times compel the attendance of persons and require them to
answer questions and to compel the production of such papers and documents as the
House or committee considers necessary for the due carrying out of its mandate.
The English version of the motion translates the French word
``indubitables'', in reference to privileges, as ``undoubted rights
and privileges''. If rights are undoubted, unchallenged, there is no
need really to reaffirm or reconfirm them.
In fact, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River
provided a brilliant historical demonstration, and knowing his
attachment to the parliamentary system, I am sure he feels this
demonstration even in his frustrations as a parliamentarian. I will
share some of my own with you in a moment.
I do not think that it is necessary to pass the motion again. That
said, should the question be put again, I will gladly vote in favour.
But it is worth reaffirming from time to time rights so longstanding
in the British parliamentary system, probably dating back to the
Magna Carta of 1215, the Oxford provisions of 1258, the Bill of
rights of 1689 and all the legislation that, little by little, over the
course of centuries, have affirmed the rights and privileges of the
House of Commons and Parliament.
I assume that the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River
has put this motion before us today not to have a purely academic
debate, but in response to actual situations. I will not speak for the
hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, but for myself. Since
the very beginning of this Parliament or almost, I have been sitting
on the sub-committee on national security, which was set up by the
Standing Committee for Justice and Legal Affairs.
One of the matters we have worked on was the Heritage Front
affair. On many occasions, at in camera sessions, with members of
Parliament in attendance, we have had members of the Security
Intelligence Review Committee, better known as SIRC, appear
before our committee as witnesses.
(1755)
These people systematically refused to answer questions, to
table uncensored versions of documents they had sent to the
Solicitor General and to co-operate in any way with the committee.
At the time I moved a motion before the committee to have the
Chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, Mr.
Jacques Courtois, cited for contempt of Parliament. It was divine
providence that prevented the motion from being debated because,
meanwhile, Mr. Courtois had died.
The other members of the Security Intelligence Review
Committee had never volunteered their co-operation either. Neither
the chairman pro tempore nor the other members of the Security
Intelligence Review Committee. We had to sit for months and
months to try and get clear answers to clear questions. All the
members did was look at the clock to check when the committee's
time was up, and they then rose without having answered the
question.
These same members of SIRC, although they had been informed
of their obligations by the general legal counsel of the House, Ms.
Diane Davidson, refused to answer our questions. They refused to
answer, even when the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge
River, chairman of the sub-committee, ordered them to answer.
In spite of all that, they left us in great good humour, but we
never got an answer to matters of substance. Our report to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs was, to all intents
and purposes bereft of substance. We could not include any
pertinent elements because we had no evidence, which was the
fault of those who were supposed to serve the Canadian people by
providing accurate replies to the elected representatives of the
people.
5828
By hiding behind the oath of office they had taken to keep their
information secret, members of the Security Intelligence Review
Committee refused to answer the questions asked by the elected
representatives of the people. In a parliamentary democracy, this
is a moral sin.
Unfortunately, the text of the motion of the hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River does not solve the problem. These
rights are not discussed but are perhaps open to discussion in
connection with the contemporary element which might be added.
These rights are not really being questioned, it is the exercise of
those rights which is being questioned. That is where politics enters
into it.
There was nothing to prevent the subcommittee on national
security from promptly making a report to the Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs, which would in turn have reported to
this House so that the Security Intelligence Review Committee
could have been brought before this House for contempt of
Parliament and subjected to sanctions commensurate with the
offence committed. But no political majority ever came together to
have these people charged with contempt of Parliament.
For months and months the question hung fire, and I understand
the political constraints under which the chairman and member for
Scarborough-Rouge River found himself. Despite all of his
attempts at negotiation, he could not compel the members of SIRC
to provide answers.
When a parliamentary committee is totally paralyzed, rendered
incapable of action by people who refuse to bow to the laws of the
country, we are-you will pardon the expression, which may seem
to be going almost too far-almost in a state of insurrection. People
mandated to do something, who are categorically refusing to do it.
If the question were to be raised again, as it will be-we have
already had to adjourn a meeting of the subcommittee on national
security-the next time the people of the Security Intelligence
Review Committee come before the subcommittee on national
security and again refuse to respond, as they have for months, for
years now, to the legitimate questions asked of them, I shall be the
first in line to table a motion that they be accused of contempt of
Parliament.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
issue I address today relates to the investigative and probative
powers of committees. I certainly applaud the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River for his very informative review of the
rights of the House and its committees. Too often it is forgotten that
Parliament is the highest court of the land and that the committees
as creatures of this House are component bodies of the high court.
(1800)
In the discharge of our duties as parliamentarians to carry out our
mandate it is imperative that committees be given the unfettered
right of the House to compel attendance and subpoena witnesses,
and such powers must be afforded every committee and every full
member of these bodies.
I listened intently to the Bloc member relate the circumstance
regarding the subcommittee on national security and the efforts
that committee went through to get full evidence before the
committee. It should not be the case.
Unfortunately I must report that my personal experience with
committees has not been consistent with the high goals advanced in
this motion. Take the recent cased put before the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on which I serve as a full
member. It was advanced that the standing committee use its
probative and investigative powers to study a certain matter of
alleged employment insurance fraud and report its findings to
Parliament.
It was explained that Elizabeth Roux of Montreal went to the
University of Southern California in September 1994 but kept
collecting employment insurance benefits to the tune of $5,200
until January 1995. It was further presented that the RCMP was
called in to investigate the matter. It determined that Roux ``did by
trickery, lies and other misleading methods defraud the Canadian
government''. I explained to our committee that the RCMP
recommended that charges be laid.
I also presented evidence that the Montreal office of Human
Resources Development Canada also recommended trying Roux.
The department sees hundreds of cases a year of EI recipients
studying or vacationing outside the country while continuing to
collect benefits in violation of the law requiring claimants to be
actively seeking and readily available for work.
The Roux case would appear on the surface to be just like any
other case but it is more involved. Many of these EI snowbirds and
scholars cost Canadians at least $60 million annually. They are
such a problem that human resources recently began
cross-referencing EI records with customs declarations Canadians
file when they return to the country to help them spot the cheats.
I also explained to my committee colleagues that most fraud
cases of this type have accomplices, someone back home, usually a
close friend or relative who collects the EI cheques and forwards
them to the absentee claimant. In Roux's case her partner in
deception was her mother who mailed her daughter's false
declarations of employability to the EI office from Montreal so
they could be postmarked in Canada. She then collected Roux's
cheques and deposited them in a joint mother-daughter bank
account.
5829
I explained to the committee that charges are almost always laid
against accomplices even if the unlawfully obtained benefits are
paid back as was the case with Roux. There is in effect a zero
tolerance policy. In the case of globetrotting claimants they are
invariably fined and almost always charged with fraud.
I imparted to the committee that most Canadians would expect
that Roux and her mother would be charged. But they were not.
Justice department lawyers refused to proceed. Coincidentally
Roux's mother is a Canadian senator, Senator Therésè
Lavoie-Roux. Senator Lavoie-Roux was a provincial Liberal
cabinet minister for 12 years and it was apparent that her pedigree
and political connections may have very well factored into the
decision not to lay charges.
(1805)
Herein is the issue. Two independent federal organizations, the
RCMP and the human resources fraud investigators, recommended
that charges be laid. Immediately thereafter the justice department,
inexplicably, refused to lay charges. The subject of the
investigation had real and substantive ties to the political process
and the standing committee refused to allow an investigation.
That the government in power would use its majority to suppress
my motion for parliamentary investigation into a matter as
important as the case illustrated today demonstrates the need to
effect the goals advanced in the motion we debate today.
No one can tell me that the Liberal government does not
recognize the need to have a more open process in the committee.
In fact, the subject for debate prior to Private Members' Business
dealt with the promises of the red book. The Liberal red book
promises point to several sore spots which need to be corrected.
I noted yesterday that clearly in the preamble to the red book
there is a concern on the part of the Liberal government that there
have to be some changes. It reads: ``Mounting criticism of the
House of Commons and its proceedings reflects the frustration of
citizens and parliamentarians alike with the continuing failure of
Parliament to address effectively the problems that face us''. It
continues: ``Canadians, including those who are elected to serve
Parliament, expect the House of Commons not merely to discuss
openly the problems of the nation, but also to advance solutions''.
Time and again the public has viewed parliamentarians and
senators as being above the law. This has been questioned on
numerous occasions and there have been regular press reports on
these cases.
I will continue to quote from the second paragraph of the
preamble to the red book: ``They expect the Commons to explore
Canada's problems rationally and to establish policies for resolving
them. These expectations are not met''. That is the statement made
by the Liberal government in its red book. I do not believe it is
being met adequately.
Parliament must remain the highest court in the land. We the
elected officials must possess the tools to carry out our duties and
to ensure that justice and the law apply equally to all Canadians. By
refusing the right of our committee to investigate the matter of
fraud, for instance, involving Senator Lavoie-Roux, the members
opposite who serve on the justice and legal affairs committee have
contravened the spirit and substance on which the motion which we
are debating is founded.
An article in the Edmonton Sun reports that these occasions will
hit the press time and time again. I will quote briefly from the
Edmonton Sun, the press' view as outlined with the information at
hand: ``The RCMP reportedly recommended laying charges, as did
the Montreal office of Human Resources Development Canada.
But the justice minister says his department has looked into the
case and found insufficient evidence to warrant charges. Last week
the Liberals used their majority in the Commons to defeat a Reform
demand for a parliamentary investigation. Lavoie-Roux claims
there was no attempt to defraud. She did not know there are EI rules
against making claims while resident in another country''.
``From a former social services minister this is impossible to
swallow'', the press said. ``She didn't see a problem. Why not mail
the claims then from California if there was no problem? We could
demand to know why mother and daughter have not been charged.
Unfortunately that is rather obvious''.
Situations of this nature bring the whole parliamentary system
into disrepute. If this motion is to have any meaning, Senator
Lavoie-Roux, should be called before a committee, questioned by
its members and the findings reported back to Parliament.
(1810)
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take peculiar pleasure in speaking to this motion. This is
quite incredible because it pertains to one of my direct ancestors. I
refer to one Thomas Percy who, on November 4, 1605, was chased
by the soldiers of James I because he had been involved in the
gunpowder plot.
Thomas Percy joined up with Guy Fawkes and they rented a
building next to the Houses of Parliament, spent six months
burrowing through the wall into the cellar under the House of
Lords. They filled it with 20 barrels of gun powder and intended to
blow up the entire House of Lords, the privy council, James I, and
hopefully get his successor as well.
The plot failed, as members know, and my ancestor was pursued
on the road to Dover and was captured at an inn where the king's
5830
men rode up in the rain. Thomas Percy and other members of the
conspiracy had laid their gunpowder out to dry in front of the
fireplace and a spark ignited it. There was an explosion and the
king's men successfully captured my ancestor, Thomas Percy. He
was hanged, drawn and quartered, all in the name of trying to
obtain parliamentary privilege for members of Parliament.
This issue of privilege goes back for centuries in parliamentary
tradition. In fact, the English civil war was fought over this issue. It
is not just a matter of summoning documents, it is also a
fundamental issue of free speech and the ability of MPs to have
freedom from arbitrary arrest or interference by the crown, by the
state. James I, who was the target of the gunpowder plot, on several
occasions arrested members of Parliament. This led directly to the
English civil war which, I am happy to report, parliamentarians
won against the royalists. This is one reason why we have
privileges entrenched in the Canadian Parliament today.
I should say that privilege, the right to speak freely in the House
of Commons, the right to order documents, the right to have true
witness from those we call before us, is something that has been
fought long and hard for in the British tradition.
However, we Canadians were fortunate because in 1867 we
adopted these privileges in the Constitution Act without a war,
without bloodshed and they became an essential part of our
parliamentary tradition and an essential part of the way the House
of Commons functions. If we cannot have immunity from arrest, if
we cannot have freedom of speech and if we cannot summon the
evidence that we must have in order to make our decisions clearly,
then this Parliament cannot function adequately and serve the
people who elected it.
I come to Motion No. 42 from the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River. He raises the question of whether we
have left behind the sense of privilege. Is there something the
matter? Are we getting the return on the sense of privilege as it
pertains to the summoning of documents and questioning of
witnesses? I suggest we are not.
Indeed, what was conferred on us by the Constitution Act of
1867 we are losing through a process of neglect. As MPs we have
over many decades failed to establish our need and our right to
have the proper documents and the proper testimony from
witnesses who come before us.
Indeed, I regret to say that when I was elected as an MP for the
first time in 1993, veteran MPs who had been in the House
previously told me that there was not much point in taking part in
standing committees because it was all by rote. It was all decided
by the government in power. It was all decided by parliamentary
secretaries who sat in the standing committees.
(1815)
There has been criticism in the House about the performance of
standing committees. Nevertheless I have been very satisfied, for
the most part, that MPs who are willing to speak out in standing
committees, whether they are opposition MPs or government MPs,
can be heard and can make a difference.
It is true-and this is where the motion of the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River is so very important-that the one
place where we hit a log jam is the repeated instances where
officials called before the committee have refused to testify or have
refused to give an answer.
The motion is long overdue. It merely reminds Parliament of a
privilege it has had for centuries, centuries of parliamentary
tradition that should require proper testimony and evidence before
the committee.
I remind the House of something that we implement very rarely.
Parliament has the option of compelling testimony under oath. This
is one occasion on which we can bring people before us. If they fail
to satisfy us, they are actually subject to a penalty equivalent to
perjury.
In conclusion, looking down the centuries I must say that we in
Parliament should remember the origins of privilege in the British
tradition which wars were fought over. We should remember that
every one of us on all sides of the House have a fundamental
obligation to defend the rights of every MP to obtain good
information and adequate testimony both in committees and in any
other location on Parliament Hill.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague about the
history of his forefather. If he were hanged and quartered I was
wondering how my colleague evolved. I will speak a bit about
history, democracy and the privileges we should have and should
not have.
Democracy comes from two Greek words, part of my ancestry,
demos, which means people, and kratos, which means country. In
the old ages in Athens people would gather at the bottom of the hill
to have a say in what the state should be doing. At that time they
did not have elected members of Parliament or an elected system
but collectively they were there and made a decision.
As we evolved we came to what we have today, the Westminster
system and the parliamentary systems of different countries.
People have different elections. Other people get elected at large.
For example, in the parliamentary systems in Europe in the second
district of Paris 20 or 30 members of Parliament are elected. In
Canada we have a plus one system which means one
parliamentarian gets elected for one seat.
The constituents who have sent us here want us to voice their
opinions in caucus. We all come here, as I did in 1988, with dreams
5831
and aspirations. We find out there is a larger game. We find out we
have to listen to our colleagues. We find out there are rules and
procedures. It is not what we want it to be but by working in
committees and here we can make changes.
I always ask my constituents what one member of Parliament
can do. I raise the example of when the Prime Minister put forward
a private member's bill back in the sixties and changed the name of
the Trans-Canada Airlines to Air Canada. Members of Parliament
are effective.
I commend my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River, for
bringing this important motion to the floor of the House. It gives us
the right to access information. It gives us the right to ask. We do
not have to be wary that if I ask this question somebody will crack
my knuckles.
(1820)
I support the motion my colleague has brought forward.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to Motion No. 142 in the name of the
member for Scarborough-Rouge River. It states:
That this House unequivocally reconfirms the undoubted rights and privileges of
the House of Commons, won from the crown and which became part of law many
centuries ago, and in particular the unfettered right of the House and its committees
to at all times compel the attendance of persons and require them to answer questions
and to compel the production of such papers and documents as the House or
committee considers necessary for the due carrying out of its mandate.
I listened carefully to the mover of the motion, a second term
member of Parliament who has worked very diligently in a
particular area of the House in which many members do not get to
participate. It has to do with security, intelligence and review, et
cetera.
The issue is important to the member because of the sensitivity
and the importance of that area of responsibility in the House of
Commons in terms of its mandate to create legislation and to
ensure the laws of Canada are abided by.
The principal issue I want to deal with, rather than referring to
some of the history, is whether or not the House of Commons
should be a body that is prepared in advance for a problem or
whether or not it is presently exposing itself to a situation where
should there be a problem there would be some confusion.
The principal point raised by the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River is a very good point: the House has not
in its history dealt with the confusion or uncertainty of the powers
of the House.
In my experience over the past three years as a member of
Parliament dealing at the committee level, there have been times
when I wondered whether or not there was an opportunity to bring
to the committee forum additional information or expertise I knew
was available but had not accepted an invitation of the committee
to be there.
When I think of the important aspects that are dealt with by
committees on behalf of the House, it raises a very important issue
about whether or not committees have looked for opportunities to
exercise this right which exists in law.
The fact that it has not been affirmed within our place and the
fact that it has not been tested or applied here are all the more
reason for the motion to have been brought before the House.
This is not a votable motion. At the end of the hour debate will
cease. However it has raised the issue to a point where all hon.
members will be looking for opportunities to test this right of
Parliament.
As the member for Scarborough-Rouge River pointed out in
his presentation, the Canadian House of Commons has never
reaffirmed this right of Parliament and of its committees to call for
persons or papers.
There has been a failure to articulate this right which leads to
confusion. In the absence of a clear statement of authority, cabinet
ministers and government officials may at some time be unaware.
The powers of the committee must be more fully articulated.
(1825)
Another issue raised was public confidence in Parliament. In
terms of historical context, committee work in Parliament has not
garnered public attention to any great extent.
The role of a member of Parliament is very broad. It is most
unfortunate that many Canadians feel the performance of members
of Parliament and the credibility of this place are more reflected in
the activities during question period, which is only 45 minutes of
each day even though the House starts at 10 in the morning and
continues to 6.30 at night.
Committees operate in virtually every discipline. Members of all
parties are represented on those committees. These facts are not
well known to the Canadian public. It is unfortunate the Canadian
public does not know what happens at committee. As a result or a
consequence of Motion No. 142, possibly the role of committees
can be reconsidered in light of the responsibilities seconded to
them by the Chamber.
I congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River
for raising an important issue in terms of the fundamental aspects
of the operation of the House of Commons of Canada, the
important role committees play, and the potential for confusion or a
problem down the road.
Should a matter of importance to all Canadians and to the laws of
Canada arise which would tend to put the House in some difficulty
5832
or jeopardy, it would reaffirm the right of Parliament and the right
of the committees to call for persons or papers.
I thank the member for raising the motion. Possibly he would
consider reintroducing it at an appropriate time to ensure that the
House does not miss the opportunity to be prepared.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to take this opportunity to say a couple of words. Obviously
there is no disagreement with the intention of the motion. There is a
strong feeling about the importance of this principle and the
entitlement of Parliament as the highest court in the land to have
before it whatever information or witnesses it requires.
I make one point which I hope we all bear in mind. We have
exercised this right to be able to fulfil our responsibilities on behalf
of the people who have sent us here to govern our country. It is not
for our privilege as individuals but in our role as members of
Parliament and representatives of the Canadian people. That
element has been missing from the debate today.
I compliment the hon. member for bringing forward the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for Private Members'
Business has now expired.
_____________________________________________
5832
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the
amendment.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on the motion which is not
meant in anyway to be pejorative of the member in question, a
person whom I respect greatly.
The government motion basically asks that the member for
Kingston and the Islands be made a deputy speaker of the House.
As I said before, while I have a lot of respect for the individual we
oppose it on the grounds that it is a breach of promise the
government made to the House and Canadians.
It is even more hypocritical because one member who put forth a
document when in opposition recommended that two junior chair
officers be from the opposition. That was a recommendation made
by four prominent government members, one of whom is the hon.
member nominated as the deputy chair.
(1830)
We feel that in order to honour the intentions of the promise
made by the government when it was in opposition, it should fulfil
its obligation and make an opposition member a deputy chair. That
would ensure that the Chair is non-partisan. It would increase the
democracy which the government promised. That is one of the
many promises which the government has failed to fulfil.
We have put forward the name of the hon. member for
Mission-Coquitlam to fill the position. We strongly suggest that
the government take that nomination into consideration and make
this well qualified individual the deputy chair and thereby live up
to its promise.
That is only one of many promises on which the government has
failed to deliver. I will address a number of those promises in my
speech today.
This weekend I was pleased to attend the Liberal convention in
Ottawa as an observer for the Reform Party. The government made
repeated claims to its members and to the Canadian public that it
had lived up to 78 per cent of its red book promises. That is
completely untrue. The government has kept 62 of 198 of its
promises. It has failed to keep 136 of its promises. I would like to
cite a few of the promises as examples because I do not believe the
people know that the wool has been pulled over their eyes on a
wide range of issues which deeply affect them.
The first promise I would like to speak about is the GST. The
government promised that it would abolish the GST. When we go
to the stores what do we pay? GST. The government has had three
years to do something about it, but it has done nothing.
Second, it wanted to co-ordinate tax policies between the
provinces and the federal government. That was a very worthwhile
initiative. It is one from which all Canadians would benefit,
whether in the private sector or in the public sector. Has there been
any co-ordination? No.
In three years there has not been any simplification of the tax
system. The Reform Party has given to the government the
elements of a flat tax proposal which would greatly simplify the
system. Numerous suggestions have been made by Reform's
finance people to simplify the tax system. Has the government
adopted any of these measures? No.
Then there was the promise to remove interprovincial trade
barriers. I find it ironic that there are more trade barriers between
Quebec and Ontario or any two provinces within Canada than
between Canada and the United States. There is freer trade between
Canada and the United States than between the provinces. That is
deplorable. How can businesses become aggressive exporters,
aggressive in their areas of endeavour, when the government has
created trade barriers?
Trade barriers dampen productivity, increase the costs of doing
business within Canada, increase the unemployment rate and
generally put a damper on the economy. What a great initiative it
would have been if the government had taken the bull by the horns
5833
and brought down interprovincial trade barriers. Unfortunately that
has not happened.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I thought that this evening's debate was to deal with
the qualifications, the worthiness and the appropriateness of an
eight-year veteran of the House of Commons who is being
considered for a deputy chair position.
I have listened carefully in the last six or seven minutes. I
believe that the litany of all the things which we have or have not
done as a Liberal government is not relevant to the issue of this
debate.
(1835)
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, could we call quorum,
please?
The Deputy Speaker: Can we do one thing first. I think I will
rule on the question of order before I do the quorum call. The
House belongs to the members. The standing orders reflect, at least
in theory, the views of the members. The Chair is not at liberty to
say if the member is off the subject.
Accordingly, when the issue is raised as it was by a member, the
Chair is entitled to ask that the member speaking, whoever it might
be, and I have great respect for the member who is speaking, might
please bear in mind the subject matter that we are discussing.
I am sure the member from Esquimalt will quickly be getting to
the point that relates to the motion that is actually before the House.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, for the
attention of the-
An hon. member: On a point of order. Quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. Yes, in fact there are not 20
members in the House. I would ask that the bells be rung.
And the bells having rung:
[Translation]
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: We now have a quorum. There are more
than 20 members in the House.
[English]
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, the
point I was getting to by raising this subject was to show that while
the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is a very competent
individual and one for whom we have very great respect, this issue
comes from a much larger issue. The issue here is a breach of
promise. It has to do with credibility of the government. That is
intimately associated with the issue.
The government promised when in opposition that when it
became the government, it would democratize the House. One
initiative was to ensure that at least two junior members of the
Chair would be members of the opposition. That is not what is
being done here. Every member of the Chair right now is from the
ruling party. There is a vacancy now. The proposal in the House
today is to ensure that the vacancy does not go to a member of the
opposition but to a member of the government. That is a breach of
promise, a breach of a contract and it belies the much larger issue
which is that this government is not living up to its promises. These
are just a couple of examples.
I want to get to the member's question by raising a couple of
other issues which are very much related to the Chair and have to
do with democratizing Parliament.
When the government was in opposition it wanted to
democratize the House. The Liberals wanted to make sure that
committees would be empowered to truly bring the wishes of the
public to the House and empower individual MPs and committees
to bring forward solid solutions to the problems that affect us all.
That does not happen because committees are an utter sham. I do
not think the public recognize that. Committees are repeatedly
asked to deal with subjects which have very little relevance to the
problems that affect the country.
When they deal with relevant matters and work very hard, long
hours writing a document, using the expertise and time of members
of the House, research staff, witnesses as well as thousands of
taxpayers' dollars, what happens to the document? It gets about a
day of play in the media then it is tossed on a shelf to be ignored. It
has no relevance, no meaning, no input into legislation.
(1840)
What a waste of time, money and effort. What a waste of the
potential and expertise of members in this House. I do not think
that the public understands that the committee structures in this
Parliament are very much a sham. It is in no way a reflection on the
good, hard working members of Parliament, the research and
ancillary staff that work very hard to try to make a difference. The
structure prevents them from doing that. It is a real shame.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands with his
colleagues had proposed initiatives to democratize the House and
the structures under which we labour. However, absolutely nothing
has happened.
Today I introduced a private member's bill. Eight came to this
House to determine votability. Out of those eight, only one private
member's bill has a chance of being votable and therefore
becoming law. Why do we have private members' bills that are not
going to be made votable, and therefore can never become law?
The whole issue becomes a sham and completely misrepresents to
the public the fact that their individual MPs have the power to
5834
introduce legislation that can become votable, can become law so
that it can have an effect.
It cannot happen because the structure does not allow it to
happen. The government has had ample opportunity to make those
changes. One of the changes is to make all private members' bills
votable. That would empower the members to actually make an
honest effort, make an impact on the welfare of Canadians.
MPs also labour under a culture of fear. Because of the whip
structure, if they do not do what the higher ups say in their
respective parties, individual members of Parliament have their
fists put down on them, as the government has repeatedly done.
Their privileges to speak are removed. They cannot get on the
committees that they want. They are removed from them. They
become superfluous to the issues that affect them.
Where are all the big decisions made in this House? The big
decisions are made in the Prime Minister's Office by a few selected
members of cabinet and by some of the captains of industry. These
are the people who make the decisions. It is not this House that
makes the major significant decisions that can truly have an impact
on the country. It gives democracy in Canada a bad name to see this
happening. We do not live in a democracy because this House and
this Parliament are not a democracy.
The government has had an opportunity to make changes that
would empower individual MPs, would empower committees to
actually make a change, to actually give people the power to speak
through their MPs and affect the legislation that comes to this
House. Unfortunately that does not happen.
The public would be appalled if they truly knew what happens in
this place and how powerless most of their MPs are to make
changes within our fine country. What great opportunity do we
have to do this?
Perhaps the greatest disappointment I have had concerns health
care. The government had a great opportunity. Its members said
when they were running for office that health care was going to be a
priority for them, that they were going to ensure that Canadians
were going to get their health care when they medically needed it.
They recognized that today Canadians from coast to coast are not
receiving their health care when they need it. Instead, the
government is adhering to the status quo. Why? Purely for political
reasons.
The Liberals want to look like the white knight that is going to
defend the principles of the Canada Health Act, defend the status
quo and defend the declining state of the health care system within
Canada.
The public does not realize that because most Canadians are
healthy. However, some are not. It is sad that the sick people are the
ones who truly understand the state of affairs of our health care
system today.
(1845)
One of the wives of a member in the House is quite sick. She has
been diagnosed with a serious illness. The member's wife will not
receive treatment for over 30 days, which is not unusual.
If someone is in British Columbia and requires treatment for
breast cancer, the wait is over 40 days. If treatment is required for
prostate cancer, the wait is over 40 days. If a new knee or hip is
required by an elderly person who is in severe pain, the wait is over
seven months. That is not access to timely health care. In fact, it is
a transgression of one of the basic pillars of the Canadian health
system: accessibility for all Canadians.
We cannot defend the current system as it stands. We can and we
must build a better system. Not an American system; that can stay
south of the border. We do not want an American style health care
system in Canada, period, end of story. What we can do is build a
better, made in Canada health care system that will provide timely
access for all people regardless of their income and ensure that
their essential health care services are going to be met when it is
medically needed, not when the bottom line allows it.
Adhering to the current principles as they stand is fallacious.
Right now portability does not exist. Quebec and the other nine
provinces do not have an agreement. Therefore, somebody in
Quebec would not necessarily get their services in other parts of the
country.
I have dealt with the accessibility issue. There is no universality.
If somebody in British Columbia or any other province chooses not
to pay their medical premiums, they do not have coverage. They do
not have to be treated. There is a significant pool of individuals
who do not have coverage because they choose not to. These people
are not covered under the health plans as they exist and they put
themselves forward as wards of the state. This is only because they
choose not to be covered. Comprehensive coverage also does not
exist because coverage varies from province to province.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy I see in this issue is that there is a
great opportunity. We have to put aside the rhetoric. The rhetoric
the government is putting forth on health care is only going to do a
huge disservice to Canadians.
Giving people a choice, for example by allowing for private
health care clinics where only private moneys are exchanged and
no tax dollars are spent, enables people to come off existing
waiting lists if they choose to go to the private sector. This would
provide more money for and better access to the public system. The
private system would be subsidizing the public system; the rich
would be subsidizing the poor. It would provide better access for
everybody.
In closing, we disagree with this motion because it transgresses a
basic promise the government made. We hope the government
does not break this promise as it has broken so many others in its
5835
red book. We hope the government will listen to the ideas put forth
by the member for Kingston and the Islands and three other
distinguished members from the Liberal government to
democratize this House and allow a member from the opposition to
sit in the Chair as one of the deputy speakers. We suggest that the
member be one from the Reform Party.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is truly an
honour to speak to this motion. I have gone through the report,
which I am sure all of us have puzzled over, which looks at reviving
parliamentary democracy. The member for Kingston and the
Islands was one of the people who put the report forward. It is
rather shocking, after this report which says that two opposition
members should also share in the role of Speaker, that the member
now finds himself in conflict in this situation.
(1850)
I would like to demonstrate the true meanspirited nature of the
Liberal government, the true spirit of the spin doctors and
manipulators and the whole despicable performance that has been
created within this Parliament and this country. We have had years
of this sort of government and Canadians are sick and tired of it.
Canadians are sick and tired of the old Canada which is withering
and full of these problems.
The Prime Minister is really yesterday's man and is leading us
backward into the past. There was the situation today where an
individual was telling us, totally incorrectly, that because
Reformers would dare to visit Washington and talk to all the
politicians there, including Mr. Newt Gingrich, that it somehow
makes us part of the extremist right. The point to make clear is that
the Reformers were probably as surprised as anyone else at just
how different we really are, just how much difference there is
between a Canadian and an American. Whether we are looking at
our political system, social system, hospital system or other
systems, the differences are obvious.
Yes, we are annoyed. We are more than annoyed when we get
this kind of treatment from that sort of an individual in our country.
We Reformers are annoyed when we see posters of an evolutionary
chart and we are at the bottom and the Liberals have the arrogance
to put themselves at the top. It is that kind of arrogance that would
cause a motion to appoint all speakers from the one party, even
though there is a promise to democratize this place; a promise to
open it up and to make it more transparent, to enter the 21st century
with some kind of a vision rather than the meanspirited dictatorship
which we are now subject to in this place.
As we examine this motion we can see the deception that has
gone on. We can go through the list and talk about some of the
promises. There is the member of Parliament pension plan. The
Liberals said they were going to reform and fix it. Sure, just a little
dust over and now it is fine. Canadians are not going to accept that
sort of deception. Who opted out? The members across know who
did and we Reformers are proud of it. Reform is showing a vision
for the next century.
The Liberals said: ``Yes we will get rid of the GST, we will scrap
it, we will get rid of it. We promise we will. Elect us and we will do
it''. Who are the ones who are making politicians the low lives of
this country? Who is doing that? It is not Reformers who are doing
it. It is the party opposite that is just adding more and more fuel to
the fire by the sorts of things that we have seen it do this week.
The GST harmonization: another billion dollar grab from the
other provinces. It is not even acceptable in the provinces that have
agreed to it but it is better than nothing.
What about health care? Again we have heard the deception, that
we are the ones who will burn and scrap this system, that there will
be a two tier system. Our health care system is in disarray. Look at
it in this province, or look at it in my home province. There are
waiting lists. People are waiting 30 days, six months and seven
months. My wife has a serious problem and she has to wait three
months to see a specialist.
That is the sort of quality we have in our health care system. That
is what makes this government say: ``Those people across the way,
they are destroying the system''. It is the $3 billion cut from the
feds. It is not just the provinces. Canadians are going to see that and
then they will understand what the government is like.
(1855)
Canadians will then understand why it is going against the
recommendation of the member himself, that there should be a
person from the opposition put in the Chair. That was a
recommendation from the member for Kingston and the Islands
and now the government is going against that. It is deception of the
worst kind in this place.
The list goes on and on. In 1969 the debt was zero; in 1972 it was
$17 billion. Would it not be nice to be back there? Then we really
got into it and by 1984, when we were all totally disgusted with the
Liberal government, we were up to $180 billion in debt and we said
that we could not let it go any further. But it did go further and the
day we all got elected it was $489 billion.
Now the Liberals are saying that they have it under control.
Canadians are asking: ``Do they really have it under control? Do
they really? What are they going to tell us in 1997?'' They are
going to say $610 billion or $620 billion. Under control? Again the
whole picture before us is one of total misrepresentation and it goes
on and on.
5836
We are told that the unemployment problem has been solved
and infrastructure programs are taking place. Boy, that is fixing
everything. Tell that to the 1.4 million people who are
unemployed, the two million to three million who are
underemployed, the one in four people who are worried they will
lose their jobs. Tell them it is under control.
Again this deception, this smoke and mirrors, saying one thing
and doing something else, saying there will be a more open
Parliament, a speaker which will represent all parties. No offence
to the position, Mr. Speaker. It is one that all of us in this place
honour, but here is a chance to reform this place. Here is a little
way of doing it. However, we see closure, shutting down the
debate. Again, we add to the nails in the coffin of the people who
say what they think about this place.
We can talk about the criminal justice system and how it is
doing. Talk to the victims. Yesterday I spoke to a constituent of
mine who was victimized by a 10-year old. We are not solving
these social problems. We are going down the middle saying that if
we close our eyes, we will not have to see them. People are
watching and they are seeing what is happening here. When the
government does have an opportunity to fix a situation, it does not.
It just does not make any attempt to try to change the perceptions
people have.
What do Canadians think about the other place? Just ask anyone
what they think about it. I do not care what political party they
belong to. Ask them if they think the other place needs to be
changed. On the kind of change we might have differences of
opinion but just ask the people if it should be changed. They will
say without a doubt, probably in the 90 per cent range, that the
other place needs to changed.
The government has a chance to make some changes here
tonight, but it is not going to because it is status quo. The
government believes in the old line of thinking. We can look at how
things work in the House, how the committees work, free votes and
private members' bills. All of those things present an opportunity
to make a change.
I cannot help but think back to a couple of years ago on an access
to information bill. I was more naive three years ago. I said: ``What
do you think of this?'' I got it from the access commissioner. He
recommended this change. It came out of his report. The Liberals
endorsed it back in 1990. They said it was a great idea. However, it
did not pass the House. The reason it did not pass was two and a
half years ago everybody got up and said: ``Yes, it is a very good
motion, but there will be amendments made to the Access to
Information Act. The justice minister will put them forward in the
next year or two. Do not worry about it. That is why we voted
against your motion''. We are still waiting for those changes.
(1900)
I have put forward another private member's bill which deals
with peacekeeping. Should we vote in the House for peacekeeping?
Should we have all the facts before we vote? Should there be atree vote?
That seems very straightforward. Certainly that is what
Canadians want. However, it will be defeated in the House because
we have to keep the status quo and we have to let a few guys at the
top make the decisions.
We have a centralized, sluggish organization that wants to keep
the status quo. It could be made much better.
I feel very fortunate to be involved in the foreign affairs area. In
that area, if in no other, we should be able to work together on
things. We try to work together on issues which are good for
Canadians.
Parliament could be much more constructive if we could work
together for the betterment of Canadians. Somehow we have to
change the system to do that. As long as attendance is like this, and
as long as there is so little chance to make a difference we will not
make any changes. We will just carry on until finally the Canadian
people will say ``enough''. It should not have to go that far. The
country should not have to be hurt that much. Can the country
survive if we do not act?
We are now celebrating what happened a year ago. A year ago
the vote was 50.5 per cent to 49.5 per cent. That well could have
spelled the end of this country. That is how close we are to
Canadians losing faith in their Parliament.
What can we do to bring back the faith? Certainly one little tiny
thing would be to elect an opposition member to be the junior
speaker. I have heard some say that it cannot be a Reform member.
Why does someone not amend it to make it a Bloc member? Make
it one of those other guys. Make it whomever, but make it an
opposition member. At least start the process of change, change
that is so necessary for this House.
We might say that it really will not make a difference anyway
because of the Liberal majority and the way majorities work. If we
started making changes we might be surprised at how they might
catch on. We might be surprised at how that might lead to a better
place. It would be a better place for the country, for the members
and for all those associated with this place. We would all benefit
from that.
I am sure that all of us are asking ourselves if we are going to run
in the next election. We are asking ourselves what else we could do.
We are asking ourselves if we have made a difference. The thing
which makes it most rewarding for all of us is when we go home
and we have our town hall meetings and people say: ``Thank you
for representing us. It must be a tough job''.
If I did not hear that a lot I might say ``enough is enough''.
5837
(1905)
Because they say that, we come back down here. I often tell them
that it is sort of like getting thrown out of the ring, going back
home, getting picked up, sorted out and thrown back into the ring.
We get on a plane and come back down here and try again.
When we go through something like this, we say: ``Is it worth it?
Am I making a difference? Are they going to just slam stuff
through whether it is good or bad? Is status quo the only thing we
think of in this place?''
I plead with the members across as we vote on something like
this to think about it, make an amendment, make any kind of
amendment to improve this. Show Canadians, show
parliamentarians, show the people who are watching that we care
about this country.
Obviously the Prime Minister has said enough times in this
House: ``The only reason there are people who want to leave this
country is that they have given up on it''. The best way to defeat
separatism in any part of Canada obviously is to make it better,
make it some place that people can respect and feel part of.
I am saying that this motion that is before us tonight is just one
step that might help put us that one more step.
When we hear parliamentarians, as we did this past weekend,
rating themselves as A+, as the very best, Canadians are saying:
``Boy, let's look at the list on taxation. Are we better off? No. It is
$23 billion, We are paying more taxes than we were before''.
On the whole social policy, are we better off? No, the line-ups
are longer. There are more social programs today than ever before.
On labour policies, are we better off? No, not at all. Look at The
problems we have in that whole area.
Cultural policies, the unity issue and the report card could go on
and on. Canadians out there have that report card. They are keeping
score. Again I say to this House that this is a chance to make one
little change and show that at least this House is prepared to look at
some kind of reform of this place to make it better.
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You might
want to check the blues or the hon. member might want to confirm
it, but I think I heard him a few minutes ago use the word
meanspirited in referring to this side of the House.
If he indeed used that word, I would ask that he withdraw it. I
base that request on a ruling that you made in this House a couple
of years ago.
The Speaker: My colleague, I did hear the word meanspirited. It
is the age old story of what is parliamentary today may be
unparliamentary tomorrow and vice versa. Sometimes the word is
not used in the same context as the other. In this case I found that in
the context that it was used it was not unparliamentary. I thank you
for bringing it to my attention. It shows that we are all in this
debate. I would say at least at this point from what I heard it would
not be a point of order.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to begin by saying it is really sad on an
evening like this when we will be voting to ask someone to be the
deputy chair of the House that we have not had more time
discussing the background and the qualities that the member for
Kingston and the Islands has exhibited in this House over the last
eight years.
With respect to many of the members of the Reform Party, had
they been here when we were in opposition when the Conservative
government was operating this place they would have witnessed a
man who showed a tremendous amount of love for this Chamber.
He practically lived in here for his first term.
He developed a keen sense of understanding about the technical
aspects of the House. He committed himself to becoming a master
of the House, understanding the rules and making sure that there
was fair play and accountability on the government side of the
House.
(1910)
I think the members of the Reform Party are at a bit of a
disadvantage when it comes to assessing the member for Kingston
and the Islands because they did not witness that experience. He
has served a tremendous apprenticeship which suits him to take
over this assignment.
It is too bad that tonight, what should be a total acclamation of a
great member of Parliament, is being stained and clouded by a
diversionary tactic of the opposition to prevent this member who
has such merit from being appointed.
For the last little while I have listened to the members of the
Reform Party. I want to go back to the very first time that the leader
of the Reform Party stood in this House. He said the members of
the Reform Party over this term would only stand and criticize the
government if they had constructive alternatives to the government
pathway and that they would do it in a way that was not like the
traditional jousting and bickering that tends to go on during
question period.
We can see that after three or four months in this Chamber
Reform Party members have fallen into the traditional partisan
habits of opposition parties. I find that sad because there were
many good thoughts put on the table tonight and many good
observations about what really does happen in this House of
Commons and in committees. Many of their observations are about
the fact that effectiveness of the utilization of committee
recommendations is not really high. There is a lot of good talent
and good ideas which go on in those committees which really never
see the light of day. I thought that some of the Reform members
who brought that point up made a good observation.
5838
However, we know that the real root of the problem for this
Chamber is not what goes on in the committees and in debate here
on bills as they come through the House. The real root evolves
from question period. The members of the Reform Party over the
last three years had a chance to do something different.
I do not think many Canadians realize how question period
operates in this country. I do not think many Canadians realize that
most of it is sort of a rigged deal. In other words, every morning we
all know that the tacticians from both sides of the House meet in
their offices and the opposition members sit there and say ``okay,
let us see what the media is saying about issues all across the
country and let us see how we can sort of find one or two things to
embarrass the government''. These are not ideas coming from the
members from their own committee experiences. By and large they
tend to design their questions from what they see in the media.
Lo and behold, on the other side of the House we have tacticians
sitting there for the government almost having a contest as to what
questions opposition members are going to ask today. They wonder
how many questions they can anticipate are going to be asked and
how accurate are they going to be. What do we have here? We have
a phony joust every day in question period. There is not a member
of Parliament in this House who will say that this is anything other
than an almost predictable exercise every day.
This is what Canadians are fed up with. They are not fed up with
what goes on in committee because they see very little of
committee. The members are right, that is where a lot of good work
goes on. However, what is the face that we put to Canadians in this
Chamber? It is the face of that 30 second little joust clip that goes
on in question period. In the last three and a half years Reform
members had a chance to try to change that and make question
period a more meaningful exercise. That is what the leader of the
Reform Party said he would do the first time he spoke in the House.
(1915)
I want to be specific. I am not criticizing the Reform Party just to
criticize. I am trying to convey the genuineness they are trying to
show with regard to making the Chamber more meaningful. I say
question period could be different. Reform members or the
members of the opposition should not govern themselves or design
their questions based on the media. They should base them on their
own committee experience and what they personally believe is the
issue of the day. They should control the agenda rather than letting
the media control it.
That is one of the sicknesses around here. By and large the media
controls the agenda of most members of Parliament, and it should
be the reverse. Members of Parliament should be controlling the
agenda.
I give a specific example. Members have stood in the past few
hours to talk about the flawed health care system as it is evolving
and about some of the shortcomings of government.
I could make the case the Reform Party has caused most of the
flaws. I should not say flaws. If the Liberal government has been a
little less liberal than what it has been traditionally, it is primarily
because of the Reform Party which has an obsession with deficit
and debt. How can it be so obsessed with deficit and debt and
expect the health care system to be anything other than what it is?
We have a pathway of deficit and debt reduction around here that
is crazy. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. We are
destroying national institutions because of the deep cuts that are
going on.
The Reform Party has taken some credit for the heavy duty focus
on deficit and debt. We in the Chamber are supposed to be here not
for the advantaged but to speak for the disadvantaged. Traditionally
the opposition party is supposed to make sure government is
accountable and there is some balance.
I humbly say those members of Parliament have not been a
factor in ensuring a balance as we go through reconstruction or
modernization. They have been too extreme and that extremism
does not help the quality of life. It exacerbates the breakdown of
some institutions going through a very difficult period.
I have a great respect for the Chamber. I continue to enjoy my
experience in the House of Commons. I have a deep understanding
and respect for where the Reform Party is coming from. However,
if Reformers want to make this work, they have to carve out a new
pathway or a different approach which should start at question
period. Until we clean up the House at question period to make it
real and not a gimmick, nothing will change. It will go on.
There is not a kid or a serious person in Canada who will tell us
to our face that they love what goes on in question period, that they
think what goes on there is great, that they admire what happens
there. I have never found the person, anyway. If the Reform Party
were serious about making the House more meaningful it would
focus on the root problem.
(1920)
I end by saying that I came to the House of Commons with the
member for Kingston and the Islands who is a fabulous Chamber
member. He loves the Chamber. He has worked his buns off to
ensure that fair play is part of the rules and the different sorts of
things that go on here. It is part of his being.
If the members of the Reform Party believe in change, they
should not stain an evening like tonight when such a fine member
will be appointed in any event. We should all get behind him and
5839
put trust that he and the Speaker over the next few months can
perhaps make a few changes.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to rise tonight to participate in the debate.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood has joined us. As
usual he was very eloquent in making his point, but he missed the
point of the debate that is taking place tonight and indeed earlier
today. The debate is not about the qualifications of the member for
Kingston and the Islands. Speaker after speaker on this side of the
House has made that point and I will make it. I think he is very well
qualified for the position. I have been a great admirer of his but that
is not what it is about.
The debate tonight is about his appointment being another
Liberal broken promise. It is not about the member. It is about the
fact that promises made to Canadians to get elected have not been
kept. I will focus my remarks on the severity or the impact of those
broken promises on Canadians. This is a small one by comparison
to some that have been made.
Last weekend there was a great deal of accounting: ``78 per cent
of our promises kept''. Numbers were kicked around. I have done
my own tabulation and I have rated the impact of the promises that
were made. The Liberal government made two promises to get
elected that I would put in the 90 per cent category: job creation
and the GST. Those two promises rated with the Canadian people
somewhere about 90 per cent. The others were nickel and dime
stuff compared to those two promises. Very few Canadians went
beyond the third or fourth promise, but those two broken promises
had a great impact on Canadians and played a great role in getting
the government elected.
I focus on the jobs promised at election time and the GST. In
1993 during that election campaign Canadians wanted to believe
the government would be able to create the jobs they so desperately
needed. Some 1.4 million Canadians were out of work. They
wanted to believe the Liberal government and voted for the Liberal
government on that promise.
They wanted to get rid of the GST. They voted for that Liberal
government because it was to abolish it. It was to scrap it. They
hated it and I think the member for Broadview-Greenwood would
agree. He knows the impact of the GST promise in his riding and
many ridings across Canada.
Those two major promises were not kept. They got the Liberals
elected but once elected they were soon forgotten. I am not
referring to the member for Broadview-Greenwood who did the
honourable thing.
Let us talk about the broken promise on jobs for a minute. Three
years down the road we still have 1.4 million unemployed
Canadians; 18 per cent of our youth and several million Canadians
with jobs are worried sick about how much longer they will have
them. They just do not know if they will be employed a year from
now. That is the reality of the broken promise. It has turned out to
be a cruel hoax. Unemployed people were looking for that promise,
looking for those jobs which in fact did not materialize.
The Liberal government has yet to make the connection between
the high tax burden and the lack of job creation. There is a
relationship there and it still has not made it.
(1925)
That was evidenced a little over a week ago when the Prime
Minister said: ``No, if we get a few extra bucks there won't be any
tax relief; we will put those extra dollars into social programs''.
There was arrogance in that statement. For hard working overtaxed
Canadians there was no hope for tax relief. The indication is that if
there are extra dollars they will go into social programs. That is not
what Canadians wanted to hear. It is further proof there was
misplaced trust in the government when it was elected in 1993.
To find out about creating jobs why not go to the people who
create jobs and find out how it is done? The Chamber of Commerce
is the organization that represents the job creators.
I quote from a letter sent to all members of Parliament and the
Senate in December 1994 from the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce which represents 170,000 entrepreneurs, hard working
small business people that create the jobs: ``The next federal
budget will be crucial to the future of our country. Tough choices
will be necessary. Despite the overwhelming consensus that the
deficit must be cut we fear that the cuts will not be deep enough.
The finance minister's promise to meet his target of a deficit that is
3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97 is simply not good enough. The
deficit must be reduced to zero by 1997-98. The consequences of
the government not following through on this is unthinkable''.
Those are the people who create the jobs. That was the result of a
survey of 6,000 of their members. Perhaps it was not what the
government wanted to hear. The government ignored it because it
still had not made the connection on how to create jobs by reducing
the tax burden of Canadians.
I think back to when we were first elected. We in Reform ran on
the deficit and the debt. The member for Broadview-Greenwood
thinks we are fixated on the deficit and the debt. It is not the deficit
and the debt. It is what the government is doing to job creation,
taxes and our social programs. That is what Reform is concerned
about. That is the impact or the connection the government has not
been made yet. That is what is killing jobs. That is why our taxes
5840
are so high. That is why medicare is in trouble. It is the deficit and
the debt. Until the government gets that message it just will not
happen.
Reform campaigned on it. When we were running on that
platform in 1993 the Liberals were saying: ``It is not a problem.
What are you worried about? You are fearmongering''. Because of
that the first budget brought down by our finance minister did
absolutely nothing to deal with the deficit and the debt. Actually it
was worse than nothing because part of that first budget gave in to
the smugglers and gave away $300 million to $400 million in
tobacco taxes. It was unbelievable in the position we were in that
they threw away tax dollars so desperately needed.
The first budget from the finance minister ignores the most
serious problem we have today. I have heard members say: ``We
just got here. We didn't know anything about it. We didn't know it
was that serious. We were just elected''. That might hold for some
of the backbenchers but most in the front row, most of the cabinet
ministers in government, had been in opposition. They were not
rookies. They knew the state of the economy. They knew the state
of the tax burden. In fact when they were in opposition they
opposed most attempts by the Conservative government to do
something about it.
In the second budget the finance minister all of a sudden started
to talk about the serious problem with the deficit and debt. It was
killing jobs. It took two budgets. He found out in the second budget
that we had a problem, but even in the second budget he failed to do
anything about it.
The finance minister did nothing about it even with a warning
shot from Moody's, the bond rating people. They told the finance
minister there was a serious problem: ``The people who buy your
bonds come to us for advice. Unless you do a couple of things we
will not be advising them to buy your bonds or if they are going to
buy them we will advise them to look for an extra point''. Moody's
said: ``Your 3 per cent target of GDP is too low. You could fall over
that. That is not a target. We want a date for when you are going to
get to zero. Don't give me rolling two-year targets somewhere
down the road''. When I heard that from the finance minister I saw
myself in business going to my bank manager with my overdraft
which I had for many years and the bank manager says: ``When are
you going to have it paid off?'' I would say to him: ``I'm not going
to tell you-somewhere down the road''. I would be out the door, I
would be gone and my note would be called.
(1930)
However, we play that game on the Canadian taxpayers. They
are not buying it. That advice of Moody's was ignored and we were
downgraded, unfortunately. However, by the third budget he was
really starting to get the message. He realized that yes, we have to
make some cuts. We did not get cuts. We got scrapes. We did not
get the cuts that we needed; too little, too late.
Here we are, three years from when the government took office.
We were just under $500 billion in debt. It will have added over
$100 billion to the debt. We are approaching $600 billion of debt.
The finance minister stands up and brags about 3 per cent of
GDP. He does not talk about the $400 billion, $500 billion, $600
billion of debt that he has put this country in. Of course the real
cruncher is $50 billion in interest payments to service that debt.
The 68 cent government is what the Canadian people have now.
One-third of tax dollars goes to pay the debt, just the interest on our
debt. The interest on our debt now is equivalent to our social
program spending. It is growing faster than any item in the budget.
What do we get from the finance minister? Interest rates are the
answer. We get reduced interest rates. It is not interest rates. It is
taxes. Canadians want lower taxes, not lower interest rates. We
need to leave more dollars in the pockets of the people who are
going to buy the goods and get the economy moving.
I have to quote the Prime Minister because I think this is at the
mind block that is there on this deficit and debt. This is a statement
the Prime Minister made during a town hall meeting and it was
reported in the Ottawa Sun: ``PM downplays massive serving cost.
The debt load is no problem. Of course we have a debt but we can
pay off our interest. We have no problem at all. Fifty billion of
interest payments is not a problem''. We just tax the people and get
more taxes from those compassionate, caring people.
What about health care? We are not creating jobs, but not a
problem, $50 billion is not a problem. This is the leader of the
party. If that kind of thinking is what is coming down from cabinet
we are never going to get tax relief because we do not have a
problem. Tell that to the 1.5 million unemployed who say: ``What
is the problem? Why can't I get a job?'' Those unemployed people
are not interested in interest rates. They are interested in doing
something about getting their taxes reduced and there is absolutely
no hope.
The other big broken promise of course was NAFTA. They were
going to rewrite NAFTA, scrap NAFTA. Thank God it did not
happen. The only jobs we have in this country are because of free
trade and NAFTA. That is a broken promise.
Right now it is not Canadians who are spending money. It is our
exports that are keeping us going. Of course free trade was opposed
by the Liberals when they were in opposition. It is interesting now
to hear them stand up in the House and rant and rave about the
600,000 jobs. Those jobs have been created by free trade and
NAFTA and they opposed it. They do not know how to create jobs.
That is the sad truth of the situation today.
5841
Let us talk for a moment about the GST. I know that is very
near and dear to the heart of the member for
Broadview-Greenwood. He did the right thing on that. He knew
that he was elected by a large number of people in his riding on
the basis of that being scrapped and when the government did not
deal with it he did the right thing. I applaud him for it.
That won a lot of votes. That was the most hated tax by
Canadians and may still be because of the way it was put through.
Not that it is a bad tax; I happen to think that the GST is a very fair
tax. It replaced the old manufacturers' sales tax. I think it was
brought in at a higher level than it needed to be but it was sure a lot
fairer tax than the one it replaced.
Nevertheless, Canadians hated it. It still comes up at meetings
and I am asked, as I am sure the hon. member across the aisle is,
``When are you going to get rid of it? Why isn't it paying off the
debt?'' A lot of Canadians thought it was a brand new tax, the
receipts from which were going to do something about the deficit
and the debt. They did not understand the difference.
Those were two major promises, scrap, abolish, get rid of. Never
mind the fine print in the red book, those were the words that were
used and of course the words that were used by the Deputy Prime
Minister ended up costing her job. She had to resign because she
did not honour the promise that was made to the people. It was
unfortunate that it took as long as it did for that promise to be
honoured. This was the government that was elected on another
promise of restoring integrity in government and faith in the
process, yet we had the Deputy Prime Minister not honouring her
word.
(1935)
All members of this House, indeed all politicians, were being
hurt by the fact that her word was not being kept. It was so typical
of politicians who will say one thing to get elected and do whatever
once elected. Then we get this excuse: ``I was only running for
office. What are you getting so worked up about? It was just a little
white lie. Not to worry''.
I want to talk about Ontario because I am from Ontario. I am the
only Reformer from Ontario. Ontario is not being looked after by
this government. Ontario is suffering badly even though 98 of 99 in
'93.
I am going to talk about Pearson airport, the jewel of Canadian
infrastructure. In my view, and I think the member for
Broadview-Greenwood would agree, there is not a more
important piece of infrastucture in Canada. The government was
elected on an infrastructure program with $6 billion of borrowed
money and it completely ignored this major piece of infrastructure
right in Toronto. It was not just the jobs that were going to be
created in overhauling terminals I and II. Four or five thousand
jobs could have been created immediately. That airport impacts on
jobs all across Canada. That is where industries fly in and out of
when they are looking to expand or locate their plants.
The irony there is a government elected on an infrastructure
program completely ignores Ontario's and Canada's most
important piece of infrastructure. We are getting into Pearson and
the hypocrisy of the Liberals. When they were campaigning they
said they would examine that complex deal.
They had Mr. Nixon do a 30 day review of that contract. That
review raised a lot of questions and a lot of suspicion but contained
no hard facts to suggest this was a bad deal, not one hard fact.
The government introduced a bill on the basis of that report
which had no concrete evidence that the deal should be cancelled,
yet the government cancelled it. Again, it was the government's
right to do, but it introduced a bill that would deny Canadian
citizens their day in court. Those developers would not have the
opportunity to defend their good names. There are some Canadians
whose names have been dragged through the mud because of the
Liberal government and this bill would deny them their day in
court.
The bill was defeated in other place and now it has been defeated
in a court of law. The Liberals have failed to prove that was a bad
deal. In a court of law it has been established that it was not a bad
deal after all. When the government appealed the decision, it even
lost the appeal.
It has gone through the process and it has been proven that the
original deal would have been a good deal for Canadians. Both
those terminals would be functioning more efficiently now. We
would have created those jobs and many more jobs right across the
country.
Now the only thing that is being debated in court is the
compensation which the developers are entitled to because it was a
good deal. Now what is the government arguing in court? It is now
arguing that it did the developers a favour in cancelling it because
they were going to lose their shirts. I cannot believe the hypocrisy
of that position, that the government would have the nerve to do
that. It will end up costing us $400 million or $500 million before
that is through. It was unbelievable to see the Liberals denying
citizens their day in court.
The other issue is Toronto as an international banking centre. I
would like to quote the former mayor of Toronto. When the
decision was made to bypass Toronto and give it to Montreal and
Vancouver, the former mayor called the decision crass politics at its
worst: ``All this adds up to is bad news for Toronto because we
have been openly discriminated against by the federal
government''.
(1940)
It just so happens that former mayor of Toronto is now a member
of the Liberal cabinet. He is a cabinet minister. He had 98 members
5842
from Ontario to do something about crass politics, to do something
about the fact that Toronto was bypassed, the capital of Ontario.
In three years with the former mayor now sitting as a cabinet
minister nothing has happened. Toronto still has not been given the
distinction that it so rightly deserves.
As a matter of fact, there was a lawsuit. The lawsuit originated
by this former mayor of Toronto. It is still coming forward. This
government is going to be sued for bypassing Toronto and not
giving it the status it should have received three or four years ago.
I appreciate the opportunity to bring out some of these broken
promises. Really that is what we are focusing on tonight.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. It
is interesting that it is the appointment of a replacement for one of
your deputies that has sparked this very interesting debate in the
House.
I am pleased to speak regarding the appointment of my hon.
colleague from Kingston and the Islands to the position of
Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole.
I have the honour of knowing the member. I worked with him on
the procedure and House affairs committee when I was first elected
and served as Reform's House leader. As a parliamentarian, of
course, I have no objection whatsoever to the hon. member's
holding the position of the Assistant Deputy Chairman of
Committees of the Whole. I would hope that the hon. member is
following the debate. I am sure he is watching this debate with
great interest.
In a report released in January 1993 regarding the independence
of the Chair, the authors firmly stated that the assistant deputy
speaker should be alternated between government and opposition
parties, citing the Westminster model as an example. By using this
model, they said that their authority would be greatly enhanced and
the non-partisan nature of the Chair would be greatly augmented.
Most ironically but not surprisingly, the report is titled: ``The
Liberal Plan for the House of Commons''. The authors are the
current Minister of Health, the labour minister, formerly the
government whip and the opposition whip before the last election,
the Minister of International Co-operation, the former government
whip who was recently appointed to cabinet, and even the hon.
member who is being considered for the appointment, the member
for Kingston and the Islands.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood paid quite a tribute to
the hon. member and suggested that somehow Reform was going
beneath the dignity of the House to even have a debate on his
appointment to the Chair.
He talked about the wonderful qualities of the MP for Kingston
and the Islands and what a great parliamentarian he is. I do not
quibble with those observations.
Then he went on to somehow suggest that we should not review
the hon. member's statement here, his paper, about opposition
members being appointed as deputy chair.
He got into the whole issue of question period and my leader's
statement that we wanted to make this House work better, that we
want to be a constructive opposition. We are still a very
constructive opposition.
I want to talk about the early days, because I remember them
very well. I remember coming into the House and at times even
giving the minister opposite previous notice of what the question
would be, in good faith, in an honourable way. We would ask a
minister of the crown a question and the minister would get up in
shock and dismay and ridicule the questioner. He would be very
undignified about it.
I suddenly realized it takes two to be honourable and to function
in a very dignified manner in the House. We found it did not matter
how we asked the questions, what our decorum was. The Liberal
respondents, ministers of the crown, were lacking in respect and
dignity when they answered our questions; very seldom did they
answer our questions.
(1945)
Then he talked about the tacticians. He said question period is
run by a bunch of tacticians. Opposition people sit in their little
rooms planning their questions and then unfortunately the
government has to respond with its tacticians. It just so happens
that one of those tacticians was the hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands when he was parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader. I knew he was because we would talk about it. He
would tell me they were in their rooms cooking all this up.
This is same hon. member who the hon. member from
Broadview-Greenwood said is above all of this and here he had
been involved. The picture that the member for
Broadview-Greenwood painted was not an accurate picture
whatsoever.
I hope that the member for Kingston and the Islands is paying
close attention to this debate. He has been very aggressive in
debates in the House and we have had a good time debating many
issues. Every once in a while he will take the opportunity to quote
from the New Testament. He did it very recently.
I would like to remind the hon. member-because I am sure he is
listening-about a story where a father had two sons and he asked
the two sons to go out and work for him. One son said sure he
would go do it. That son went out, forgot about obeying his father
and did not do the job he was told to do. The other son said he was
not going to do it but then he thought carefully about his decision
5843
and he said, yes, he would obey his father and carry out the task he
was given.
I hope the member for Kingston and the Islands reads the report
he authored some time ago that said opposition members should
have two of the four chair positions. I hope he is the son who said
he would go sit in the chair. I do not care about promises made in
the past. I hope he will reconsider. I hope he will do the honourable
thing tonight as he thinks about his commitment to democracy in
this place and he will say that he will not accept that. It is not the
right thing to do until the Liberals have kept their promise to make
sure that two opposition members are appointed as deputy speakers
sitting in the Chair. I trust he will do the right thing.
If the hon. member does not he is open to criticism. I guess we
cannot use the h word in the House but we can certainly talk about
the h word outside the House. That is what the member for
Kingston and the Islands will be if he accepts the position that has
been offered to him by the government.
An hon. member: What is the h word?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, the word is hypocrite.
This demonstrates to Canadians that the Liberals say one thing
during election campaigns in opposition and then they slap us in
the face and do exactly the opposite. This is not only apparent with
protocol and House affairs but in all sectors.
I must speak about agriculture because I am the agriculture critic
for the Reform caucus. I love agriculture and I am dismayed with
the broken promises of this Liberal government with regard to
agriculture.
The Liberals have been patting themselves on the back over this
past weekend saying they have been keeping promises. Reform
looked at their promises with regard to their agriculture platform
document prior to the last election and they made 28 promises.
An hon. member: They have kept them all.
Mr. Hermanson: The hon. member says they have kept them
all. I will bet that the hon. member does not even know what one of
those promises are.
The Liberals made 28 promises with regard to agriculture but
have kept only 7. That means they have failed with only a 25 per
cent mark. No matter how you look at it, that is pretty dismal.
I will mention a couple to put them on the record. Liberals
promised that they would provide a greater commitment to
research and development, both applied and basic. The opposite is
true. They cut funding for research in agriculture by 16 per cent.
The fresh start proposal that the Reform is taking to Canadians in
the next election calls for an increase in spending for agriculture
research. We would find the savings by streamlining the
department in other areas.
A Liberal red book promise says that they would use GATT
negotiations to aggressively defend and clarify article XI to
maintain supply management. The Liberals were barely in office
when they scrapped article XI. Everybody knew that was a promise
they could not keep but they made it anyway. That is disgraceful.
They should not be allowed to get away with that.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hermanson: The hon. member opposite is saying hear,
hear. He thinks article XI is still there. He thinks a different
government signed it away. It was his own government that signed
article XI of GATT away after it promised Canadian farmers it
would defend that article to the death. Not one of them died or even
lost a night's sleep over the loss of article XI.
(1950)
The Liberals broke their promise when it came to standing up for
Canadians in their trade relations with the United States. I happen
to be a durum grower and I know they put a cap on durum exports
to the United States. They did not have to. We have a trade
agreement that says that we do not have to put a quota or a cap on
our exports of durum into the United States. It does not matter.
The Americans put a little pressure on and said: ``You be good
boys up there in Canada, you Liberals, you co-operate with us. We
do not want any more of your durum for a while''. The agriculture
minister said: ``Okay. We'll just close off the flow of our high
quality durum that is bringing a good return to Canadian farmers.
We'll oblige you. To heck with these trading arrangements we
made. We'll punish our own farmers just to help you poor
Americans out''. That was the response of the Liberal government.
The Liberals made promises about agriculture stabilization that
they did not keep. They promised a whole farm NISA for all of
Canada. They failed to deliver. There were two provinces that were
not interested and they forgot to ask the provinces whether they
would go along with their proposals for agriculture stabilization.
They promised a spring cash advance. They just reneged on that
one the other day.
They did keep seven promises. One of them was to establish an
Agri-Food Development Council to improve Canada's competitive
position in the agri-food industry. I expect they kept it because it is
a council. They had some Liberals who needed a job and they want
to create jobs. So they said: ``We'll create a council and we'll put
some Liberals on this council. In that way we have kept our
5844
promise and have also dished out some patronage at the same
time''. That is agriculture.
The Liberal government made a whole lot of other promises.
That is what this debate is about, keeping your word, keeping your
promise. If you say you are going to appoint deputy speakers from
both sides of the House, you had better do it, Mr. Speaker.
Canadians are not going to take being lied to any longer.
The red book is full of promises that have not been kept. The
success rate is just about as dismal as it was with their agriculture
promises. Let us go to promise number one: ``We will restore
Canadians' faith in themselves and their government''. They failed
dismally. In stark contrast Reform has offered in its fresh start
proposals a guarantee that we will listen or we can be recalled.
Promise No. 2: ``We will work with the provinces to redesign the
current social assistance programs so sorely tested in recent years
to help people on social assistance who are able to work to move
from dependence to full participation in the economic and social
life of this country''. Nothing has been a more dismal failure than
this promise.
They go on to say in promise No. 4: ``We will exercise
unwavering discipline in controlling federal spending''. What a
laugh. The recent contracts offered by the former and disgraced
minister of defence are a testimony to the failure of promise
number four. That is in stark contrast to the fresh start promise of
things like balanced budget legislation that would prevent the
foolish spending that we have seen from the Liberals.
Promise No. 10: ``A Liberal government will replace the GST''.
My colleagues have talked about that, so enough has been said.
Promise No. 12: ``A Liberal government will work closely with
provincial governments to achieve the maximum possible
co-ordination of tax policies''. That one was a blow-out too. Only
three provinces agreed to any kind of co-ordination of tax policies.
For those three provinces to agree they took a $1 billion pay-off.
That is a broken promise and again is in stark contrast to Reform's
fresh start proposals that take seriously-
Mr. Easter: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member from
Kindersley earlier said that the public is not going to take being lied
to any more. I believe that is unparliamentary and should be
withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point
of order, the hon. member that has just raised this matter should
understand when one is not imputing any kind of motives or not
speaking of the motives of any one individual in this House that the
word that was used as my hon. colleague has used it, is acceptable.
There are no grounds at all for this point of order.
(1955)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)): I
have listened to both comments and the context. I understand the
member for Lethbridge. I would ask the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster to continue.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, you should come and join the
opposition benches. Maybe you could get appointed to the Chair.
I was at promise No. 12 where there was a billion dollar pay-off
to get three provinces to co-operate on a co-ordination of tax
policies between the federal and provincial governments.
I could go on, there are a lot of promises here. There is promise
No. 19 which deals with NAFTA. We do not need to talk about it
because that has already happened.
I want to talk about promise No. 26 which states: ``We will better
prepare for the transition from school to the workplace, provide a
constructive outlet for the skills and talents of younger Canadians,
the innocent victims of Canada's prolonged recession, enhance the
opportunity for job training and improve literacy and numeracy
skills of Canadian workers and improve access to employment for
women and single parents by making quality child care more
available''. There are so many broken promises in that one promise
alone that I do not know where to start.
Let us talk about youth unemployment. Conservative estimates
have the unemployment rate for young Canadians at 18 per cent.
One of my colleagues mentioned that there are 1.4 million
Canadians unemployed at the current time. The member for
Broadview-Greenwood indicated that two million Canadians are
currently unemployed.
Then we could talk about all the day care spaces that were
promised by the Liberal government. The Liberals had no hope of
ever fulfilling that promise yet they made it to young single
mothers and others who needed help with child care. What an
irresponsible thing to do. How can Liberal MPs look their
constituents in the face when they make promises they do not have
a hope of keeping?
That is in contrast to our fresh start proposal which recognizes
child care whether it is in the form of day care or care in the home
or care by other trusted caregivers. There is no discrimination
based on the type of child care. That would create far more child
care than the broken Liberal promises could ever have hoped to
accomplish even if they had been able to keep their promises.
There are pages of broken promises here. There is No. 41: ``A
Liberal government, if it can obtain the agreement of the provinces,
will be committed to expanding existing child care in Canada by
50,000 new quality child care spaces each year that follows a year
5845
of 3 per cent economic growth up to a total of 150,000 new
spaces''. A broken promise again.
Here is a kept promise, No. 56. Every once in a while we come
across a promise that the Liberals kept and it is quite notable when
we do hit one: ``The Liberal government will enhance the role of
the trade commissioner service by adding to its staff qualified
technology and science attachés who can gather information for
diffusion back in Canada and identify opportunities for Canadian
exports abroad''. Here again the Liberals were able to add some
positions and increase the spending of government. We are not sure
how effective it has been but they were able to keep that promise.
I must mention promise No. 71: ``A Liberal government will
work with the provinces and the territories to provide Canada's
natural resource industries with greater certainty by co-ordinating a
specific system of land access, settling aboriginal land claims and
resolving delays and uncertainties in current regulatory
processes''.
At the Liberal convention last weekend, aboriginal people were
outside burning the red book because the Liberal government failed
to keep its promises to aboriginal people. The aboriginals were
pulling the red book apart page by page, using it to light a bonfire.
That again is in stark contrast to Reform's fresh start proposals
based on our aboriginal policy task force, which consulted with
aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike to put forward some
very solid proposals.
There are a hundred and some promises here. I am trying to get
to the last one. ``A Liberal government will also expand the rights
of Parliament to debate major Canadian foreign policy initiatives
such as the deployment of peacekeeping forces, the rights of
Canadians to regular and serious consultation on foreign policy
issues''.
(2000)
We all know that the take note debates happened after the
decision was made. It was another slap in the face of Parliament
just like we have been slapped around by not having the Liberals
fulfil their promise of appointing two deputy speakers from the
opposition benches. This has to change. The Liberals are not going
to change it. The alternative is to start with a fresh start, a new
opportunity for Canadians, one that is offered by Reform.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just a few words to say after listening to the hon.
members opposite concerning promises.
It is a funny thing that the Reform and the Tories in this House do
not talk about the promises they have made. Perhaps it is because if
they talked about the promises they made in the budget they
presented and in their policy statements, nobody would vote for
them.
The hon. member a few moments ago was talking about
infrastructure, about airports. They promised to pass all the airports
in Canada to private enterprise. Imagine going into an airport
anywhere in Canada and having a policy of the money bags, the
multimillionaires in Canada owning all the airports. That is the
policy of that opposition party.
Not only that, but they make a very big point of it in their
promises. It is all there in black and white. The hon. member
obviously has not read it lately. If he wants to hear the exact words,
I can read it for him.
If someone picked up the policy papers of the Reform Party and
the Tories, what would they see as far as infrastructure and
highways are concerned? They would see that party is suggesting
that the Trans-Labrador Highway be built by private individuals.
Then in order to get their money back, toll gates would be placed
on those highways. How else could they get their money back?
Imagine people driving along a highway, the Alaska highway or
the new highway going up to Labrador, and having to pay for the
highway and the bridges and then a profit over and above that for
all time due to multi-multi-multimillionaires and the big banks in
this country. That is the promise being made by the Reform Party
of Canada and the Tories.
Even worse than that, let us get to the real promise they have
made as far as ordinary Canadians are concerned. It involves
medicare. Let us read the promise. They have been talking about
promises of the government, this great administration. Now let us
read from their budget.
It should not take me very long to find it. It is on page 24: ``The
public may in time agree that although access to a broad range of
basic health care should be guaranteed to everyone, the original
medicare model in which everyone received everything health care
professionals wished to deliver is not only intolerably expensive, it
is undesirable for other reasons''. Awful. Just imagine.
(2005 )
What about that promise? It would mean one health care system
for the rich in Canada and another health care system for the poor
in Canada. They do not even hide it. They even put it in their policy
book. The Tories have done the same thing.
I know the Speaker would rule me out of order if I used a prop. I
am not supposed to do that. Anyway, it is called the taxpayers
budget. It is the Reform Party's plan to balance the federal budget.
Let us understand this completely as far as the promises are
concerned. Let us understand the Liberal promises versus the
promises of the Tories and the Reform Party of Canada. It is no
5846
wonder they are so low in the polls. It is no wonder the government
remains so high in the polls.
Hon. members opposite keep referring to our great deficit
problem. What country are they talking about? The recent analyses
have not been done in Canada by the chambers of commerce or by
any Canadian economists. Look at the great analyses on the
economic performance of the Government of Canada in the past
three years. What do they say?
The OECD is made up of 28 nations. Its head office in Paris,
France. Its job is to analyse the economies of the countries of the
world. What does the OECD say about the great G-7? Which
country is it that leads the G-7? Is it Japan?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Is it Italy?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Is it France?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Is it the United Kingdom?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Is it Germany?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Is it the United States?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: There is only one country left in the G-7 and that is
Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Baker: Of course, we should not forget the head of that
administration. I am allowed to say this because it is the
administration. It is the Chrétien administration. I believe that is
parliamentary, but I will not use it again, Mr. Speaker, if you object
to that phrase. He is a great leader of the administration.
Which country is it that the United Nations in two out of the past
three years has said is the best nation in the world in which to live?
It is not Japan. It is not the United Kingdom. It is not France. It is
not Germany. It is not the United States. It is Canada.
Members opposite would have the Canadian public believe that
we have gone downhill from the days when we were not number
one, when we were actually number six of the G-7. Those were the
days of the Tory administration to which the Reform Party would
love to return.
In analysing all of these promises and all of the promises of the
Government of Canada, we should never forget and the Canadian
public should never forget that we are dealing in this House with a
difference in philosophy. It is a great difference in philosophy.
They would have the banks own our highways and our airports.
They come out and say it in this document, which I will not show
you, Mr. Speaker, because that is against the rules. On page 14 they
say that given our current fiscal climate governments are ill
equipped to spend money on infrastructure. And they say Canada
should privatize airports and aviation. Privatize it, not pass it over
to management boards. They say we should allow the private sector
companies to build and maintain roads and bridges. Imagine. What
a change of philosophy that is.
(2010)
That carries through in practically every discussion we have had
in this Chamber, including those on taxes. Which party was it in
this Chamber that stood up and demanded greater tax cuts for
American companies that were operating in Canada? It was the
Reform Party of Canada. Somehow the Reform influenced the
Tories and the Bloc because the Bloc did the same thing.
Bloc members claimed their excuse was that they had many
friends living in the United States. That is what they said. The Bloc
members stood in this Chamber, the official opposition of this
House of Commons which is supposed to represent the
commoners, the ordinary people of Canada, stood in this House and
agreed with the Reform Party.
They demanded a 50 per cent cut on all taxes, on all the moneys
that go back across the border into the United States, on all the
interest made by foreign banks that goes back to the United States.
They demanded that tax credits be given to people who have
relatives in universities in the United States of America. Not only
that, but they demanded that tax credits be given if per chance one
happened to be subjected to the death tax in the United States, that
we call the inheritance tax in Canada, and if a person owned over
$600,000 of property in the United States.
The Reform Party and the Bloc members stood in this Chamber
and demanded more. Why? Because it is a matter of philosophy
with the Reform Party. It is a matter of philosophy with the Tories.
And it is a matter that the Bloc said they have friends who have lots
of money in the United States.
What we have here is this great difference in philosophy. On the
one hand political figures are in favour of what? In favour of the
very rich. That is why this party, the government leads the polls
today because Canadians are asking: ``What other choice is there?
Where do we go? Why would we vote for a party that would want
the banks to own our highways, our airports, our bridges and which
would want to throw our medicare system down the stream?'' Not
only that, but they have the gall to put it in black and white in their
policy statement for distribution to the people of Canada.
5847
We can understand why they are all frustrated. They are trying
to change their policies. Their leader now has a new policy
statement-
An hon. member: And a new haircut too.
Mr. Baker: He has not only flipped his hair, he has flipped his
lid.
We are judged to be the country that has dealt with its deficit
better than any other industrialized nation in the world today. They
are frustrated because of the progress this government has made.
The Canadian people will never allow them to get into power,
either the Reform or the Tories, to go ahead and ruin our medicare
system as they promised and to pass our infrastructure over to the
banks.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a tough act to
follow, at least in terms of theatrics.
I came here as a new parliamentarian in 1993 to debate issues. I
came here to talk about the different ways my party thinks things
ought to be done, to talk about the way the finances of the country
ought to be run, to talk about what we can do to maintain a good,
healthy education program for our young people, and a health
system that is satisfactory to Canadians, old and young alike. I
came here to talk about true parliamentary democracy and true
representation. What I have found is considerable frustration in
that process.
(2015)
I would like to begin by saying that it is a false assumption, as
was made by the previous speaker, that unless the government does
it, it is not done right. He has been talking about the privatization of
airports. He says it is terrible and awful. I fly quite frequently in
and out of airports which have been turned over to regional
governing authorities in Edmonton. The improvements in that
airport since that was done are immense. The cost to the taxpayers
is little or nothing.
Whereas, when the governments run these things we always find
an infrastructure so large and so cumbersome that we get much less
for our money. I also think of the Pearson airport. If we would not
have had the interference of the Conservative government followed
by this Liberal government, who knows what condition the Toronto
airport would now be in. Instead it is now languishing. Nothing is
happening there, while we are fighting and spending $600 in how
to get out of doing anything at all and trying to cancel the contracts.
The member opposite just asked what was wrong with it. It is
adequate.
An hon. member: When were you last in the airport?
Mr. Epp: I was there about 48 hours ago. It needs to a lot of
improvements made to it. That is generally accepted. It was
established and it is time it proceeds.
I would, however, like to say a little about the motion that is
before us today which has to do with the election of the chairman of
committee of the whole of this House. The standing orders state
that this position is elected by the House. This of course brings me
immediately to one of the first commitments that I made as a
member of Parliament to the people who elected me. I made this
commitment during the campaign and am doing my best to keep
that commitment.
However, it is interesting that the Liberal candidate in my riding
made exactly the same commitment; at least the people thought
there was no difference between us on that particular issue. The
issue was on votes. When we actually come to the vote on this
particular motion, and if I were a betting man I would put up to a
nickel on this one, I would predict that every Liberal member will
vote for the motion. This of course will elect the person nominated,
the member for Kingston and the Islands, to the position, which is
fine. I do not mind that.
However, the problem I have with this is that each member who
ran under the Liberal ticket with the red book in hand promised, as
did the Liberal candidate in Elk Island, that if they were elected
they would assure more free votes in the House of Commons.
I really do not expect that the vote on this is going to have the
appearance of being a free vote at all. I do not know whether it is
going to be whipped, as they say-probably not, but it is going to
certainly look that way. The incredible thing is that in so voting the
Liberal members will actually be breaching another one of the
commitments they made in that same campaign, which was in one
of the ancillary documents to the red book, that opposition
members would also have a role to play in the House of Commons
and in parliamentary committees.
I have to confess that my disappointment in the process and in
the results of that process is very great. I am very disappointed in
the fact that in this House we cannot have a free and open vote on
an issue such as this. Some members, particularly those in my
party, have said that they have nothing personally against the
member for Kingston and the Islands gaining this position. That
may be true for most of the members here. I would suspect, and this
has come from both sides of the House, that most people here
believe he has an adequate command of parliamentary procedure,
that he would certainly be well qualified in that regard. He is a man
of experience. I think that one of the qualifications of the person in
the chair of this House at whatever stage of the debate we are in has
to be a very high level of impartiality. I say as carefully as I can that
we need to assure in this House that we have people who are
guiding our deliberations who will be impartial, who will not
display disdain or contempt for any member of this House regard-
5848
less of which side of the House that member is on. I believe that is
a very important qualification.
(2020)
Let us talk about the particular member who has been nominated
at this stage and who is the object of this motion. When I think of
some of the antics that he has used during his parts of the debate,
speaking about the Reform Party, he is going to have to have a real
change of attitude.
I would expect that to happen, but it will have to happen if he is
elected. Very often he hauled out his infamous green book, full of
short quotations taken out of context, distorting the message of
Reform. He is going to have to, if he is elected to that position, put
all that behind him and prove to us his impartiality.
Beyond that I want to talk to the members on the government
side who will drive this vote to its conclusion, and again I accept
that process. I accept that in a democracy majority should rule. All
295 members in this House will have the opportunity to stand in
favour or in opposition of this motion. I challenge the members of
the governing party to individually think, as the Deputy Prime
Minister did, what the meaning of a promise is.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that this had to do with the
great goods and services tax which everybody in the country hated.
The member running in the riding that I ran in said under the
Liberal handbook: ``We will abolish the GST''. The Deputy Prime
Minister, recognizing the depth of the commitment that she made
on that, came to the point where she admitted she could no longer
look people in the eye. She felt so bad about not keeping that
promise, she actually resigned from this place and sought the
reapproval of the people in her riding. It is significant to note that
the support level for her because of that experience dropped by
about one-third.
It is very important for every member in this House to think
about the commitment they made when they were running. They
ran with the red book in hand. Included in that red book and in the
attached documents, the appendices, was this article that said: ``We
intend if we are elected to make Parliament work better, to give
more responsibility and more freedom to our members of
Parliament, to make committees work better''. Included in that was
a commitment that the deputy chair be shared by members of the
opposition.
If those words during the campaign did not mean what they said,
then they should not have been said. If they did mean what they
said, then how should there now be this debate wondering as to
whether we should elect a Liberal member to this position?
This is now an opportunity to fulfil, to put into practice the
words that were said during the campaign. I am challenging the
Liberal members. I am challenging them one on one to exercise
here an act of conscience, to ask whether when this election is over,
when this vote is over later on tonight, they will be able to stand
beside their bank machine and look at the person beside them and
say yes, to the best of their ability they kept the promises they
made. That is a very critical point.
(2025 )
Something else that is very closely related to this is the
appointment of deputy chairs of committees. It is the same
principle. I know there have been some heavy politics involved in
this. I know the Liberals are languishing under the burden of
ensuring they do not in any way offend the opposition. Of course
the separatists who sit beside us got every deputy chair position in
committees. It must be frustrating.
I cannot accept intellectually or emotionally that every one of
the Reformers who could have been eligible for one of those
positions was inferior in ability, inferior in leadership qualities,
inferior in the ability to conduct a meeting if called on. I cannot
believe that Reformers were inferior to act in that role to every
member of the Bloc. I just do not accept that.
I know enough about statistics that by the law of averages, as we
have about the same number of people, we would have expected
about half and half. Half the time it would have been one of them,
half the time it would have been one of us. Did that happen? No.
Did MPs get more independence as promised in the red book?
No, they did not. They were told, orchestrated from the Liberal
hierarchy: ``When you get into those committees, you will elect a
member of the Bloc''. For the life of me I cannot understand that
quite aside from the fact that these are members whose primary
goal is to take their wonderful province right out of our country.
It totally escapes me why this arbitrary decision was made to
take away the independence of members of Parliament who are
serving in committees. It is a severe flaw in the system. I bring this
up because it is the same principle. I am talking about the
principles of parliamentary democracy, one of the issues I was
elected on and which I believe in very strongly.
I believe that the majority in a democracy should prevail. I
believe that in this House of Commons that is the only way it can
be, but I do not accept that every one of us in representing our
constituencies has to be shackled and not permitted to represent our
constituents because of some party hierarchy and party discipline.
That is not acceptable in a democracy and that is one thing I am
committed to change if my people in Elk Island will re-elect me
next time and if we in the Reform Party can form the government
of this wonderful country. It is one thing that we will change
because it is one of the founding principles. It is one of the key
things that attracted me to the Reform Party.
5849
We need to have what was actually promised in the red book.
We need to have a greater freedom of members of Parliament to
represent their constituents. Some will say that has its dangers;
now the government will not be able to fulfil its programs. I do
not accept that either. That is not a fair assumption or a fair
conclusion.
Whether it is the Liberals or the Reformers or the Bloc or maybe
some other party in the future that may come to sit in this place as a
party, there may be a motion to introduce a bill or to amend a bill, a
really good bill that would carry the support of the majority of
Canadians under a free vote system. Members will be representing
each of their constituents. If that carries the day, if that carries the
judgment of the people across this country, then we will have good
laws passed but we will also finally have a mechanism to defeat
bills that are bad or at least to pass amendments to them if needed.
That is a crying need in this country. It is a need in this Parliament.
It is one of the deepest most frustrating flaws I have experienced.
(2030)
Members in this House probably without exception have come
here with high ideals. I know. I have spoken to members, not only
those in my own party but also to others. Some in all of the
different parties that I have spoken to have expressed similar
frustrations.
I remember talking to one person. I will not identify the party but
it was a person from another party. I asked why he voted the way he
did in committee. He looked at me and said: ``I really did not have
a choice''. That is a sad commentary. The red book promised more
freedom, more accountability. It promised more independence for
individual MPs. I would like to see that exercised in the vote that is
coming up later tonight.
I would like to see every member of Parliament, particularly
people like the member for Broadview-Greenwood who gave
such an eloquent speech earlier, once again exercise their power of
independent thinking, do what they believe is right. It is not going
to cause a big failure in the system. It will enhance the system.
I want to talk just a little bit in response to a previous speech here
this evening. It was mentioned at some length. I have finished the
comments I wanted to make here, so I am going to use my
remaining few minutes to talk about question period.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood talked at length about
question period. I too am very frustrated with question period and
the direction in which it has gone for a very simple reason. In
debates in this House, whether on a bill or motion such as the one
we are conducting now, or in question period, what we ought to be
doing is dealing with issues that affect the public. We should be
debating those issues.
I do not appreciate the fact that a campaign has begun to
discredit members of my party and myself with statements that are
not true. The subject in question period today was a great distress to
me. It was not particularly what happened in question period
although that bothered me too, but more so it was what generated
it.
Can we, as parliamentarians, not say to our people: ``Here is
what we believe, what we stand for''. Let the other parties say:
``This is what we stand for, what we believe in''. Then the people
would have their options. They could choose and cast their votes. If
we cannot do it on that basis, then how will this country be
governed correctly and efficiently?
What is happening instead is that a campaign has already begun
with statements which, if repeated often enough, come to be
believed even though they are not accurate. That is a tremendous
disservice. When we react in question period as we did today, it is
as a direct response to the fact that we are not satisfied with that
kind of campaign, that kind of tactic.
One of my goals is to openly and honestly debate issues, to talk
about what affects Canadians, to offer alternatives and options.
Frankly, if the constituents of Elk Island believe that the model of
democracy, the model of a health care system, the model of a tax
system, the model of all these other aspects which affect us, are
best represented by a Liberal rather than a Reformer, they have the
right to choose. But let us give them the facts. Let us let them
choose. Let us stop all the vindictiveness.
(2035 )
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am really puzzled by the antics of the Reform Party members in
this debate. I find it puzzling and absolutely amazing that they
would object to the appointment of the member for Kingston and
the Islands to the position of deputy chairman.
The member for Kingston and the Islands is eminently qualified,
immensely qualified to carry out the duties for which he has been
nominated. I feel absolutely confident that the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands will do an outstanding job. For the
Reform Party in a very straightforward way or obliquely to criticize
this appointment is amazing to me. I must say again that I am
puzzled.
I will say one more thing about the appointment. The hon.
member for Elk Island said that the member for Kingston and the
Islands would have to, and these are my words but I think he was
suggesting that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
would have to suppress his partisan Liberal feelings. I can assure
members that I know the member for Kingston and the Islands. I
have been in the House with him for eight years and if there is one
man who can suppress his partisan feelings when sitting in that
5850
Chair, it is the member for Kingston and the Islands. There is
absolutely no question about it.
Why are we puzzled by the antics and performance of the
Reform Party members in this debate? The member for Elk Island
said he was frustrated. I think he is frustrated, but it is not for the
reasons he would like to have us believe. He is frustrated because
he knows that his party is going absolutely nowhere in this country.
The party across the way has been totally rejected by the Canadian
people. That is why the member for Elk Island is frustrated. That is
why all the Reform members are frustrated. It is because they know
they are not going anywhere.
They are not even halfway up the polls to where they were in the
1993 election. That party elected over 50 members in the 1993
election and they cannot even sustain themselves in the Canadian
public opinion polls. What does that say about that party? It
certainly says a lot about their frustrations.
The Reform Party likes to go on about the red book. Reform
members like to go on about the government and they love to talk
about our promises. I will tell the House why they are frustrated. It
is because they do not like the fact that we are doing as well as we
are.
The Prime Minister, the cabinet, the entire government came out
with a record of achievement based on the commitments made in
the red book. What does the record show? It shows that we have
kept 78 per cent of our commitments. It is not 100 per cent, not 95
per cent, it is not even 90 per cent. It is 78 per cent.
By any standard put forward, it is a very good mark. Whether it
is a public institution or a private institution, if it hits 78 per cent
achievement, it is not doing a bad job. Remember, it is not only the
keeping of 78 per cent of our commitments, but another 10 or 12
per cent of those commitments are in progress. We have not
finished the job yet. We still have a year or two to go in our
mandate. We still have some time to make the mark even better
than 78 per cent.
That is why those members over there are frustrated. They do not
like the job we are doing because we are doing it too well. They
know that if we do our job as well as we have been that the
Canadian people will support us strongly. Canadians want good
government and that is exactly what they are getting under this
Prime Minister.
(2040 )
Let us talk about promises specifically.
In the red book we talked about deficit reduction. We talked
about deficit reduction in a credible manner. We did not say: ``Elect
us and we will eliminate the deficit in 12 months''. We knew the
Canadian people would not buy that. We knew they realized it was
a huge task. We said to the Canadian people in the 1993 election
campaign and in the red book that we would deal with the deficit in
an incremental way. We would do it slowly and gradually, but we
would do it with credibility.
The first target that we set was to reach 3 per cent of GNP. We
promised that we would clean up the fiscal mess and our first target
was to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GNP. Did we do that? You
betcha. Not only that, we have surpassed our goal. The finance
minister has done the job so well that he has revised his target. It is
no longer a 3 per cent target; it is a 2 per cent target and is well on
the way to 1 per cent.
Our finance minister has done the job so well that in a couple of
years we will not have to borrow any more money. That is how well
the job is being done. It will not be long after that before the deficit
is zero. It will be gone. It will be eliminated. That is why those
members are frustrated. They do not want that kind of success.
They do not want the government to succeed. They would rather we
fail. But we are not going to fail. We are keeping our promises.
What does it mean when we clear up the fiscal mess? What does
it mean when we bring down the deficit? It means lower interest
rates. How low are our interest rates today? I wonder if the Reform
Party is spreading the good news. I doubt it very much. I do not
hear Reformers talking much about the deficit these days. They are
mute on that issue. When it comes to the deficit, not only have we
surpassed our targets, it has led to the lowest interest rates in 40
years, in four decades. What does that mean for the average
Canadian?
Reformers talk about tax cuts. There are different ways to assist
Canadian workers, borrowers and consumers. With the interest
rates we have today, if a person holds a $100,000 mortgage, what
does that mean in terms of cash in their pocket? It means an
additional $3,000 in their pocket. That $3,000 is after taxes. If a
person buys a car and they pay the modest sum of $15,000, what
kind of saving is it? It is a saving of $500 a year.
These savings as a result of low interest rates are not only
realized by individuals and families; they are also realized by the
provinces. I was looking at some statistics today. Ontario is the
province with the largest population in the country. As a result of
the low interest rates, the Government of Ontario is realizing a
saving of over $300,000 a year. I do not think that is bad.
That is why those members are frustrated. Because we are doing
the job too well for them.
(2045 )
However, we on this side are not satisfied. We think we can do
even better. We have committed ourselves to doing better. We are
not going to be smug. We are not going to be complacent. As the
Prime Minister has said over and over again, there is still lots of
work to do.
5851
What else? What about trade? The Reform Party I think has
mentioned, in a rather oblique way, that we have done quite well
on the trade front. Well, you betcha we have done very well. How
well? The Team Canada effort; the Prime Minister led Team
Canada three times overseas, a couple of times to Asia. He came
back with contracts worth $20 billion. That is a lot of money, a
lot of investment and lot of work for Canadians. How much is
it for Canadians?
I do not think a lot of Canadians realize, and why I want to
mention it, that every billion dollars in trade-listen to this closely
and especially the Reform Party members-translates into 11,000
jobs for Canadians. Does anyone know how much our trade has
gone up since we came to office in 1993? It is over 30 per cent.
Thousands and thousands of Canadians have been employed
because of our trade initiatives and the Team Canada effort.
The Reform Party talks about the fact that we did not keep our
promise on jobs. Oh no, we really slipped in that department. I and
the government are not as happy as we would like to be. The
unemployment rate has come down since the government came to
office about 2 percentage points or a little more. I think it was about
11.6 per cent when we came to power and now it is about 9.4 per
cent.
Let us look at the job numbers. Despite all the transitions in the
economy, despite the transformation of the economy and despite all
the difficulties in the economy as a result of globalization and so
on, how many jobs have we created? We have created well over
600,000 jobs at the very time when governments at all levels are
downsizing.
When we take a look at it from that point of view and take into
account that the private sector has had to create jobs at a time when
the public sector is getting its house in order, we still have well
over 600,000 new jobs. I do not think that is bad. It is not the
greatest and we are going to do better.
I think it was the previous speaker from Newfoundland who
referred to figures given out by the OECD. If everything goes
according to Hoyle, if things pan out as well as they might or as
they should, Canada is going to have the best record when it comes
to GNP growth in 1997. That is the best record of all the G-7
countries. I do not think that is bad. That is why Canadians support
this government. Canadians realize that we have the right policies.
Canadians realize that we are on the right track and that is why they
support us. That is why the Reform Party is so frustrated.
It talks about frustrations but it likes to give some other reasons.
Reform members would like us to believe that their frustrations
have to do with something else. It has nothing to do with something
else. It has to do with our performance.
Remember in the red book back in 1993 when we talked about
how important our children and youth were in this country,
especially when it comes to the economy? We talked about a youth
internship program. What have we done? As of the last few weeks I
have noticed a figure: 37,000 young Canadians are now involved in
youth apprenticeship programs. I would like it to be 137,000 but it
is a lot better than what it was. It is a lot better than what it was
under the previous administration. I suspect, God forbid it, that it
would be a lot better than if the Reform Party were ever in power.
There are 37,000 young apprentices getting the necessary
experience and exposure to the workplace. It is a start and it is
going to get better, but I think 37,000 is not bad.
(2050)
When we are talking about promises, the Reform Party never
talks about these promises. In the campaign of 1993 the Prime
Minister to be said: ``If I become Prime Minister, if I become the
head of the government, the former prime minister's VIP airplane
will be gone. There will be no more of that style of a king
belonging to the Prime Minister''. He kept his promise.
The Prime Minister to be said: ``No more of that bullet proof
limousine''. What did he do? No more. No Cadillacs. None of that
big long limousine stuff.
He also talked about trimming the government at the very top.
He was not talking about just trimming the bureaucracy, which we
have done. If you are going to trim the bureaucracy then trim the
ministerial offices. Has he done it? You had better believe he has,
to the tune of saving about $10 million.
While we are talking about promises, what did the Liberals say
about the Canada Health Act? We said we would uphold the five
basic principles of the Canada Health Act and we have done exactly
that. We have not wavered not one bit.
The premier of Alberta thought we will take them on. We will
not stick to the principles of the Canada Health Act. We will allow
some eye clinics to be established and we will levy so-called
facility fees which is a disguise for a user fee. Do not worry, the
Liberals back in Ottawa will not uphold the principles of the
Canada Health Act. The government will cave in when the going
gets tough. Did this government cave in?
Who blinked when it came to a showdown over those facility
fees at an eye clinic in Calgary? Was it the Prime Minister? Was it
the federal Minister of Health or was it the premier of Alberta? I
think every Canadian knows the answer to that question. It was the
premier of Alberta. He realized we were going to stick to those
principles and that if he did not cave in it was going to cost his
taxpayers a lot of money. When the Prime Minister talked about
upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act he did exactly
that.
5852
I want to conclude by reiterating what I said at the beginning.
The Liberals have kept most of our promises. Seventy-eight per
cent is not bad compared to most standards if not all standards.
We would like to do better and we are still working on our
commitments and I think we can get that above 78 per cent before
the next election. We are doing too well for the Reform Party
members. They do not like us doing that well because they cannot
find an issue. That is why the Reformers are frustrated.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to be a part of this debate this evening.
When I sought the nomination to run for the Reform Party in
Cariboo-Chilcotin I was reminded by some people who had been
a part of the political scene there that I would get used to
Cariboo-Chilcotin's not being a high profile constituency.
(2055)
Cariboo-Chilcotin has not been a terribly high profile part of
the country. Most of them have gone to that part of the country
because it is that way. It is a place where people can go. We are
used to sending a lot of our money to the city. We are used to
politicians coming and telling us how things should be.
People have become very independent there. I can tell an
interesting little story. There is a place there called Rudy's Bridge,
put up by an entrepreneur. It crosses the Fraser River, just north of
Williams Lake.
There is a need for a bridge there but there has not always been a
bridge there. The people of Cariboo-Chilcotin petitioned the
government for a long time for a bridge there. What we were told it
is impossible to do it. The ground is not right. The location is not
right.
One of our people, Rudy Johnson, went and looked it over. He
needed a bridge there and therefore he scouted the country and
found a bridge. He bought it, he hauled it there, built the
approaches and he put the bridge across.
He said: ``If you have a commercial vehicle, it will cost you $5
to cross, but everybody else can use it for free''. Today, of course, it
is possible to have a bridge there. Rudy was glad, finally, to turn
that over to the government which maintains it. It is not improved it
but it is maintained.
I can tell another story about what is impossible. At the coast is a
community called Bella Coola. For years the people in the Bella
Coola valley were told they are so far away, so far below the high
country of the Chilcotin that they cannot have a bridge there and
will have to depend on boats and aircraft.
Quite a few years ago two people said they thought they could
put a road in there. One started at the bottom of the hill with a
bulldozer and another started at the top with a bulldozer. What the
government could not do because it was impossible to build a road
there this community did by itself.
We are used to having to do things ourselves. We are used to the
government telling us what is impossible and what we must do as
well.
We may be used to it but we do not very much like it. The biggest
difficulty I had as a budding politician was dealing with the
cynicism people hold in their hearts and their minds toward
government. It is a cynicism out of years of excuses why things
cannot be done, years of why it costs so much for the government
to do what it does, years of government now more and more being
in the face of people without really providing the services people
need and years of government simply not performing as politicians
have said it would when they come to seek people's votes.
I got into politics because I perceive a great need for reform, for
change of direction of politics in our political system, the way we
do our business. We need to have a system of politics in which we
talk about the issues, in which we do not hammer each other
because of the colour we are, the way we talk. If we like their
policies and we like the proposals that they have, we want to vote
for them.
In dealing with this cynicism, what I often had to do was look the
person in the eye and say: ``Look, I have been as cynical as you
have been. I know what governments have done to us but I see what
they are doing to our children, to our young people. Unless we face
them and look them in the eye and stare them down, we are not
going to change the system''. Are you going to revel in your
cynicism about the way politicians do their business or are you
going to try to change the system? Will you help me to do that?
Will you join me in trying to do that?'' That is what I am about in
this Reform Party, trying to bring a political system into being that
will serve people's needs.
The cynicism is still there, alive and well. A couple of weeks ago
I was at a meeting at 100 Mile House. The whole question period
after the speech on government spending was to do with politicians
and the way they do not keep their promises. Canadians are terribly
frustrated and are sick and tired of politicians that make promises
and then do not keep them. A great deal of their frustration is now
directed toward the Liberal government. The Liberals have broken
so many promises we can hardly count them. If there is one thing
that is said to me with regularity as I leave the Cariboo-Chilcotin
to come to Ottawa, it is: ``Phil, give them hell. They deserve it''.
(2100)
The track record of broken Liberal promises is the topic of this
entire debate today. As members of Parliament we want Canadians
5853
to have faith in their leaders, to feel confident that politicians will
do what they say they will do and will do it fairly and honestly.
As legislators we have a role in establishing this positive
reputation for ourselves. The Liberal government has an
opportunity to begin to repair its tarnished record today by
appointing an opposition member as deputy chair, which is no more
than keeping a promise it made during the election campaign of
1993. If that was done that action would begin to instil some small
measure of confidence in its sagging reputation.
The debate today is not about the member for Kingston and the
Islands and his ability. I hope that the member for
Broadview-Greenwood understands that. In fact, the member for
Kingston and the Islands very likely would be a very good deputy
chair. His abilities to do this are sound, so I am told. The member
for Calgary Centre attested to this yesterday. We all agree he has
the qualifications.
However, that is not the issue. The issue is the integrity of the
government and its willingness to not simply seek more and more
power, but to do what it says and to have as its first priority serving
the people of the nation, the welfare of the nation. The issue today
is about politicians doing what they say they will do. It is about
honesty and principle.
As we all know, in 1993 the Liberals came out with their list of
campaign promises, the Liberal red book, which might also be
called Creative Opportunism, I suppose. Others refer to it as the
Liberal dead book. In the book, listed in appendix B at the back
entitled Platform Papers is a document; ``Reviving Parliamentary
Democracy-The Liberal Plan for House of Commons and
Electoral Reform''. On page 9 of the document can be found
something very interesting which relates to the debate today.
``In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an
effort to reduce the level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from
the government party, two of the junior Chair officers should be
from the opposition so that the four presiding officer positions are
shared equally by government and by opposition''.
This document was co-authored by none other than the member
for Kingston and the Islands. It is the member for Kingston and the
Islands the Liberals want to appoint to the deputy chair position,
not an opposition member as the document states would be the best
idea.
The Liberal decision to appoint the member for Kingston and the
Islands violates the integrity of the government because the
document I just quoted from is part of their red book, the list of
promises. The Liberal decision also violates the integrity of the
member for Kingston and the Islands. How can a person say one
thing at one time and then turn around and do the opposite at
another time and still keep his or her integrity? That is exactly
what the people of Canada object to. That is exactly what their
cynicism is rooted in.
(2105)
I say to the member for Kingston and the Islands that he has an
important decision to make. He has the opportunity to do
something that his colleagues are not used to doing. He could begin
to clean up his party's tarnished image on integrity. Most
importantly, he could preserve his own integrity. I know he is a
person of integrity.
I urge the member for Kingston and the Islands to do what he
said he would do in 1993 and show real leadership. I urge him to
help his party keep at least one of its promises which it made in the
red book. I urge him to encourage his party to appoint a member
from the opposition benches to the position of deputy chair.
If he made this bold move he would take an important step for
the people of Canada. He would show Canadians that the Liberals
can be trusted to keep their word at least once.
I know his colleagues want to discourage him from taking the
high road. They do not think their record is tarnished. They boasted
at the Liberal love-in last weekend that they kept 78 per cent of the
red book's promises. We heard that repeated here a minute ago. The
Prime Minister even boasted that any student would be happy with
this score. I suppose any student would be happy to keep a score of
his own test results, too, like the Liberals do.
The reality is that the Liberal record is tarnished. Liberals made
all kinds of promises during the last election campaign and,
according to a very honest and accurate analysis, the Liberals only
kept about 30 per cent of the pledges they made to the Canadian
people. It is no wonder Canadians are cynical about their
government.
That is why the motion which we are debating today is so
important. It is why we are not prepared to sit down and let the
government roll over this matter. The Liberals and the member for
Kingston and the Islands could take this opportunity to be different
than their record of the past. They could show Canadians that they
are a party of their word, that they can be trusted, that their
promises mean something and are not imaginary. Such a step
would go a long way in instilling public confidence and trust in our
political institutions.
Let me give the House a little more detail on the Liberal record
of broken promises.
The Liberals could add to this list today or they could start down
a new road, a fresh path toward integrity and honesty by appointing
a member from the opposition benches to the position of deputy
chair.
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister promised
Canadians jobs, jobs, job. On October 15 the Prime Minister said
5854
that Canadians did not have to read his lips, that they could read
their record. Let us read that record today.
First, 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed. Second, two
million to three million Canadians are under employed. Third, four
million workers are worried about losing their jobs. Fourth, this is
the longest stretch of unemployment above 9 per cent since the
great depression of the 1930s. That is the record. Where are the
jobs, jobs, jobs? What we have, sir, is another Liberal broken
promise.
The Liberals would want us to believe that they are still working
on fulfilling this promise, that they have a plan to create jobs. We
have not seen it. 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 many years, unemployment
increased last month from 9.4 per cent to 9.9 per cent. That is half a
percentage point.
It is quite clear that the economy cannot be pushed uphill with
interest rates. There has to be growth. There has to be job growth.
To create jobs in the country the government must reduce taxes.
Reduced taxes will mean more money in the pockets of consumers,
small business people and investors. Consumers who spend more
money will create permanent, well-paying jobs that the Liberals
promised and that Canadians desperately need. What consumers
need is a tax cut, not another interest rate cut.
On top of going back on their word and giving Canadians high
unemployment, the Liberals have dished out more pain for
Canadians through social program cuts. The Liberal red book
states: ``It is essential to provide financial certainty and
predictability for our health care planning''. The Liberals have not
done this at all.
(2110)
What they have done is cut transfers to the provinces by 40 per
cent. They have cut health care payments by $3 billion a year. They
are dismantling social programs to pay the interest on the
ballooning $600 billion federal debt.
All Canadians have received from the Liberals is pain, pain,
pain. In many communities if people knew the truth about Liberal
slashing of health care transfers there would a sign in front of many
closed hospitals saying: ``This hospital closed by the Liberal Party
of Canada'' and I quote my leader on that.
To repair this gaping hole in the social safety net a Reform
government will commit $4 billion a year to increasing federal
transfers to the provinces for health and education. These funds
will come from the savings generated by our refocusing and
downsizing of the federal government and not from increased
taxes.
I urge the Liberals to keep their commitment to sustain health
care. I urge them today to begin to rebuild their tarnished
reputation. They can begin by keeping their promise to appoint an
opposition member as deputy chair.
There are so many Liberal broken promises that I could mention.
I could take all night listing them. What about the GST? The
Liberals promised Canadians they would scrap, kill and abolish the
GST but the tax is still here, blamed on acts of God and loose lips
and a $1 billion bribe paid to the Atlantic provinces to shore up the
government's image after harmonizing the GST and the PST,
hiding the taxes in the sticker price. Where is the integrity? Where
is the promise kept?
No wonder Canadians feel cynical toward the government. The
Liberals promised stable multi-year financing of the CBC, but
when they became the government the Liberals slashed more than
$400 million from the national broadcaster. The Liberals promised
to renegotiate the American free trade agreement to obtain codes
on subsidies and dumping and a more effective dispute resolution
mechanism. But when they came to power the Liberal signed
NAFTA without renegotiation. The list goes on and on and on.
Just to give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of how blatant the Liberals
have been breaking their word, let me read a bit more of their
patronage record: 18 partisan appointments to the Senate; Richard
Campbell, former campaign manager for Lawrence MacAulay
appointed director of Marine Atlantic; Richard Cashin, long
standing member of the Liberal Party and MP from 1962-65
appointed member of the Canadian Transport Harvesting Adjusting
Board; Dorothy Davey, wife of former Liberal Keith Davey
appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board; Fred Drummie,
executive assistant to minister Doug Young, appointed to the
International Park Commission Board; Raymond Guay, Liberal
member from 1963-68 appointed to the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal.
The list goes on and on and on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Szabo): I would remind hon.
members not to refer to members of Parliament by their names
during debate.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could not help but speak after listening to the Reform
Party attacking a colleague whom I have known for the past eight
years since I came to this House, a colleague for whom I have a lot
of respect, a colleague who probably knows the ins and outs of this
House like the back of his hand.
None of the people in the opposition have had time to talk to the
individual or to come to know him as some of us on this side of the
House have.
Personal attacks by the Reform Party are constantly being made
against the member for Kingston and the Islands. I heard with
great interest the speaker before me saying that one of their
members attested to the knowledge of the member for Kingston
5855
and the Islands. This is not something they want for the opposition
party. They did not say a member from the Bloc. They want their
member.
Reform members who were elected in 1993 and came here said
they were going to make changes. There are no changes. They are
politicians just like the rest of us. They just speak differently. We
see the whip get up and say ``or anybody who wants to vote
differently''. Nobody stands up and wants to vote differently. They
all sing the same tune. They were going to do things different;
anybody else who wishes otherwise. If they wish to do otherwise
here comes the leader and they are out of here. They will be kicked
right out.
(2115)
An hon. member: They whip them and cane them.
Mr. Karygiannis: They cane them, as my colleague says.
The Liberals presented their platform which was called the red
book. We had enough guts after three years to come and say this is
our accounting and what we have done, 78 per cent. By any
accounting, we presented 78 per cent. I do not see what the Reform
Party promised. I do not see the Reform Party accounting for what
it promised and what it is doing.
I challenge the Reform Party to bring its accounting. Not only
can it not do its accounting, it forgot about the leader pointing
graphs up and down. There is no accounting here.
An hon. member: They crossed the road.
Mr. Karygiannis: They crossed the road, as my colleague says.
I want to speak about my constituents who were unemployed
three years ago and who now have jobs. I want to speak about the
bank rates going down and stimulating growth and potential. I want
to speak about the industries in my riding that do not have to go to
the banks and borrow at 12 per cent to 15 per cent as they did in the
previous administration. Now they can borrow at 5 per cent.
I hear my colleagues across the way. They do not like the words
5 per cent interest at the bank. Ladies and gentlemen, if you do not
like it, tough. My constituents like the 5 per cent. My constitutes
enjoy not having to carry 10 per cent and 15 per cent on rates that
they have to borrow. That stimulates the economy.
I as an individual have a mortgage. I wanted to renegotiate my
mortgage. It dropped down.
An hon. member: Now we know why these rates came down.
Mr. Karygiannis: You have mortgages.
An hon. member: They do not have any mortgages.
Mr. Karygiannis: No, they do not have any mortgages.
The Speaker: I hate to bother the hon. member, but you must
address your remarks to me in the Chair rather than to your
colleagues across the floor. I hope you get back in full flight.
Mr. Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I guess sometimes the blood
flows very heavily and when you do not hear the truth and you hear
things in remarks that sort of make the blood boil in your head you
sort of forget the procedure. This is why colleagues like the
member for Kingston and the Islands are people we need.
In Toronto we were just named number one of all the cities. That
is something that the Reform Party does not like because it does not
have any members elected in the vicinity of Toronto. It has one,
just north. In the next election I promise we will work hard to make
sure it does not have any.
We have kept 78 per cent of the promises. More than any other
previous administrations or any other party we have had the guts to
stand up and say: ``These were our promises, these are what we
kept and this is what we are''. By all accounting we have the guts to
account and put the numbers down.
Some of my colleagues across the way do not like those numbers
because they know what they are showing in the polls is the same
as the interest rate, 5 per cent and it is going down.
In closing, I hope the interest rate goes down and along with the
interest rate going down so does the performance of the Reform
Party.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a well
established fact that most governments are not defeated but in fact
defeat themselves. Let us just think back to the Trudeau
government. The Canadian people finally got tired of this arrogant,
spend thrift government after 15 years and booted it out in 1984.
When the people threw it out they turned to the Progressive
Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. They said they
would give that government a chance: ``We are tired of the amount
of overspending this government does, the fact that it does not
consider the best interests of the Canadian people, and we are going
to give the Progressive Conservative Party an opportunity''.
(2120)
The people gave the Conservatives a huge majority in 1984.
They told the Mulroney government to clean up the mess. Mr.
Mulroney and his government were only in power a short while
before it became obvious that they were not going to do things
much differently from the Liberal government before them. If
anything, they were worse, if that is possible.
The result of nine years of the Mulroney government was that in
1993 the Canadian people were so absolutely fed up with the
5856
Conservatives that they decided to get rid of it. And this
government across the way, the Liberal Party, did not win that
election; rather, the Conservative Party lost it. These people are
sitting in government now almost by default. In getting to
government, the Liberals offered Canadians a booklet of promises
they refer to as the red book.
I knew a fellow in my riding who passed away some time ago. I
knew him for a long time. I was in the construction business before
I became a member of Parliament. I remember this fellow by the
way he did business. He used to say: ``I really like to do business
with people I can shake hands with, look in the eye and feel that the
commitments we make to one another are going to be respected and
honoured without going to a lawyer and getting a seven page legal
document drawn up so I can go back to court and enforce it. I like
to do things on a handshake. I like to do things on the strength of
people's words. Their word is their bond''.
I always had a great deal of respect for that gentleman because I
knew that I could go to him on a construction project, on a business
deal, we could sit down and negotiate a deal. We could shake hands
on it, without ever going to a lawyer, without ever having to rely on
the systems in place to enforce agreements. I could sleep at night
knowing that he would respect the agreement we had between us.
I wonder how my friend would view the Liberal Party on the
strength of the book of promises it gave the Canadian people and
on its performance.
Let us examine some of the promises that have been made. My
colleagues in their earlier interventions highlighted a number of
them, but I will talk about some of the promises in depth. This
government campaigned-it started before the campaign-that it
would scrap and abolish the GST. It did not say that it would try to
deal with it, that it would try to find a replacement tax, that it would
try to find a way to soften the blow for Canadians. The Liberals
were unequivocal in their statements and in their promises: ``We
are going to scrap and abolish the GST. We are going to get rid of
it''.
That was a very ill advised promise to make, and I think many of
them knew that at the time. Evidence that has come to light in the
last few months reveals that there were advisers within the Liberal
Party who said they should not make that promise, it was a dumb
promise to make. I agree that it was a dumb promise to make but
they went ahead and made it anyway and now they have to live with
it.
What did the Liberals do? They came back three years later and
said: ``Sorry. First, we did not really mean we were going to scrap
and abolish it. We just meant we were going to replace it. Maybe
we did say that we were going to scrap and abolish it but we are
sorry about that. We can't meet that promise. Canadians
understand''. Frankly, I do not think Canadians understand.
(2125)
They understand that getting rid of the GST, put in place by
Brian Mulroney and his government, is a very difficult thing to do.
What they do not understand is why a political party made this a
major plank in its election platform, in its bid to win Canadians'
votes in the 1993 election then turned around and said ``shucks
folks, we made a mistake''.
The Liberal government in its red book campaigned on a
promise to reform MP pensions. Canadians from one end of this
country to the other were livid when they came to understand the
terms of the MP pension plan. Canadians were absolutely beside
themselves. How is it that the richest pension plan in the private
sector pays benefits on a scale of 2:1 and yet parliamentarians,
politicians, can go to Ottawa for six years and collect a benefit
package on a ratio of 7:1?
This government made a solemn promise to the Canadian people
in its red book to reform the pension plan. It left no doubt in the
voters' minds that the government did not mean it was going to
tinker with it a little bit, that it was going to reduce it a little bit. It
was made very plain that what it intended to do, what it was
promising to do, was to get the MP pension in line with private
sector pensions. Three years later we see that the government
tinkered around a little and left it at that.
My colleagues, 51 Reform MPs, looked at the pension plan and
said when they had an opportunity they were going to opt out. As a
result, Mr. Speaker, all the MPs you see here tonight are not going
to get an MP pension regardless of how long they serve in this
Parliament.
With regard to the member for Beaver River, she had already
qualified and was fully vested in the pension plan. If she had
resigned and left office she would be collecting her pension the
next day. Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that. Her pension was
worth approximately $1.4 million.
It would have been easy to say: ``We disagree with the MP
pension plan but under the circumstances until we can form a
government and actually change it ourselves we are all stuck going
along with it. I do not agree with this but until we have an
opportunity to change the system there is really not much we can
do about it''. No, she took the high road.
I ask every Canadian watching tonight to think about the
integrity, the ethics, for somebody to turn around and walk away
from $1.4 million simply because they know it is not right. This
government could learn a lot from this lady from Beaver River.
Obviously it has not.
This government campaigned and attacked the Reform Party:
``The Reform Party is going to kill medicare. The Reform Party is
out to gut medicare. Do not vote for Reform, they are bad people,
they have no scruples when it comes to budget cutting, no scruples
5857
when it comes to spending cuts. Reform is going to cut you out of
medicare''. Three years later the reality is the Liberal Party has
done far more cutting in the area of medicare and education than
the Reform Party ever proposed in its campaign in 1993.
When it comes to ethics the Liberal Party in the red book said:
``We are going to restore Canadians faith in their government and
their politicians. We are going to make Canadians feel good about
politicians, about Ottawa and the federal government. We are going
to restore integrity''. Let us look at the record there.
Without tender, Liberal cabinet ministers hired consultants at
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is that ethical? It might be
technically legal, but is it ethical?
(2130)
Liberal junior cabinet ministers are flying around the world with
a government credit card, on holidays purchasing clothes. Is that
ethical? Then they say: ``Oh, I am sorry. I am going to pay it back.
It is okay because I meant to pay it back''. It may be technically
legal, although I question whether it is even technically legal. But it
is a big stretch for anybody in this country to believe that it is
ethical by anybody's standards. Yet this is the record of the
government.
Let us examine the $87 million no interest loan to Bombardier. I
cannot suggest that the fact that Bombardier made a $170,000
donation to the Liberal Party over the last three years was the
reason it got the $87 million loan. What I will suggest is that there
is a longstanding cosy relationship between Bombardier,
SNC-Lavalin and the Liberal Party. It goes back many, many years.
We know that. We also know that the Liberal Party defends this no
interest loan by saying it is doing it in the interests of providing
research and development.
In the same week that the government went to Montreal and
announced the $87 million loan to Bombardier, it announced a $7
million slash in the coast guard budget in British Columbia and $30
million across the country. It announced that it did not have enough
money to fund fish hatcheries in British Columbia. It announced
that it would have to destaff light stations in British Columbia. Let
us examine the cost of those three items alone.
Light stations in British Columbia cost $5 million a year.
Destaffing them does not mean there is no cost. It means that the
cost will be reduced by about $3 million. So it is saving about $3
million by destaffing light stations, maybe.
The cuts to the coast guard are about $7 million a year. I assure
the House that the coast guard presence in British Columbia was
razor thin prior to the cuts being made. The search and rescue
capability of the coast guard on the north coast is virtually
non-existent. I do not know how many fishermen I talked to who
fish out of Masset, Prince Rupert and Port Simpson, who tell me
that they are sure happy that the American coast guard is not far
away because that is who they rely on to pick them out of the water
if their boats ever go down. It is not the Canadian coast guard.
There is no presence capable of doing that for Canadians. And what
is the government doing? It is cutting more.
The government has destaffed light stations and has cut money
from the budget of the Canadian coast guard, $7 million, in the
same week it announced the $87 million loan to Bombardier.
The Liberals said they had to cut back on the funding of fish
hatcheries in British Columbia. In the fall last year they announced
they were going to cut $4 million out of the budget. Thankfully,
there was a huge amount of pressure from elected representatives
and from the people of British Columbia in the face of the fisheries
minister saying they had to downsize the fleet in British Columbia
because there were too many boats chasing too few fish, the Mifflin
plan. Then in the same breath he said that by the way, at the same
time they were going to cut back the funding to hatcheries.
In the case of the community of Kitimat where I live, there is a
world class fish hatchery which is extremely productive. It costs
the Canadian taxpayers about $850,000 a year to own and run that
hatchery. But no, the government had to cut that. Maybe not
specifically that hatchery. We do not know which hatcheries
because they were never announced. The Liberals did not go ahead
with the cutback in 1996 but we are now told it is back on the books
for 1997.
(2135 )
The people of British Columbia are losing valuable and in some
cases essential services as a result of government cutbacks. Let us
not forget that British Columbia is a net contributor to this
federation and it has been for a long time. It puts more money in
than it takes out every year. Then the government turns around and
punishes the people of British Columbia and at the same time gives
an $87 million interest free loan to Bombardier. Bombardier is a
company that has accepted $1.2 billion in corporate welfare over
the last 15 years.
That kind of announcement does not play too badly in Ottawa or
in Montreal, but if we talk to the men and women on the street in
British Columbia we will find that their blood is boiling. The
people of British Columbia have suffered government cutbacks.
They have seen the government make a loan to a company which
has made hundreds of millions of dollars in profit in the last several
years. It is one of the wealthiest corporations in Canada. It has
billions of dollars in fixed assets. The people of British Columbia
have lost their faith in the government's commitment to restore
ethics and integrity.
5858
The government also promised in the red book to appoint deputy
speakers from the opposition benches. It is another promise that
is going by the wayside.
The premier of British Columbia set up a forest renewal fund
two years ago. He promised the people of British Columbia that he
would under no circumstances touch the fund. It was going to be
there for silviculture, for the restoration of B.C. forests and for no
other purpose. They are now dipping into that fund because there is
a big budget shortfall.
I was interviewed recently by an announcer in northern B.C. who
said: ``I suppose this is probably good news for you''. He was
thinking cynically that anything which tarnishes the NDP will help
me in my bid to be re-elected. I said: ``On the surface it appears that
way. Yes, it may as a result tarnish the NDP and make my
re-election a little easier, but in the long run it hurts me''. It hurts
anybody who runs for public office in Canada because it is yet
again a politician who is not keeping his promise, who is not ethical
and who is not prepared to act with integrity. That is what we have
with this government.
I started out by saying that governments usually are not defeated,
that they defeat themselves. This government and this Prime
Minister are so afraid right now that they have to put out memos to
their supporters across the country trying to counsel their friends
on how to slander and libel the Reform Party of Canada. That is
how concerned they are about the position they are in. I know that
their polling numbers do not look very bad right now, but I believe
their support is a mile wide and an inch deep. If it is an inch deep,
we are bailing out right now and it will not be an inch deep by the
time the next election rolls around.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
we are debating a motion which deals with the Deputy Chairman
position. From all of the debate which took place yesterday and
today it is clear-
(2140 )
The Speaker: It was probably someone from the gallery. I heard
some words coming from some place.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the debate that has been taking place
has been very helpful and useful to all members of Parliament in
expressing some views on what has happened within the House
over the past three years. The debate has actually changed to a
debate on what is the record of achievement of the government and
what is the reaction of the opposition parties to that.
The national political party, the Liberal Party, presented its
detailed election platform in a red book. I recall during the election
campaign that the Prime Minister was grilled on that book, on each
and every point, particularly on page 111, the page where the
financial specifics were included regarding the cost of the various
programs and the commitments that the government was going to
make.
I will never forget that the Prime Minister said to all openly and
publicly that during the mandate we would be able to go through
the red book page by page by page, point by point, dollar by dollar
to see where we were in terms of the commitments that we made
and the record of achievement that we have made.
At this point, the government has indeed put forward a report on
its level of achievement on its campaign commitments. If members
would look carefully, they would find within that book several
sections that indicate areas where the government has gone beyond
those platform undertakings, and other areas that were not
specifically committed to but on which the government has made
significant progress in the first three years of its mandate.
The primary areas of the platform had to do with the creation or
stimulation of an environment to promote job creation and
economic growth. Our approach to restoring the health of that has
been measured, deliberate and responsible. The approach has been
balanced: carefully reducing spending, restructuring government
and strengthening the economy. Using rolling two-year targets is
the right way to reach our ultimate goal of eliminating the deficit. It
keeps the government's feet to the fire.
The deficit for 1995-96 was $28.6 billion, $4.1 billion below our
target. This is the second year in a row that we have beaten our
targets. We are on a clear path to fiscal health. We are also on a
track to meet or better our deficit target of $24.3 billion in 1996-97
and to meet our deficit target of $17 billion in 1997-98. Our deficit
target for the following year, 1998-99, is $9 billion or 1 per cent of
GDP.
This is down from $42 billion or 6 per cent of GDP when we
took office. We have reduced the deficit by $33 billion or nearly 80
per cent in those five years. It will mean that in 1998-99 the federal
government will no longer have to go to the financial markets for
new borrowing requirements. That is the way most G-7 countries,
including the U.S. and the U.K., measure their deficits.
We have used spending cuts, not tax increases to reduce the
deficit. Spending cuts in the last three budgets account for almost
90 per cent of actions taken to bring down the deficit. By 1998-99,
program spending will be 14 per cent lower than the peak level of
the 1992-93 year. Program spending will then represent only 12 per
cent of GDP, its lowest level since 1949-50. Between 1993-94 and
1996-97, the percentage decrease in federal program spending will
be three times larger than the percentage decrease in overall
provincial program spending.
Reducing the deficit is essential for job creation and growth. Our
strategy is beginning to pay off. The government's number one
priority has been and continues to be job creation. Getting interest
5859
rates down is the most effective way for the government to help
create jobs. There is no more effective way to get interest rates
down than to get government finances under control. The strategy
is already beginning to pay off. Short term rates are down by more
than 4.5 percentage points since early 1995. They were 2.5
percentage points above the U.S. rate in early 1995 and they are a
full 1.5 percentage below.
(2145)
Canadians interest rates are below the U.S. rates for maturities
up to five years. Except for five weeks in early 1994 the bank rate
has not been at its current level of some 4 per cent or a little lower
now, down to 3, since October 1964.
Lower interest rates produce real savings for Canadians. That is
an important point. Earlier this day one of the members said: ``We
don't need lower interest rates. We just need tax cuts''. Lower
interest rates to Canadians are effectively a tax cut because they put
real dollars after tax in the pockets of all Canadians. In fact,
consumers are saving almost $500 annually on a $15,000 new car
loan over a four year term. To someone renewing a $100,000
mortgage this means saving over $3,000 annually.
A new report by the Royal Bank says that owning a home is the
most affordable it has been in 10 years. Payments on a five year
$100,000 mortgage now costs $765 a month.
In 1990 the same mortgage would have cost more than $12,000
and according to the report that is equivalent to getting an $8,000
raise. Clearly the economy is improving.
Two hundred and twenty thousand jobs have been created in the
private sector since last November, housing starts and resales are
up sharply, business investment intentions are improved, GDP was
up by .5 per cent in July, and for the first time in 12 years Canada
has had a surplus in its current account.
The private sector forecasters are expecting the economy to
strengthen during the rest of 1996-97 and the International
Monetary Fund in its latest world economic outlook predicts that
the Canadian economy will grow faster than any other economy of
the G-7 countries.
I know there are many other members who would like to get up
and share some of the great successes that this government has
achieved in the first three years of its mandate. I would urge all
members to stand up and let Canadians know, let their constituents
know, let the Reform Party know, let the Bloc know, let the NDP
and the Tories know that the Liberal government is doing a very
good job for the people of Canada.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as I rise this evening to speak to this bill, I listened to the
rhetoric of the member across the way. I hear in that rhetoric a
hollowness that does not reflect the loss of hope of many Canadians
who are looking at no job. They are looking at the potential of no
position that matches the training for which they have invested
their time. They are looking at the possibility of losing the job they
presently have.
For all the numbers and all the rhetoric Canadians do not feel
secure today. That is compliments of the activity of this Liberal
government.
Tonight as I rise I address the issue that is at the very heart of this
discussion. That issue is at the heart of the disillusionment of
Canadians. It is at the heart of the national distress, the national
feeling of insecurity for the future. That is not helped by the
rhetoric that we hear tonight.
It is the history of politics of Canada, the history of promises,
promises, promises that lead to taxes, taxes, taxes. We have seen
that in the last three years. It is a history of governments bent on
serving their own interests.
(2150)
The members across the way try to say that taxes have not gone
up. Twenty-six billion dollars more is coming into the federal
coffers every year from the Canadian taxpayers than there were
three years ago.
Governments are bent on serving their own interests, not the
interests of the Canadian public. Canadians now look to an insecure
future. They look to the future of their children as being unknown,
without jobs and possibly without the means for an education or a
means to use that education.
Tonight we are specifically talking about the appointment of the
member for Kingston and the Islands. This member I believe is an
honourable and concerned individual, as many members are, and
he certainly qualifies for the position to which he is going to be
appointed.
It is interesting that this member was the driving force behind a
report referenced in the red book during the last election. In that
reference this member co-authored a report entitled ``Reviving
Parliamentary Democracy'', something that perhaps many of us
came to this House for. However, this was the Liberal plan for the
House of Commons and electoral reform. That very member, when
he co-authored this report, made a recommendation that two of the
junior Chair positions in this House be occupied by members from
the opposition members. That is two of the four positions. That was
in the red book and part of the Liberal promises during the last
election.
5860
In the last while the Liberals in this term have a record of
patronage appointments in different areas. Recently they have had
a resignation of a senior minister, a minister of the crown. I remind
the public and this House that it was certainly under questionable
circumstances. Now they have had to shuffle ministers and mix
people from bench to bench without notice to this House. Our
party made mention of that.
This same individual, who was appointed without notice to
answer the needs of shuffling patronage appointments and the
resignation of a minister for a real cause that perhaps was not
identified in his resignation, is the same person who, in his own
words, said that he should not be the one to fill the position but
someone from the opposition. He will be four of four Liberal
members occupying the Chair of this House and he will be
occupying it as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole.
Where is the integrity of those who would ask him or where is
the integrity to accept that appoint? I challenge that member to own
up to his own words and to deny that appointment. This, may I
mention, is one day after a convention when these same Liberals,
who are nattering at me at this moment, said that they have kept
their promises or will keep them. We have a promise they made in
their book and one day later they are blatantly against what is in
that book. Where is the honesty and commitment to serve the
people?
We wonder why there is cynicism and disillusionment that grows
in the public minds. Each person in this House pays the price for
promises broken. I take exception to that because for many of us
that is the reason why we came to this place. It was because of that
very cynicism that we felt three years ago. Perhaps the choice three
years ago of the majority of this House was not as wise as it could
have been.
This same party gave itself a rating of 78 per cent in keeping its
promises at a recent convention. I wonder if any mention was made
of this issue as part of that percentage and I wonder how many
students in a classroom would grade their own papers and come up
with such a poor mark.
(2155)
If we listen to radio shows or if we take our own poll of those
same promises we get results of 30 per cent, 20 per cent, 10 per
cent. Seventy-eight per cent is a construction of the very party
whose behaviour we are considering.
We hear that the Liberals have reached their target of 3 per cent
of GDP. They have a target the size of a barn door. In the last three
years the debt of this country has gone up by $111 billion. We have
a deficit of $27 billion. It does not make sense that a government
could be proud of that.
We have promises broken. I want to go on but I must discuss the
promises of NAFTA to look at the subsidies, to look at the
resolution mechanisms, to take a closer look at that legislation.
That has not been done.
There were promises for day care spaces which have not been
answered. The GST fiasco has been blamed on everything, as my
colleague mentioned, from acts of God to loose lips. Nothing has
been done to make that real. There has certainly been a sellout of
the Canadian people in a $1 billion plan for a partial program that
will probably cost the taxpayers across Canada, including the very
places concerned, more in the long run.
The aboriginals have completely rejected government progress
in terms of their priorities. Where are we with interprovincial trade
barriers? Nowhere. Health care? We have line-ups growing.
Seniors, people from coast to coast do not feel secure with our
health care system. CBC funding, stable? Let us take another look
at it.
Youth unemployment is at 18 per cent. Overall unemployment is
at almost 10 per cent. As I mentioned, 1.4 million Canadians are
unemployed and 2 million to 3 million are underemployed. What is
wrong? What is wrong with what the government seems to feel is
just fine, thank you? I suggest it is the basic philosophy of this
government, as with governments before. The questioning of that
philosophy is what brought many of us as Reformers to this place.
That philosophy is one of government knows best, government
will solve all the problems of this country. Government will create
jobs. Government will sustain Canadians. Government will sustain
aboriginals. That is rejected by them. Government will sustain and
protect children. I believe government cannot do all things and that
individual Canadians should be trusted and empowered to do those
very things that this government and pervious governments have
felt they can do in a better way. With the basic philosophy that
government knows best, we have bigger government, more
intrusive government.
Taxes have grown by $26 billion in the last three years. We have
a less responsive, less accountable, more arrogant government as it
takes the reins and control of the lives of Canadians. This is in stark
contrast to the Reform approach.
In our fresh start program we feel that government can be less.
Government can be less expensive, less intrusive, $15 billion less,
from $109 billion to $94 billion in government expenditures. With
this philosophy we will balance the budget by March 31, 1999.
With that we will provide Canadians with the ability to create the
employment they need, to create the freedom from government that
they need. By increasing the basic deduction for every taxpayer in
Canada and matching the spousal deduction to the basic deduction
to $7,900 we would level the playing field for one and two income
families. That would give Canadians a choice and more money in
5861
their jeans, more money to use in the economy, more money to
create the jobs that are needed.
(2200)
The Liberals are afraid of the new and fresh approach they see
from Reform. Maybe it boggles their minds to think perhaps things
could be done differently. I saw in this morning's paper: ``Liberals
turn sights on Manning''. They have labelled us with things which
simply display their own arrogance and their discomfort with
something which may be different and that might work.
One thing the Liberals have said is that Reform does not
understand the modern family. I find that very interesting. What is
Liberal definition of a modern family? I would like to tell the
House what I see their definition of a modern family to be. I would
like to ask Canadians if it is their definition.
The Liberal definition of the modern family is two wage earners
by decree having to pay exorbitant taxes on what they earn. If they
have a job they are afraid of losing that job. They are unsure of
their children's future. They are unsure their pension plans. They
are earning less and less after tax income each year as the
government strips more and more money away to fund programs
that it invents. That is the Liberal definition of a modern family.
That is the way they would like every family to be. I question if that
is what Canadians want.
We have a government which gave $87 million to Bombardier
and in the meantime families pay higher taxes. In my province the
coast guard has been cut by $7 million, the fish hatcheries which
create a livelihood for many people in my riding have been cut
back. They have cut back the staffing of light stations which many
people depend on for their security. This is a choice which certainly
does not serve the families in my area.
There is a $23 million flag program. We are not sure which
budget it comes out of but it certainly comes out of the pockets of
taxpayers. In the meantime health care has been reduced by $6
billion in the last three years. People are worrying about what will
happen if they need care in a short time.
Our plan would give tax relief of $2,000 to the average family by
the year 2000. We would create job opportunities through a capital
gains tax cut of one-half of what is now being paid, down to 37.5
per cent. We would reduce job killing payroll taxes by reducing the
employer's contribution to UI by 28 per cent. We would remove the
surtax and move toward a simplified flat tax.
What do Canadian families care about? They care about the best
possible care for their children. That, as opposed to the Liberal
view is choice, not coercion in day care. Canadians would like to
have the choice of how and who takes care of their children,
including being able to take care of their own children.
Presently the day care deduction is only for receiptable day care.
Reform would change that to a deduction for every child below the
age of 13 years. Families could choose to take care of their own
children or they could have grandmother or Aunt Bessie or Uncle
Jim. Right now that choice is not theirs. It has been stripped by the
Liberal vision of the Canadian family, and a wonderful vision it is.
(2205)
Reform values choice. Reform values parenting. Reform values
the safety and security of Canadian families in their homes. Reform
wants to address the issues of family violence, child prostitution
and child pornography. Reform wants to look at the issue of
victims' rights and address them. Reform wants to eliminate the
parole of violent offenders. We want them to serve their full
sentences. Reform wants to take a look at the Young Offenders Act,
eliminate it and make young offenders more accountable in the
process.
In terms of the social safety net what do we want to do? We want
to give priority in education and health. Those are the priorities of
Canadian families.
In the last four years the Liberals have worked hard to destroy
the health care system. They talk about supporting it but in fact
they have taken $6 billion away from health and education through
their CHST changes. Reform would like to restore the UI program
to something that works, something that is restored to its original
purpose.
Reformers would like Canadians to have security by having
control over their own pensions. Certainly it would like the security
for existing plans. Our fresh approach to national unity just boggles
the mind of a Liberal. We want that plan to speak for all Canadians.
We want it based on the equality of all Canadians in all provinces.
Reform wants greater control given to provinces and to
municipalities and we want the federal government to focus on
what it does best.
Much of tonight's discussion has been about promises. Reform
will give money back promises in the form of our democratic
reforms in recall where we can fire a liar if necessary. We will give
those tools to Canadians and that will be a cure for a political trend
that we have seen for too long and too often. We look for real
democracy, legislation that can be brought through citizen's
initiative, decisions by the people through national binding
referendums and free votes in this place. MPs must represent their
constituents' wishes if those are known.
Not too long ago an MP on the other side asked about
accountability. Reform does what it says. One promise the Liberals
made that they did not keep was to reform pension plans. The
pension plan held by most Liberals is still five times greater than
any other Canadian can get. Reform was presented with that same
decision and Reform rejected the gold plated pension. One member
probably lost $3 million when she signed her name on that line that
said
5862
what she could accept. The integrity of the member for Beaver
River made her say: ``This is not good enough. This is not what
Canadians want. I lead by example''.
Members on the far side of this House will not lead by example.
In fact their leadership is something that Canadians must and will
challenge in the next election.
Integrity is on this side. Reformers do what they say they will do.
We walk the walk. Fresh start is the option to old politics. Instead
of promises and big government and old politics we believe
Canadians deserve better. There is a choice for change. The cruel
reality is that Canadians made the wrong choice last time. They
will be able to change-
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel west to
Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg and Toronto, and east to Montreal,
Fredericton, St. John's, Halifax and Charlottetown during the week of November 4,
1996 to hold a pre-budget consultation and that the necessary staff accompany the
committee.
(2210)
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor on the motion on the
appointment of a deputy chairman of the committees of the whole
House.
The position of deputy chairman is sufficiently important that we
should appoint someone worthy of the honour, such as the
individual the government recommended. The government has
recommended the member for Kingston and the Islands. He is a
well balanced individual, well educated, who weighs things
carefully and has many merits, and who, above all, is familiar with
procedure.
The members of the Reform Party are objecting to this
appointment. They would like to see someone from the opposition
appointed. What sort of people do we have in the opposition right
now?
There are the members of the Bloc Quebecois, who do not want
to abide by the Constitution. This morning I proposed to a
committee on procedure that a swearing in, in addition to an oath of
allegiance to the Queen, should include an oath of allegiance to the
country known as Canada and to the Constitution. The Constitution
means a great deal. One of the things it means is respecting the
rights and freedoms of individuals.
Should we appoint a member of the Bloc Quebecois as deputy
chairman? I think not, given that members of that party do not
respect the Constitution, nor do they support my proposal that
allegiance be sworn to the Queen, the country and the Constitution.
As for the members of the Reform Party, how can we appoint we
appoint someone from such a grumpy, ill tempered bunch, who
have forgotten how to smile? And when they do, it is because they
are about to pounce on someone they disagree with. They make fun
of people, so when they are smiling, watch out.
You know, the members of the Reform Party put me in mind of
old westerns. They form a sort of posse. These fellows in the
Reform Party-and a few women, a very few, because the Reform
Party is mostly for macho types-would like to see anyone accused
of a crime, any crime at all, immediately strung up.
This describes our friends in the Reform Party, a sort of cowboy
posse. They are a gang of cowboys. What they would like, if a child
is accused of wrongdoing, is to see him beaten, whipped, kicked,
taught a proper lesson.
If someone is accused of a violent crime, well my goodness, why
wait for the judge? Why waste a jury's time. Who has a rope? Let
us lynch him.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bellemare: You see, now, what a show the Reform Party is
putting on. They are losing it completely.
Can you see one of those guys as Deputy Chairman? The Deputy
Chairman must be someone who weighs things, who must be
reserved and knowledgable. Not a gang of yahoos like this bunch of
cowboys-and I say this with the greatest respect for real cowboys.
I am comparing them to the Hollywood type cowboy. Those guys
from the other side of the House, those Reformers, who subscribe
to the principle that those who yell the loudest get the most. That is
their attitude, their philosophy.
5863
(2215)
[English]
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to bring
the member back to some relevance. I do not appreciate the huge
disinformation he is giving about us. I want him to be relevant.
The Speaker: It is my great wish that all members this evening
will be relevant. I know we are going to get there. The hon. member
for Carleton-Gloucester.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I would dearly love to have the
Reform Party's definition of the word ``relevant'' in English. I am
sure that they could not give me one in French, indeed would not
give me one in French since, in my opinion, they hate
francophones, having brought out a resolution last year to abolish
the commission on bilingualism. What is their definition of
bilingualism?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bellemare: You hear the applause for abolition of the
commission on bilingualism?
[English]
Mr. Epp: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I respect when you rise on a point
of order and I do hope we are not taking advantage of one another. I
am going to listen to the hon. member's point of order.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that you check
whether we have a quorum in this House. I do not believe we do.
And the count having been taken:
The Speaker: By all counts, my dear colleague, we do have a
quorum. I am going to give the floor to the member for
Carleton-Gloucester.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor
again. I am glad to be able to tell my constituents that I upset the
members of the Reform Party, those Hollywood cowboys who all
want to gang up on people who are more sensitive than most. I
think I know how sensitive they are.
These are people who believe that all francophones should go to
Quebec and all anglophones should live outside Quebec. They have
great respect for Quebec's anglophones and they have great respect
for francophones. They have great respect for the history of our
country.
I bet you that if we had a history test, if we had a high school
history teacher, but no, that would be getting our sights too high. I
was too demanding. If we had a grade school teacher, maybe a
second grade teacher who would ask them elementary questions
about the history of Canada, how Canada was formed, I am sure
they would score a big fat zero, because that is what they are on the
other side, just a gang of zeros.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bellemare: Listen to those Hollywood cowboys shout. They
are talking about the Plains of Abraham again. They want me to go
back to the Plains of Abraham. These people forget what
francophones did for Canada. They forget that the reason we are
not the fifty-first state of the United States is that the francophones
joined up with the British, who conquered this country and entered
into a relationship that was to form a new country.
I know it is a very sore point and that these complainers like to
play rough and tough. That is their whole attitude. You see, their
friends are very rich, so one of their priorities here in the House is
to cut taxes. In fact, what they would like to do is close the whole
government down. They could not care less about immigration or
citizenship or the poor. They could not care less about families or
the poor worker.
(2220)
I almost forgot to remind the House that when health care is on
the agenda, they would like their friends to take advantage of our
health care system and make our hospital and health care system
more like the one in the United States. Down there, private
companies take the money and prevent people from getting the
medication and the kind of hospital care they need, but everything
is based on systems à la Ross Perrot or Newt Gingrich. These
people have no interest in the common good.
The members of the Reform Party, those Hollywood cowboys
who, as they say, want to lynch anything that moves, believe only
in the rich and protecting the rich. They do not believe in the
middle class and especially not the poor, except when they feel like
giving some money to help people who are in need, to make their
consciences feel better.
As you can hear, during my speech, the Reform Party members
just keep shouting. Can you imagine one of this gang of tough guys
sitting in your seat as Deputy Chairman? They would just spend
their time shouting at us. They would not spend their time saying
that we have to improve the circumstances of the average citizen.
They will not recognize what the Liberal government has done
since 1993. They do not believe in all this. They believe in the law
of the jungle. They want to see the deficit completely eliminated
within a very short time. They would like to take us back to the
time of the depression and cut everywhere.
This afternoon in committee, we were talking about government
cuts in public service spending. I really felt uncomfortable, because
a lot of public servants have lost their jobs. Reform Party members
told me that if they formed the government, public servants would
really get the short end of the stick, because they want to close the
whole government down. They want to cut everything. They would
like to fire all public servants, then turn around and give all these
5864
jobs to their friends so they can make a buck at the expense of
Canadians.
The worst scenario we could have during this session would be
to have a member of the Bloc-but at least Bloc members are often
reasonable-but Reform Party members are never reasonable. Can
you imagine a member of the Reform Party as Deputy Chairman of
the committees of the whole House? Do you want to work with
someone from the Reform Party? Absolutely not, no one could
work with them.
They would sit over there with their whips-and we must not
forget the rope too, since someone needs to be hanged from time to
time. As for those accused of something, not someone found guilty,
they deserve a royal thrashing.
I would be greatly disappointed if the government were to decide
to have a Reformer as Deputy Chairman. Theirs is an anti-people
party, a party for the strongest, one which believes that he who
yells the loudest get the most. For anyone who is sick or poor,
theirs would be the last party in the world to vote for.
Mr. Lee Morrison: What do you know about poverty?
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to
speak and for giving me far more attention than I got from those
yahoos on the other side, with all their uncontrolled bellowing, and
with absolutely no qualifications or qualities to be the Deputy
Chairman of the whole House.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to stand to speak to this motion.
(2225 )
I first want to say that the remarks I am about to make should not
be construed as being remarks that are negative toward the hon.
member who is pursuing the position of deputy chairman. As
everyone knows, the hon. member has done a good job in the
House in terms of being able to understand the rules and certainly
he is up on the rules. Nobody would quarrel with that.
I think the quarrel that the people in the Reform Party have and
anybody who has read the red book has is that this is completely
contrary to what the government promised it would do. The great
irony is that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who is
pursuing the position is the one who wrote the policy for the red
book. There is a great inconsistency here.
We do not need to hammer too much on that broken promise. I
think it has been done fairly sufficiently this evening. It is pretty
obvious for anybody who wants to have a good look at it. The fact
is the hon. member himself wrote the red book promise and is
breaking it himself. People can judge for themselves whether that
is integrity. I would say it is not.
I want to follow up on some of the comments I have heard
tonight and perhaps talk a little bit about the two fundamental
visions we are hearing about in the House. One of course is the
Liberal-Tory vision and the other is our vision.
Before I do that I feel compelled to follow up on the smear
campaign that we are hearing. Certainly the member for
Carleton-Gloucester was going on calling us all kinds of names.
That is fine. I do not think that carries much weight with ordinary
Canadians.
I do want to make reference to his point where he said that he
thought the Bloc Quebecois members were very rational thinkers.
He seemed to agree with them a lot. He is certainly entitled to his
opinion, but I am surprised at his comments. I would be surprised if
the people in Carleton-Gloucester really agreed with him. We are
talking about the people who are proposing to break up the country.
The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester seems to be supporting
them. That is quite shocking. In a sense, when we consider how
close the government came to losing the last referendum campaign,
within 50,000 votes, perhaps it is not so surprising after all.
I do want to talk for a moment about the two fundamental
differences which really relate to this whole issue. This whole issue
is a microcosm of the two fundamental differences in visions of the
country between the Liberal-Tory regime and the Reform Party
regime. The best way to explain the differences is to look at the
history.
An hon. member back here is continuing the smear campaign
that was started earlier in the day. Hopefully they will find out that
it is futile.
Let us look at the record. With the Liberals and Tories in power,
going back to the early seventies the debt has gone from about $13
billion to about $600 billion. I will do for my Liberal friends across
the way what I often do for high school students. I will point out to
them how much money that is. If I had a stack of hundred dollar
bills about two metres high, that would be a million dollars. If we
stacked our debt in one hundred dollar bills, it would be 1,200
kilometres high. That is an astounding amount of money.
Only a few weeks ago the finance minister made a presentation
to the finance committee. It was a sort of state of the nation address
with respect to the economy. I was quite surprised when, knowing
that we had this huge debt problem, the finance minister came in
and announced that the deficit for last year was only $28.6 billion.
Only $28.6 billion. And what happened? The Liberal members
began to clap. They said: ``Is that not wonderful. It is only $28.6
billion''.
5865
As my leader pointed out, only in the never never land of
Ottawa would $28.6 billion in the hole be applauded. There they
were lined up like crows on a telephone wire applauding away as
if this were some great accomplishment. However, I can assure
the people across the way that back home in the real world there
was no applauding because the people back home know the only
place that money comes from to pay for these deficits is out of
the pockets of ordinary Canadians.
(2230 )
I think this is a fundamental difference between the Liberal-Tory
vision and the Reform vision. The Liberals and the Tories have for
years and years piled up the debt, ran up taxes. Hon. members
across the way have probably heard over the last few days, because
we have mentioned it once or twice, that in the three years they
have been in power the average Canadian family has seen its
purchasing power go down by $3,000 per family per year; a
national pay cut courtesy of the Liberal government.
The Liberal member across the way is laughing. But I can say
that the people who do not have incomes of $64,300 plus all the
expense money that MPs have are not laughing because they have
to pay for that out of their savings.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, it is getting a little late. I am having a
tough time hearing the hon. member. I know you want to hear him,
so I wonder if we could just keep it down a bit.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy. I am sure I
can expect it from hon. members across the way as well.
Taxes are not the only thing that separates the Liberal-Tory
vision from the Reform vision. Their belief in big government,
high taxes and bloated bureaucracies breeds something perhaps
even more insidious. There is no question that it does. I am talking
about the record high levels of unemployment in this country.
There is no coincidence that as the debt started to grow in the
early 1970s so did the unemployment rate in the country. When
Pierre Trudeau took power in 1972 somewhere in the range of
535,000 people were unemployed. By the time he left office in
1984 it was up to 1.45 million people.
The Tories continued that trend and again there was record high
unemployment. What kind of unemployment do we have today?
There are 1.4 million unemployed.
It would be bad enough if it were only the 1.4 million
unemployed, but that does not take into account the 500,000 to 1
million people who have completely given up looking for work
because the Liberal vision of bloated government has not worked
for them. There are 2 million to 3 million people who are
underemployed. By that I mean people who have an education but
who cannot find a job that suits their skills. One in four Canadians
is very concerned about losing their job.
Canadians have no confidence in the economy. Too many people
have been laid off, too many tax cuts have come down the pike to
ever be assured they will have a job for very long.
This is also a key difference between the Liberal-Tory vision
where they seem to tolerate high levels of unemployment and can
offer up nothing creative, nothing new to give people some hope.
A great concern I have and which I gather has been shared lately
by the Prime Minister and the finance minister is their dependence
on these make work programs like infrastructure. The Prime
Minister and certainly the finance minister in the past have said
that these programs simply do not create long term, permanent
jobs. But what do they do? They keep coming back to the same old
ideas because they cannot bring themselves to face the fact that big
government and bloated bureaucracies cannot do it all. The
government cannot have its fingers in everybody's business all the
time because it kills jobs. Surely by now, after 25 years of social
engineering, big government in everybody's face, we have to arrive
at the conclusion that big government does not work. It does not
create jobs, it kills jobs. The facts speak for themselves.
It is not only about taxes and unemployment but also the
tremendous strain this puts on families by both parents having to
work, one to simply pay the taxes for the government.
(2235)
The other issue that we run into when there is a government that
spends $600 billion over 25 years, more than it takes in, a deficit
last year of $28.6 billion, is that we have interest payments on that
debt that this year will be about $49 billion.
The hon. member across the way thinks that is funny. I should
point out to the hon. member that the finance minister writes
cheques to bankers in Japan, Germany and the United States for
amounts that are much larger than he writes to the provinces for
things like health care, old age security and unemployment
insurance. That is $49 billion.
I do not think that is a laughing matter. I would argue that it is
deadly serious. It is deadly serious because of the impact it has on
social programs.
My friends across the way have cloaked themselves in the flag of
medicare. They have run around telling Canadians how they are
going to save it.
The last election campaign I remember extremely well. I am sure
my colleagues on this side do as well. I remember how members
5866
over there were engaging in a smear campaign at that time and said
that Reformers were out to get health care.
As it turned out, it looks like the Liberals were wolves in sheep's
clothing. Not only were they not telling the absolute truth about the
Reform Party, they went out and cut $3 billion plus out of health
care themselves.
They have closed more hospitals, have put more health workers
out of work than any provincial government in this country. The
provincial governments combined have not taken a whack out of
health care like the federal government has. That is a fact.
It is about time that the Liberals started to face some of the
scrutiny falling on the provinces which are taking a lot of the heat
for health care cuts.
I would dearly love to see Canadians get on planes, get in their
cars and get on trains to come to Ottawa to protest on the lawn of
the Parliament Buildings over the cuts to health care. That is where
the cutting started. The federal government cut $3 billion and left
the provinces no choice.
By the way, I am going to say how the Reform Party would
remedy that. Forty-nine billion dollars a year in interest payments
has also pinched the federal government with respect to payments
to old age security.
I remember in the last election campaign the Liberals went after
us hammer and tong: ``You guys are going to cut benefits to
seniors''. I remember it very well.
I hope I run against the same guy I ran against last time. I can
hardly wait to confront him with the fact that it was the Liberals
who cut seniors' pensions more than any government in the history
of the country.
Who was it? It was the Liberals. That is the difference between
the Reform vision and the Liberal-Tory vision. We have always
been straight with Canadians. We have told people the truth.
I do not know what the members opposite were saying in the last
election campaign about social programs. I expect a lot of people
are going to be examining those documents as we get closer to the
next election campaign.
There is another important way that we differ from the
Liberal-Tory vision.
An hon. member: We are sane.
Mr. Solberg: We are sane, as my friend says.
The Liberal-Tory vision is one that is full of broken promises.
We talked a minute ago about the hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands who has broken a promise himself, in effect, even
though he is pursuing the position of deputy speaker.
He has written, basically, the red book promise to allow deputy
speakers to be chosen from the opposition benches but he, himself,
is allowing his name to stand, rather unbelievably. That is just a
microcosm of the overall bigger problem.
We have broken promises on the GST. I hope my hon. friends
across the way have not forgotten that the Deputy Prime Minister
was finally hung by her own words last spring and had to run for
re-election. It was a national embarrassment.
I could not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister had to take a
poll in her own riding to determine whether it was safe for her to
finally hand in her resignation after she had been shamed into it by
not only this party but Canadians from around the country.
Absolutely shameful. That is only one of the broken promises.
There are a lot of them.
(2240)
I could not believe the spectacle, again involving the Deputy
Prime Minister, on the weekend. She was running around telling
people that it was not her fault the CBC was being cut. She said that
it was the finance minister's fault. I believe she is the Deputy Prime
Minister. I believe she sits around the cabinet table. I believe there
was a red book promise to provide stable funding.
Stable funding does not mean funding enough to run a stable. It
means that the funding will be there in the same amounts as it was
in the beginning.
That is only another of many promises. I remember during the
NAFTA debate how hon. members across the way railed against
free trade: ``Free trade is going to kill Canada. It is going to be
horrible. It is going to be something that steals our sovereignty''.
We heard it from every single member across the way, and what did
they do? As soon as they got in they signed the agreement. They
broke both legs to sign the agreement. Again, we see that their
actions cannot meet their words and they should be ashamed.
On the issue of day care the Liberals said that when there was
growth in the economy of over 3 per cent, or whatever it was, they
would create 150,000 day care spaces. That has still not happened.
What is going on here? That was a promise that undoubtedly got
the Liberals a lot of votes. They told people they wanted to ensure
working parents would have some support.
I personally do not agree with their promise but they used it to
lever themselves into power, which is absolutely ridiculous. They
should be ashamed of that.
I do not want to tie up the whole time talking about the Liberals'
poor record. That is too depressing. People need some hope. Let me
talk about Reform's fresh start. Let me talk about the new way to
do things.
Reformers want to give Canadians a government they can afford,
a smaller government, a government with lower taxes, a
government that will leave more money in the pockets of taxpayers
and the job creators so they can make these decisions, so they do
not have big government in their faces at every step, so they do not
5867
have a government in their faces that tells them how they have to
raise their children, what they have to do at every turn.
For crying out loud, ordinary Canadians are asked to raised their
families. They are expected to fill out their income tax forms.
Surely they can decide what to do with their own money. We do not
need big government in our faces at every step. No way.
We are going to do more. We are going to provide lower taxes for
the people who create the jobs. I cannot think of an economist in
the country who has not spoken of the need to lower unemployment
insurance premiums. Reform is offering a 28 per cent cut. That
would be an immediate surge of energy to the job creators in the
economy and we would see a tremendous amount of job creation.
I ask members across the way to compare that to the government
approach to job creation. Recently Atlantic Canadian provinces
signed the GST harmonization deal with the help of $1 billion to
make it a little easier for the premiers to go along with it. But now
housing prices in Atlantic Canada are going to go up by $3,000 to
$4,000.
An hon. member: That is not true.
Mr. Solberg: The hon. member across the way says that it is not
true, but I ask him to check with the Canadian Real Estate
Association. Those are not my numbers. They come from the
Canadian Real Estate Association, which is very concerned. It will
kill hundreds of jobs in Atlantic Canada. It will cost people
thousands of dollars. That is the Liberal vision.
Our vision is to give people lower taxes, not different taxes, not
higher taxes, lower taxes. Reformers will give more incentives to
job creators through lowering the inclusion rate on capital gains.
That will bring all kinds of investment into the country. That way
people like the finance minister will not have to send his assets
outside of the country. We would like to have those assets inside
the country. I am sure it would create a lot of jobs if we could have
them all here. The Reform Party speaks for ordinary Canadians. It
speaks for people who have been beaten up by Liberal and
Conservative governments over the last 25 years. Canadians have
had a $3,000 national pay cut since the Liberals came to power.
People cannot take it any more.
(2245)
I urge my friends not to be quite so partisan about it and please
come on board and sign up with the Reform fresh start program.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity. I like
what the member had to say in his last remark about representing
ordinary Canadians. I have not seen any aboriginal people,
blacks-
Mr. Abbott: You weren't at our conference in Vancouver or you
would have seen them.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, the truth must hurt. The truth seems
to hurt the member for Kootenay East. He seems to have a bit of a
sore spot about aboriginal people or blacks or ordinary Canadians
that this party on this side of the House represents.
All day the members across have voiced their great outrage at
being singled out by the Prime Minister by being called extremists.
They have a problem with that extremist label.
This is the same party that had problems with the member for
Calgary Centre. They ousted the member for Calgary Southwest.
These are very ordinary members but they had a problem with
them. I guess those two members are not extremist enough, along
with the member for Calgary West who is not running again. That
party is now advertising so that they can get somebody to run in
that riding in Calgary, because I think that particular member is not
extremist enough.
This is the same party that has members like the member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan who if he had his way would have me in the
back of the room because I might be losing business for him. This
is the same party that has the member for Capilano-Howe Sound
who thinks that we belong on some far off island wearing shades
and shorts so that we can get a tan. He thinks that is all we do.
This is the party that objects to being called extremist but has no
tolerance for people other than the people who are around that
particular area. This is the same party that when it was politically
convenient thought that Newt Gingrich was the best thing since
sliced bread. Now because New Gingrich is not so popular, all of a
sudden they are sort of backing off from having any association
with him.
(2250 )
This is the same party in which the hon. member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia says: ``I am a red neck and I
am proud to be one''. That is the same party that espouses the kind
of attitudes and policies which are detrimental to other people.
All of a sudden the Reform Party seems to be the champion of
the needy. Reformers are the champions of the poor. It is now
politically convenient to defend the poor. The government defends
the poor whether it is politically convenient or not. Liberals have
always defended the poor.
5868
Let me talk about the constituency which I represent as
envisioned by the hon. member for Kootenay East. That member
has a problem with Nunavut, a new territory which will be
incorporated when the division of the Northwest Territories occurs
on April 1, 1999. The member for Kootenay East calls it the illegal
new province of Nunavut. What is illegal about it? It is a very
big area. It has three time zones. It is larger than the area which
he represents. He has a problem with it. The population is only
about 20,000, but those 20,000 people-
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know you will
understand what I am saying. The time will soon run out and this
member is so far away from the topic that I know you would want
him to be relevant.
The Speaker: Yes, and I know that all of the members this
evening have been relevant and I know that member is relevant
also. He is going to be relevant right now.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, this same member thinks that
Nunavut is an illegal province. Admittedly, there are about 20,000
people in Nunavut. However, those 20,000 people can record their
history back thousands of years. They have occupied that land for
at least 4,000 years. I would be careful if I was the hon. member for
Kootenay East when calling it an illegal province.
Eighty-five per cent of the population is Inuit. However, in
negotiations with the Government of Canada we have managed to
convince it that we should divide the Northwest Territories in 1999.
We should be celebrating. I know the Prime Minister will be with
us when we celebrate the new territory of Nunavut in 1999.
The hon. member has a problem because so few people inhabit
Nunavut. If the member had his way he would probably move them
into apartment buildings in Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal. The
difference between that member and me is that I love the north. I
love the land. It is my home. There is no way that any member is
going to force me to move down here or force the people of the
north to move down here just because they do not agree that we
have a right to our self-determination within the country of Canada.
(2255 )
It seems that all of a sudden the Reform Party is now the
champion of the poor.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Where did you buy a house?
Miss Grey: Where do you live, Jack? Here in Ottawa? Where
are your kids?.
Mr. Anawak: For the record I live in Rankin Inlet and my
family is in Rankin Inlet. As a matter of fact I was talking to my
children in Rankin Inlet earlier tonight before I came to the House.
They are in school in Rankin Inlet.
All of a sudden Reformers are champions of the poor because it
happens to be politically convenient. With help like that we do not
need any enemies. As far as that party is concerned aboriginal
people should not have recognition.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): A party? We are not
even enjoying ourselves.
Mr. Anawak: Some aboriginal people have been in Canada for
36,000 years. The Inuit are relative newcomers. We have only been
here for 4,000 years.
I do not know if my other colleagues, the aboriginal leaders
across the country, welcome the support of the Reform Party when
it is convenient for the Reform Party to support the aboriginal
people. I do not know how my other colleagues feel.
Mr. Hanger: Turn around ask them. They are right behind you.
Mr. Anawak: I will depend on the people who have always
championed the rights of the poor, of the aboriginal people, of
minorities such as our present Prime Minister of Canada. They talk
about the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister ought to have kept
her promise to resign. She had the courage to resign and run again
and win. She won big by the way.
To paraphrase what the Reform is doing there must be something
that is bothering the Reform Party.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Yes, it is you. It is
called Liberals.
Mr. Anawak: They seem to be protesting a little too much. I do
not know how to say it but it is along the lines of ``thou doth protest
too much''. English being my second language sometimes I am not
quite sure of the proper pronunciation. Yes, it is Shakespeare:
``Thou doth protest too much''.
It is an honour for me to speak in this Chamber and be able to say
the kind of things I say to the Reform Party. They are protesting
what I am saying but that is politics or debate. At the same time, the
Reform Party has problems with the rights that were gained
rightfully through treaties and they start doing certain things.
A Reform member from British Columbia was arrested for
illegal fishing. What if it had been an aboriginal person doing the
same thing? I did not see the Reform Party protesting the law. This
is a party that considers itself a law and order party but it is
condoning breaking the law. Are they protesting the fact that this
member broke the law? I did not hear any of that, Mr. Speaker, but
thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
(2300 )
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
5869
The Speaker: We have run out of time. I will hear the
member's point of order.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my point of order is
very short.
The hon. member has made an absolute statement saying that
one of my colleagues is guilty of an offence under the law. Mr.
Speaker, it is unacceptable to make that comment. The hon.
member in question has not been before the courts of this country
to determine that one way or the other. I think it is unfair that a
member in this House makes an accusation that is absolutely untrue
and unfounded.
The Speaker: I do not remember all of the words that the
member said. I do not know that he said them. I will be happy to
review the blues. The hon. member is here and he knows what he
said. My colleague, did you say that?
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I was just reading the news that a
member was arrested by officers of the law. Usually one gets
arrested when one breaks the law.
The Speaker: Colleagues, if you will just leave me a little bit of
time, I will review the blues. If it is necessary, I will come back to
the House.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
The question is on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 145)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-27
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Crête
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
5870
Telegdi
Terrana
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed-170
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bélair
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Cowling
Dubé
English
Fillion
Gallaway
Jacob
Mitchell
Pomerleau
Serré
St-Laurent
Torsney
Wood
(2330)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
[English]
The next question is on the main motion.
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]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the Bloc Quebecois will
be voting against, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will vote against
this motion with the exception of those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, we vote no on this matter.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 146)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed-130
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
5871
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ringma
Rocheleau
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-67
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bélair
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Cowling
Dubé
English
Fillion
Gallaway
Jacob
Mitchell
Pomerleau
Serré
St-Laurent
Torsney
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration, interrupted on October 24,
1996, of the motion that this House recognize Montreal as the
economic mainspring of Quebec society and, therefore, condemn
the federal government's lack of concrete initiatives in supporting
the Montreal area economy, primarily: the federal government's
under-investment in research and development; its inequitable
allocation of federal purchases of goods and services; its lack of
willingness to support Montreal as a major financial centre in
North America and its termination of Montreal's role as a major
transportation centre; of the amendment and of the amendment to
the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred division on the amendment to the amendment of
Mr. Ménard.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which
was defeated on the following division.)
(Division No. 147)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ringma
Rocheleau
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Williams-63
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
5872
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Zed-135
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bélair
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Cowling
Dubé
English
Fillion
Gallaway
Jacob
Mitchell
Pomerleau
Serré
St-Laurent
Torsney
Wood
(2340)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment to the
amendment lost.
[English]
The next question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, the House would
give its 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 being recorded as voting
nay.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this
motion.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will support this
motion with the exception of those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: The NDP will vote no this matter.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I will be voting
against this motion.
Mr. Mayfield: No, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 147.]
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated. The
next question is on the main motion.
(2345)
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger): Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, the House
would give its 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 being recorded as voting
nay.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of
the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will oppose this
motion with the exception of those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the NDP will vote no on this matter.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I did not bother to vote on those
silly amendments, but I do vote with our hon. whip on this one.
Mr. Bhaduria: I will be voting against this motion, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 148)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont) -40
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
5873
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Zed -159
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bélair
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Cowling
Dubé
English
Fillion
Gallaway
Jacob
Mitchell
Pomerleau
Serré
St-Laurent
Torsney
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
_____________________________________________
5873
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-35, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code (minimum wage), as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred recorded division on report stage of Bill C-35.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
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 nay.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for this procedure?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of
the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will oppose
this motion with the exception of those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the NDP votes yes on this motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 149)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
5874
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Solomon
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont) -41
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Zed -158
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bélair
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Cowling
Dubé
English
Fillion
Gallaway
Jacob
Mitchell
Pomerleau
Serré
St-Laurent
Torsney
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (for the Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
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]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of
the Official Opposition will vote with the Government.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will oppose this
motion with the exception of those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the NDP will vote yes.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 150)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
5875
Bethel
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Crête
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed-173
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-26
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bélair
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Cowling
Dubé
English
Fillion
Gallaway
Jacob
Mitchell
Pomerleau
Serré
St-Laurent
Torsney
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to
retract any words that I said about the member for Delta having
broken the law. I apologize.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for Nunatsiaq for that
courtesy.
It being ll.50 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.)