CONTENTS
Friday, November 1, 1996
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Resumption of Debate 5993
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5996
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5997
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5999
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6003
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6004
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6005
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6006
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6007
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6007
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6007
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 6007
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 6007
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6009
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6009
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 6010
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6010
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6012
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6012
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6012
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6013
Resumption of debate on address in reply 6014
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 6015
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 6020
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 6025
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 6025
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 6028
Division on amendment to the amendment deferred 6029
5993
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 1, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
Translation]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
The House resumed from March 5, 1996 consideration of the
motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in
reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and of the
amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Co-operation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today as Minister for International
Co-operation and Minister responsible for Francophonie to add my
voice to the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the
throne.
Needless to say, it is a great day for a member of Parliament
when he addresses the House of Commons for the first time as a
minister. I feel especially honoured since it is the first time a
francophone from outside Quebec has been appointed to the
position of Minister responsible for Francophonie, and I intend to
do a good job of representing Canada at the upper levels of the
international French-speaking community.
First of all, I would like to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister
for appointing me, for giving the great honour and privilege of
serving the people of my country.
I should emphasize the contribution of the people of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, without whom, of course, I would
not be here as either a member or a minister. I am very grateful to
them and I would like to say that I will remain first and foremost
the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
(1010)
They sent me to Parliament as their representative and, even
though I am now a minister, I will continue to represent them
faithfully at every opportunity.
Last week marked the 30th anniversary of my arrival in the
House of Commons. I have spent 20 years in politics and, as you
know, I also used to work here as a public servant. As I said before,
I first set foot in the House of Commons on October 25, 1966 as a
waiter, and I was lucky. I now stand before you on this November
1, 1996 addressing the House as a minister.
In the past two years, I had the opportunity and honour to
perform the duties of chief government whip. Again, I must tell
you that it was for me an unforgettable experience, and I thank the
Prime Minister for entrusting me with that task.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for
Stormont-Dundas, who was appointed chief government whip a
few days ago, and wish him the best of luck. Needless to say, his
personal experience in a previous incarnation will probably help
him do a good job. I mean, of course, his personal experience as a
hockey coach, not as a referee.
I also wish to congratulate the government on its excellent
agenda as outlined in the throne speech, which can be summed up
as putting government finances on a healthier footing, reviving
Canada's economy and creating jobs. Canadian interest rates are
now at their lowest level in 30 years.
Over 600,000 jobs have been created since the last election, and
Canada will soon be able to function without borrowing money.
This is a rather spectacular achievement for a country whose public
finances were in poor shape just a few years ago.
I want to take a few moments to tell you about the francophonie.
Whether at the municipal, provincial or federal level, I always did
my best to show my commitment to the francophone community.
In 1983, I was the founding president of the Ontario section of the
Association internationale des parlementaires de langue française.
Until my appointment, a few days ago, I was the parliamentary
secretary general of the AIPLF in the House of Commons.
I also had the honour of receiving, on two occasions, the Ordre
de la Pléiade from this illustrious organization. This says
something about my will to help preserve and promote French
language and culture at home and around the world. Representing
Canada among the francophonie's official circles will give me an
opportunity to pursue my commitment on the international scene
and to continue the work of my predecessors.
As a Franco-Ontarian, I will stress to the international
community the contribution made by all francophones in Canada,
whether they live in Quebec or in Ontario, which is my home
province and
5994
that of other parliamentarians, including the members for
Ottawa-Vanier and Stormont-Dundas.
I thank and congratulate the hon. member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel for doing so much for the francophone
community. I hope to rise to the occasion and to continue the work
he has done since he first arrived in this House.
(1015)
A few days ago, during my trip to Vietnam, my first one as
minister, I had discussions concerning the francophone summit to
be held in Hanoi next year and to which we will make a major
contribution. I firmly intend to support a more politically involved
francophonie.
We can do more than to protect language and culture. We can be
a leader among French-speaking countries and do our share to
ensure global security.
As pointed out in the speech from the throne, and I quote: ``In an
interdependent world, security means taking an active role on the
international stage''.
[English]
Why is it that Canada is so involved in international
co-operation? Since our aid program started from the 1950s
international co-operation has been a principal vocation for
Canada. It has emerged from our shared values of justice, equity,
democracy and freedom. International co-operation is our means of
working together in practical ways to build a world that is safer,
more prosperous and more humane.
This is a role that has manifested itself throughout the years. I
remember as a child in school where missionary work was
emphasized, where children were encouraged to contribute
portions of their lunch money, instead of buying candy bars and
soda pop. We were asked to make small contributions to
missionary work at that time, many of them organized by the
church of which I am a member. We were encouraged to do that, to
aid people in Africa and in China and so on. I remember in
particular the China effort. That is the heritage from which we
undertake our work in international co-operation.
For a middle power such as Canada, development assistance is a
way of protecting our values as well as contributing to global
security. It is a way of contributing to the world community, a kind
of ticket enabling Canada to play its unique role in the major
international organizations, the United Nations, the
Commonwealth, la francophonie, the IMF, the World Bank and the
development banks of Africa, Asia and the Americas. It is a way of
being a global citizen.
International co-operation also helps Canada influence events in
the world in a positive way. This week, for example, the United
Nations secretary general named Mr. Raymond Chrétien, Canada's
ambassador to the U.S., as his own special envoy to central Africa.
Mr. Chrétien will work with central African leaders on finding a
solution to the conflict that now threatens hundreds of thousands of
people in Zaire and in the great lakes region of Africa.
That kind of appointment shows that Canada and Canada's
representatives have credibility where it counts. I would call that
the Pearsonian heritage. That credibility comes from having made
an international contribution through our aid program.
Since 1994 Canada has contributed money to organizations such
as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Red Cross,
UNICEF and others to help ease the suffering of refugees and
displaced people, to find homes for orphans following the genocide
in Rwanda two years ago. Our peacekeeping efforts helped keep the
airports open in Kigali during the critical period in 1994 which
enabled relief flights to land, providing food, medicine and so on to
the starving people and to the wounded. All this work means that
we are listened to when we raise our voices in the international
council. Other countries know that we walk our talk in the world.
However, aid is not only responding to emergencies such as the
one in central Africa. Development assistance is also a long term
investment which has already paid off dramatically. Let me give a
few examples.
In literacy and life expectancy the developing world has
achieved in 30 years what it took the industrialized world 100 years
to accomplish. Eighty per cent of the world's children now have
been vaccinated against the six most infectious diseases and small
pox has been almost completely eradicated. Since 1960 life
expectancy in developing countries has risen from 47 to 61 years.
Two-thirds of the world's people now know how to read, which is
up from half in 1960. We must keep this long term investment
precisely because it is delivering results and because human
development is the best guarantee to global security.
(1020)
[Translation]
The safety of each and everyone of us is related to several
national factors such as the economy, the environment, social
security and political stability. In the long term, however, it is the
world context that will shape the world in which our children will
live. This context will be determined, to a large extent, by how we
will have met the most serious challenge of our time: world
poverty.
I encountered these realities as soon as I took up my new
position. I saw that even countries with impressive economies like
China have huge pockets of poverty, in particular in the
northeastern area of that country, where the Canadian International
Development Agency has set up its community projects.
5995
Poverty reduction is a key element of Canada's development
co-operation. Furthermore, it is partly as a result of Canada's
influence that this has become a leading objective in international
institutions. I intend to address this issue next November 7 with
representatives of the World Bank when they are here to present
their report on this serious matter.
In order to fight poverty effectively and contribute to sustainable
development in developing countries, the Canadian International
Development Agency has established 6 broad program priorities.
The first priority is to meet basic human needs, and 25 per cent of
Canadian assistance falls into this category. These basic needs are,
of course, food, potable water, education and health.
According to UNICEF's own evaluation, our contribution of
approximately $24 million to their programs meant that, in 1995,
over 3 million children were spared the mental impairment caused
by a lack of iodine in their diet. UNICEF's executive director
personally congratulated the Prime Minister of Canada for his
leadership and that of his government in this area.
The second priority is the integration of women. Whether you
are talking about food production, health or education, all studies
have shown that when women are helped, the entire family is
helped. Canada is one of the countries taking part in efforts focused
on primary education in Africa known as the education for all
initiative. This initiative is designed to improve the quality of the
instruction given young girls in 15 African countries.
The third priority is human rights, democracy and good
governance. In a few days I am going to Haiti, where, under this
heading, we are supporting the efforts of that country's society by
providing assistance with elections, as well as with police training
and reform of the legal system, among other things.
[English]
In the area of the environment, CIDA supports the tree growers
co-operative project in India. India loses some 15,000 square
kilometres of forest per year. That is an area of forest about the size
of Prince Edward Island.
Since 1993 CIDA has funded local co-operatives to plant trees
on marginal land and as a result of the tree planting effort Indian
villagers now have new skills, improved health and greater food
security.
The fifth area is private sector development. An example is the
six year old Peru-Canada fund which does good development work
and at the same time has positive economic spinoffs for Canada. It
is a counterpart fund, which means that CIDA provides funds to
Peruvian companies to buy the Canadian equipment they need. The
Peru-Canada fund is a win-win combination. It is important for us
to note this. It has stimulated economies in hundreds of
impoverished Peruvian communities and at the same time it
protects Canadian jobs by financing the export of Canadian goods.
(1025 )
The sixth area of priority is that of infrastructure services. This is
an important sector because it emphasizes that with
environmentally sound infrastructure services, emphasis on poorer
groups and improving the building capacity of other countries we
can make life better.
I want to speak briefly of the relevance of international
assistance for Canada. International assistance is not simply
charity. It also has short and long term relevance to the Canadian
economy. Every dollar invested in the developing world yields over
$5 of return in the form of Canadian goods and services, jobs,
contracts and export sales, although that is not the reason for
giving. Canadians should know that even on that score there is
enormous benefit for Canada. Over 70 cents of every development
assistance dollar is disbursed to Canadians and it results in over
36,000 jobs per year for Canadians. Canadian food aid alone
contributes 5,700 jobs.
[Translation]
I would like to take the next few minutes to tell you about
CIDA's partners. In order to implement our programs, we turn to
the expertise, talent, and knowledge of partners known as NGOs,
non-governmental organizations, which include universities,
colleges-over a hundred-, co-operatives, associations, and of
course certain companies. There are over 2,000 working with us in
one way or another.
Partnerships between the government sector and other sectors
that arise through international development efforts have, in turn,
led to horizontal partnerships, alliances between organizations and
agencies that enrich and consolidate the contributions of all
involved.
[English]
I have outlined the development assistance program and what it
is doing to help build a safer world and how it provides benefits
both overseas and here in Canada. Now I would like to talk about
how we as a government are managing the process. It is not enough
to do good; we must do it well.
The Canadian International Development Agency and its
hundreds of partners, organizations, firms and institutions have
earned a distinguished reputation for doing good and doing it well.
To help these partnerships endure and flourish and to help new ones
take root, CIDA must be able to engage the Canadian suppliers of
goods and services who offer the best quality and the best price. To
ensure this happens I intend to do my best to improve the already
good contracting procedures which have already been opened up by
my predecessor and others and I will be pushing to modernize the
process and push it forward.
5996
Finally, CIDA also needs to find new ways to reach out and
involve young Canadians in international development. Today's
young people will lead the world in the next century and it is
important that they be well prepared and that they be cognizant
of our role as a nation and our role in international development.
It will be up to them in the 21st century to carry forward Canada's
unique role in international co-operation.
I want to conclude by reiterating my thanks to the electors of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for the excellent opportunity given
to me and to the Prime Minister who has assigned me this
formidable task of Minister of International Co-operation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member spent quite a bit of time patting himself on the back for
what a wonderful job he has done representing his constituents and
for the tremendous job the government has done, he claims, on
reducing the deficit and getting the whole country into such
splendid order.
The fact is that if the Reform Party had not been sitting on this
side of the House opposite them, we would still be mired in the
days of Liberal tax and spend. There is absolutely no doubt about
that. Everybody across the country knows that if it were not for
Reform having brought the issues of the debt and deficit to the
notice of the public during the 1993 campaign, the Liberal
government would not have done a darn thing about it.
(1030)
I was at a meeting in the Vancouver area and the member from
Halifax was present. I heard her say to the audience: ``As a tax and
spend Liberal, I crashed and burned with the way the Minister of
Finance has handled the finances of the country''. She crashed and
burned. What a tremendously visual thing that is. Her entire being
as a Liberal was destroyed by what was being done by the finance
minister. He would not have done it had it not been for the public
pressure built by the Reform Party of Canada, the Alberta
government, following up with the Harris government in Ontario.
The Liberals have addressed the deficit to a degree and let us be
sure, they certainly fiddled the figures a bit by increasing the
deficit in their first year. Even if we agree they have done
something, what they have subjected the country to is the torture of
a thousand small cuts. It has been cut here, cut there, cut here.
Nobody has had the time to heal and get on with their lives. The
public resolve has been broken down to fix the problems. The
Liberals should have done it rapidly and quickly the way it was
done in New Zealand; amputate entire departments so that we
could get the budget balanced quickly and get on with our lives.
This was not done.
The Liberals take credit for some of this but in fact while they
have fiddled and made this torture of a thousand small cuts, our
debt has built up almost to the $600 billion level, and that has eaten
away at our social programs. By the year 2007 they will have cut $7
billion from health care transfers because they will not get on top of
the problem fast enough.
The Liberal claim that all sorts of jobs have been created is
baloney to the 1.8 million people across the country who are out of
work, the 18 per cent to 24 per cent of young people who are out of
work. I am lucky because in my riding it is only around 4 per cent. I
am in an area where the youth are well employed.
Since the hon. member is so proud of his representation for his
constituents, could he please give me some examples of how he has
represented his constituents in his votes? There are plenty of
examples here of how he has suppressed his colleagues when he
was the whip and forced them to toe the party line. I am sure his
constituents would love to hear how he perhaps canvassed their
views and represented them in this place as opposed to representing
the party line.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is a rather interesting set of
comments. The hon. member criticized the government for not
cutting enough and for cutting over too many areas, as he put it. In
his view, if I can summarize it, we should have cut an entire
department at once. I believe he said that to amputate entire
departments would have been better.
The member is entitled to his views. However, there should be a
little consistency in the Reform Party. I know that is asking for a lot
but let me remind everyone of the so-called taxpayers budget. This
document is entitled: ``The Reform Party's Plan to Balance the
Federal Budget and Provide Social and Economic Security for the
21st Century''. It has quotes from the leader of the Reform Party.
The document is best remembered as the budget that would not
add up. The hon. member for Mississauga South, an accountant,
did some mathematical calculations of this document a year or two
back. As an accountant he knows how to count. He indicated to us
that the numbers did not jibe but let us not dwell on that. Let us talk
about the fact that the Reform Party says that we should have
amputated an entire department and not cut all over the place. Here
is what the so-called taxpayers budget in brief said.
(1035 )
Here are the cuts Reform wanted to make: social security
spending cut 15 per cent; total cash transfers to the provinces cut 24
per cent; other transfers cut 6 per cent; equalization cut 35 per cent;
Canada assistance plan, welfare, cut 35 per cent; health cut 11 per
cent; post-secondary education cut 9 per cent. I am reading from
the Reform Party document which states we should not cut all over
the place.
An hon. member: How about seniors?
5997
Mr. Boudria: I will get to seniors in a minute. My colleague
asked about seniors. Seniors, excluding CPP, cut 15 per cent. The
unemployment insurance cut 22 per cent. Aboriginal programs cut
24 per cent. Other social security spending cut 11 per cent.
Let us get into some of the other stuff here. Transfers and
assistance to businesses cut 76 per cent. International assistance,
my department presumably, to be cut 27 per cent. Other subsidies
cut 24 per cent. The CBC to be cut 36 per cent. The Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation to be cut 24 per cent. Other
crown corporations cut 21 per cent. Defence to be cut 9 per cent.
All other department spending to be cut by 20 per cent. And the
member across said we should have amputated in one place and
spared everything else. The leader of the Reform Party wanted to
amputate the head.
The member in his remarks asked me to prove to him that I have
represented my constituents well. I do not intend to do that. The
electors of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell do not need to justify to
a member of the Reform Party their choice for their member of
Parliament.
I would not have raised this but the member has raised the
proposition so I will have to answer. In the last election in my
riding the people blessed me with a support of 80.2 per cent of all
votes cast. The Reform Party in my riding received 7 per cent of the
votes cast. The Reform Party and the Conservative Party together
would still not get the 15 per cent to get the electoral return back. I
would not have bragged about this but he is the one who brought it
up in terms of how I represent my electors.
My constituents have elected me at the municipal, provincial and
federal levels continuously for 20 years; three times municipally,
once provincially and three times at the federal level with the
results I just enunciated. It is up to them, not the member across the
way, to decide whether I do an adequate, satisfactory or better job. I
intend to be accountable to the electors of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and least of all to the Reform Party.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with the hon. member for Jonquière.
In 1994, the first throne speech by the present government made
no mention of changing the Canadian federation. The Prime
Minister had stated that he wanted to put constitutional quarrels on
ice. Those are his words.
It is obvious today that he has changed his mind. In the throne
speech of February 27, 1996, which we are discussing today, the
government justifies the proposed actions by referring to the desire
for change expressed by Quebecers in the referendum, stating that
``this desire for change is broadly shared across Canada''.
Here are a few of the changes announced by the federal Liberals
in the last throne speech, which they have been attempting to
implement ever since, without any great success, I might add. First
of all, the government proposes to limit federal spending power in
areas that are exclusively provincial. We are in agreement in
principle, up to that point.
The conditions of application are where it starts to get
complicated. They require new cost shared programs to have the
consent of the majority of the provinces.
(1040)
First of all, the government is not announcing its withdrawal
from areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as Quebec has
called for. On the contrary, the federal government is imposing its
right to interfere by setting certain limits, including consent by the
majority of provinces. It requires the consent of six provinces
before accepting implementation of any new program.
This limitation of spending power is much less than the proposal
contained in the Charlottetown accord. In it, the federal
government was required to have the agreement of seven provinces
representing 50 per cent of the population. In addition, this
limitation was entrenched in the Constitution.
Today, the federal government makes no mention whatsoever of
putting this into the Constitution. It could be changed at the whim
of some subsequent federal government, like any mere law. The
provinces will never accept such an offer.
The most flagrant example is that of the daycare centres which
the Liberals wanted to put into place. Although this program is
included in the famous red book of the last campaign, the federal
government has never managed to obtain the consent of the
majority of the provinces. So, in order to justify the non-fulfilment
of this campaign promise, the Prime Minister is dumping the blame
onto the provinces, saying they are the ones turning it down. It is
their fault because they cannot reach agreement. How did the Prime
Minister expect to fulfil this campaign promise, knowing full well
that the provinces would never accept such an offer?
The Prime Minister speaks of changing Canadian federation but
he could not have done a worse job of it. Another change in the
Canadian federation proposed by the Prime Minister is to entrench
the concept of distinct society and a veto for all in the Constitution.
First of all, the distinct society proposed by the federal
government was less than Meech and less than Charlottetown. To
the Government of Quebec, the distinct society concept is obsolete.
5998
Any new negotiations with Canada must, from now on, be from
people to people, from nation to nation.
Furthermore, we will never go along with the compromise
solution proposed in a bogus bill or some strategy to recognize
Quebec as no more than the homeland of French language and
culture. This interpretation means nothing at all. It provides no
constitutional guarantees and certainly no legal powers. The
federal Liberals would have been better off proposing nothing at
all.
On top of that, there will now be a regional veto, snuggled
through the House in Bill C-110. This bill takes us from bad to
worse. To bring about any constitutional change at all, the federal
government will no longer need the consent of seven provinces
representing 50 per cent of the population but all the provinces.
That is some constitutional change. There will be no more
constitutional changes. It will be impossible.
Because of these recent changes made by the Prime Minister and
the federal Minister of Intergovernmental affairs, from now on it
will be impossible for Quebec to make any constitutional
arrangements without the prior consent of all Canadian provinces.
Contrary to Quebec's stated expectations, other Canadians
consider that if Quebecers remain in Canada, they should be just
like other Canadians and submit to majority rule, without any
special rights or status. To a Quebecer, this is unthinkable. All
efforts of the past 30 years were focused on letting Quebecers make
their own decisions on a number of important issues within the
Canadian federation.
In the sixties, Liberal Premier Jean Lesage said we should be
``maître chez nous'', and his successor, Daniel Johnson senior of
the Union nationale said it was equality or independence. Another
Liberal Premier, the late Robert Bourassa, spent more than 15 years
asking for cultural sovereignty and then distinct society.
(1045)
Unfortunately, all these attempts at constitutional change were to
fail. English Canada's no became progressively louder. Today, the
Chrétien government is trying to make us go through this again. He
keeps saying that everything is fine, everything is all right, but the
results show the opposite is true. He even says he has done enough,
and that now the ball is in the other court.
In spite of all these failures, undeniably, Quebecers want an
independent Quebec within a strong Canada. That this phrase has
became famous is no accident. There is an element of truth in it.
Even if we have been unable to agree on fundamental political
issues for the past 30 years, we and Canadians have established
important economic ties. The jobs of hundreds of thousands of
Canadians depend on Quebec, and vice versa.
In this connection, I would like to discuss a matter that is very
important to me, and I am sure, could be instrumental in settling all
constitutional quarrels once and for all. In its plan for sovereignty,
Quebec is proposing to the rest of Canada a natural and democratic
change that would lead to a new partnership agreement between
our two peoples.
The plan for Quebec favours economic association with the rest
of Canada, in order to maintain the unfettered mobility of goods,
services, capital and individuals. Just think, every 15 minutes we in
Quebec buy one million dollars' worth of goods manufactured in
the rest of Canada. That is why it is important for both parties to
maintain these economic ties.
The plan for Quebec also specifies that the Canadian dollar will
remain Quebec's legal currency. That is the most beneficial
solution for both Quebec and Canada, especially because of the
significant volume of trade between the two states.
According to the latest estimates, trade between Quebec and
Canada is worth over $65 billion, including close to $50 billion
with Ontario alone. This would be a concrete way of ensuring trade
stability for both Canada and Quebec.
Canada's economic space will be maintained, because it is in the
interest of Quebec and the rest of Canada to maintain it. It could be
managed by joint organizations, including a council of
representatives from both parties, who would discuss issues of
common interest. A joint tribunal would be responsible for settling
disputes, including trade disputes.
There could also be a partnership council made up of Quebec and
Canadian ministers equally, as well as a parliamentary assembly of
delegates from both sovereign states. These two institutions would
allow us to decide to act jointly in other areas and to share our
resources.
The major difference with the current situation is that we would
always have the choice of acting either independently or jointly
with Canada, within the partnership, and neither party would be
able to impose its rules and its views on the other. That is what a
true partnership means.
To achieve this goal, we, of course, need the agreement of the
rest of Canada. As far as the basic elements of the economic
association are concerned, the vast majority of English-Canadians
think an arrangement with Quebec is inevitable. It would be in
everyone's interest to build an economic and political partnership
in which there will be minimal friction and maximum co-operation
to our mutual advantage, an environment in which we can all aspire
to a better future.
That is the kind of arrangement the federal government should
seriously consider, instead of proposing all sorts of initiatives that
5999
are doomed to failure and dragging out the dreadful constitutional
debate.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great attention to the presentation of my
hon. colleague.
(1050 )
I wonder if he would care to comment on an article that appeared
yesterday in the Toronto Star. The headline states: ``Bouchard's
experts deliver a grim report''. The article reads: ``Quebec Premier
Lucien Bouchard's own experts have told him what he didn't want
to hear-language wars and political uncertainty are turning
Montreal into an economic backwater''.
The article continued: ```The bottom line is that until the burden
of political uncertainty has been lifted, one cannot reasonably
expect Montreal to realize its economic potential to an extent
necessary to create the number of jobs that it so badly needs,' the
task force's report concludes''.
It is clear by now that it is the separatists' own drive to take
Quebec out of Canada that is creating the problem. There is a lack
of jobs, specifically in Montreal, but I presume throughout Quebec.
I wonder if the hon. member would be willing to support the
subamendment of the Reform Party, which we are supposedly
debating today, which states:
-and, in particular, recognition that it is the separatist movement in Quebec that
threatens the economy of Montreal.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for his question. For the last 30 years there have been
discussions between Quebec and Canada to try to find a decent
settlement for Quebec. However, every time this has been tried it
has failed because some parts of Canada refuse to recognize the
distinct society and the distinct way of the Quebec people.
We have to find a solution. What we need now is a new deal
between Canada and Quebec. That new deal, because it is a
proposition, could be a sovereignty partnership between the two
parts of Canada. Canada and Quebec could be allies.
When I visit the rest of Canada I always tell them that, yes, I am
a sovereignist, yes, I think that some day Quebec will be a
sovereign state. I also tell them that my second best country after
sovereignty will always be Canada. People like that. People around
the country are starting to understand.
The Liberal member on the other side of the House may not
agree, but I have met academics around the country and discussed
this with them. Some of them thought it made sense. People are
sick and tired of 30 years of nothing going on.
[Translation]
To answer the hon. member's question, Montreal has always
been left out in the cold. Historically, whenever the federal
government has made economic decisions, it was always to the
detriment of Montreal. The government wants to make a nice big
village out of Montreal, but it is gradually taking away the city's
economic powers and giving them to other regions.
I believe the solution for the future is a sovereignty-partnership
between our two nations.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from
the throne.
The speech from the throne was delivered a long time ago. When
asked to speak on it, I had to read it over again. I did so. I found a
series of general comments, which sounded like political
platitudes. I also found that a lot of things which should have been
said were not mentioned by the Queen's representative, when he
addressed the two Houses.
In order to find a little more substance, I read over again the
budget speech presented by the Minister of Finance.
(1055)
As you know, we are in an era of economics. Everything is in
relation to the economy. Everything is calculated, whether it is the
fuel consumption of automobiles, the cost of adopting a child, or
the price of a child's kiss. This is the age of economics.
I read what the Minister of Finance told us in his speech and I
compared it with the speech from the throne. I noticed that some
terms kept coming back. The Minister of Finance talked about
securing the future of Canadians, something also mentioned in the
speech from the throne. The minister spoke about anxiety, a
lifestyle that is in jeopardy, a medicare program that is threatened,
and a pension plan that is in serious danger.
He told us about the fear of Quebecers and Canadians regarding
their jobs and the future of their children. The governor general
made similar comments in his speech from the throne. The minister
added that his government wanted to find concrete solutions to
these issues.
I will stop here for now and continue after question period.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. He will have
seven minutes left after question period. We now move on to
statements by members.
6000
6000
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals Foundation in
Hamilton has expressed dismay that the recent $818,000 severance
package awarded by the hospitals to a former administrator will
hurt fund raising.
Indeed it might, especially if the public were to realize that
according to its 1994 annual financial information return, the
foundation raised $1.03 million in donations at a cost of $783,000
in fund raising expenses. In other words, out of a little more than $1
million received from the public, only $247,000 was available as a
gift to the hospitals.
A bit of simple math shows that it could take more than three
years of fund raising by the foundation and $3.3 million in
donations to raise enough money to pay off the $800,000 severance
package.
This is scandalous. Hospital beds are disappearing, nursing staff
has been cut and the sick suffers while hospital directors squander
the public money entrusted to them.
* * *
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my constituents in Surrey North are worried. They face uncertainty
about their health care and pensions. They are concerned about
their children's education for the 21st century. Taxes have gotten
out of hand and they are deeply affected by violent crimes
committed on some of their doorsteps. Yet this government does
little or nothing.
On pensions Reform's fresh start platform puts security back
into old age security. On health care and education Reform's fresh
start increases funding from Ottawa by $4 billion. On taxes, when
the books are balanced, Reform's fresh start offers individuals and
parents of young children tax relief. And Reform's fresh start offers
victims of crime a victims' bill of rights and all Canadians
assurance that violent criminals will not be let loose to harm
someone else.
This government does little or nothing except when it comes to
its own pensions.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Dr.
Gerald Rooney, who has been inducted into the Humboldt and
District Sports Hall of Fame. Dr. Rooney was born on Christmas
Eve in Estevan and then had the good sense to move to Humboldt,
Saskatchewan in January 1958 to raise his family and practise
optometry.
Dr. Rooney's sports involvement in Humboldt started in 1959
coaching a bantam hockey team. Throughout the sixties, seventies
and eighties he coached hockey, baseball, served on many
community sport committees as well as on provincial bodies. In
1973 and 1974 he served on a five-person special government
appointed task force on hockey in Saskatchewan.
In a special ceremony last week Gerry was honoured by the
community for his longstanding commitment to the Humboldt
Bronco's Junior Hockey Club. He has also managed and coached
provincial and western Canadian championship hockey teams.
Sports are an integral part of prairie community life. We are
fortunate to have people like Dr. Gerald Rooney who are willing to
volunteer so much time and energy for the good of all.
* * *
(1100)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, recently, National Metal Finishing, a company located in
Mirabel, launched the second phase of its project, with the Quebec
minister responsible for industry and commerce, Rita
Dionne-Marsolais, in attendance.
The company, which specializes in drilling, wing coating and
metal finishing, and which is the most modern in the aerospace
industry, will provide Quebec and Canadian companies such as
Bombardier-Canadair and Bell Helicopter with a competitive
advantage. Mitsubishi, the big Japanese multinational, is another
major client of NMF Canada. The third phase is already in the
works.
In my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau, and particularly in the
Mirabel area, the aerospace industry is a major employer. The
Mirabel airport is undoubtedly a big promoter in the development
of this industry. About 60 per cent of all Canadian jobs in the
aerospace industry are found in Quebec, and the Laurentian region
is definitely a leader in this field.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in the House today as the member for Edmonton North to
congratulate a team of Canadian pilots from Canadian Air Force
Base Cold Lake, Alberta. These Canadian pilots won the
prestigious NATO
6001
fighter jet competition in the William Tell Air-to-Air Weapons
Meet over six American teams.
This victory by Canada is evidence of the excellence in jet
fighter training provided at CFB Cold Lake. A Canadian
consortium which includes such major contractors as Bombardier,
British Aerospace and CAE is promoting a plan to bring NATO
pilots to Canadian bases for training. This could result in a $100
million infusion into local communities if their bid succeeds.
This victory by the Cold Lake team distinguishes our Canadian
forces pilots as among the best in the world. We feel that the NATO
authorities should give strong consideration to relocating the
training facilities to Alberta.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last weekend at
the biennial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Prime
Minister was crowing about what he has achieved over the last
three years.
Yet the Liberal government's performance as far as reviving the
economy and lowering unemployment is hardly impressive. It is
too easy to blame the state of the country's finances or provincial
governments for the way things are. When you make promises, you
must be able to keep them.
Job creation should be this government's number one priority.
Urgent effort is required to bring about a significant
improvement in the job market as quickly as possible. The
Canadian government must take concrete steps to effect a
substantial reduction in Canada's rate of unemployment. The rate
of unemployment can be reduced.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the
outstanding volunteer efforts of Mr. John Reynolds, a constituent
of Etobicoke-Lakeshore who shared his years of Canadian
experience in administration to help develop a farm administration
bureau in China.
Mr. Reynolds had been asked to assist in reducing energy waste
in the production of starch. After making an analysis, he initiated a
program for dust abatement and general clean-up. He advised on
changes in water use and heat recovery to reduce energy costs and
to improve overall efficiency.
All Canadians, especially the residents of
Etobicoke-Lakeshore are proud of the volunteer efforts of Mr.
Reynolds as well as those of some 7,000 other CESO volunteers
who since 1967 have completed more than 30,000 assignments in
over 100 countries and in every Canadian province and territory.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when VIA
Rail cut back on its passenger rail service in western Canada,
Rocky Mountaineer Railtours stepped in to offer first class
passenger service to those who wished to see the Rockies, the
interior plateau and the Coast mountains from a train. Unlike VIA,
the Mountaineer travels through the western majestic mountains
during daylight hours so that travellers can enjoy the breathtaking
mountain vistas and experience the hospitality of the great city of
Kamloops during their overnight stay.
Rocky Mountaineer Railtours has proven to be an exceptionally
positive contributing corporation. It has provided hundreds of jobs
in the Kamloops area and is presently investing heavily to expand
its service and create more jobs.
A recent decision by VIA to offer unfair competition will
seriously impact on the Mountaineer. I urge the Minister of
Transport to come to Kamloops to meet with those affected in order
to head off what could be a very serious blow to the local
employment opportunities presently provided by Rocky
Mountaineer Railtours. This blow would curtail much of the
service which is enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of visitors to
western Canada.
* * *
(1105)
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, aware
of the rising costs of post-secondary education and many
challenges faced by their youth members, the Boys and Girls Club
of Ontario started a scholarship program in 1992.
This year's recipient of the Stay-in-School Scholarship is Dana
Vout, a constituent of Niagara Falls, who began her volunteer work
with the club in 1990. Dana is now a third year student at Brock
University in an honours psychology program and plans to attend
teachers college upon graduation. She is the recipient of several
other awards and has distinguished herself on several occasions.
Moreover, Dana is a dedicated and capable young individual upon
whom our community can always depend.
I am sure the House will join me in congratulating and
commending Dana for her achievements and in thanking the Boys
and Girls Club of Niagara Falls which had the vision to start this
worthwhile program.
6002
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
Veterans Week. On Monday, November 11 Canadians will mark a
minute of silence for those who gave up their lives for the freedom,
democracy and peace we enjoy in this country today. That minute
of silence is only a reminder to us all of what many young men and
women gave for us in the two world wars and the Korean war.
My father was one of those men. He was a navigator in the
RCAF and never returned from the second world war. As a result, I
grew up with only a photograph and the stories and memories
passed on by my mother to tell me what a wonderful man my father
was.
Many of us can only imagine what it was like for those men like
my father. Their sacrifice was so great and so meaningful that we
must never forget the contributions made during the wars. No
words can convey that to anyone.
Therefore, in honour of Veterans Week, I ask that we take the
time to remember that November 11 is not a holiday. It is a day to
remember those who fought and died for this great country, a
country we are all proud of, a country rated as the best in the world.
* * *
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November 1 marks the start of the 1996 national community safety
and crime prevention campaign. The theme of this year's campaign
sponsored by the Canada Safety Council is ``Choices'', the choices
that we as Canadians make to help prevent crime, especially youth
crime.
To make a real dent in youth crime we have to do something
about the means of its production. That involves the serious social
problems which often underlie criminal behaviour and how society
responds to them.
Everything we improve today, every community problem that
we can address before it leads to crime will result in building
healthier communities later on. Rehabilitation and alternatives to
imprisonment are most important components of the solution.
These will help young people to get their lives back on track and
become productive citizens.
That is why crime prevention is so central to this government's
program for balanced and effective criminal justice reform. To
succeed in our efforts to prevent crime and find practical solutions,
we must not only work in tandem with our partners in the criminal
justice system but broaden our partnerships to include communities
and neighbourhoods.
I applaud the efforts of the Canada Safety Council and invite all
Canadians to learn more about the choices available for responding
to youth crime within their own communities.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
longtime Canadian foe is on its deathbed. I am speaking of course
of the federal deficit.
This government's accomplishments in the area of finance are
impressive. We have consistently met and even bettered our deficit
targets. When we took office the deficit stood at $42 billion.
Through balanced, effective spending cuts, by 1997 we will have
reduced the deficit by $33 billion, nearly 80 per cent.
What does this all mean for hard working Canadians? It means
lower interest rates. It means they are saving almost $500 annually
on a $15,000 car loan. It means saving $3,000 on a one-year
$100,000 mortgage. It means the economy is improving and jobs
are being created. Most important, it means this government has
delivered on its commitment to build a strong framework for jobs
and economic growth which Canadians so rightly deserve.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
October 30 the periodical
Diplomat hosted a luncheon for over fifty
members of the diplomatic corps posted in Ottawa, at which they
had an opportunity to listen to the Leader of the Official Opposition
and to discuss the political situation in Quebec and in Canada, as
well as their respective positions in the world.
This was a rare opportunity for diplomats to hear information
that is not part of the Canadian government's official line on
Quebec. As the Leader of the Official Opposition said, and I quote:
``Quebecers have been waiting thirty years for the changes they
would like to see and that have been promised them. The many
negotiations and the resounding constitutional failures of recent
years have made it plain to Quebecers that renewal of the Canadian
federation to reflect their aspirations is impossible''.
(1110)
It is most fortunate that there are a large number of members of
the Bloc Quebecois in Ottawa, thus giving the international
community a better picture of what is really going on in Quebec
society.
6003
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the highly
respected organization B'nai Brith Canada yesterday released a
statement criticizing the Liberal Party's recent attack memo aimed
at the Reform Party of Canada. Professor Stephen Scheinberg, the
national vice-president, stated: ``To call the Reform Party as a
whole extreme right is to stretch the meaning of this term beyond
recognition. The Reform Party has in the past been very quick to
deal with extremists who have tried to infiltrate their ranks. It will
be difficult to recognize real extremists if we apply this term to
everyone on the right of centre''.
A democracy thrives on a robust debate over ideas and
principles; a democracy withers when the debate is deliberately
warped by those who will use whatever means necessary to attain
or retain power. A democratic debate should be a contest of ideas,
not a name calling or mud throwing event.
Ideas and principles such as smaller government, private
property rights, personal responsibility and lower taxes are not
extreme. They are a sensible alternative to our present
predicament. When we deliberately misrepresent our opponents'
position, we devalue our own.
I call on the government to do the right thing and disavow the
words and tactics used in its talking points.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year CBC is celebrating its 60th anniversary. In my
riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, CBQ-CBC Radio will be
holding an open house today in order to celebrate this historic
anniversary.
CBQ has been operating for the past 22 years. It has been
reaching into the homes of northwestern Ontario all the way from
Kenora to Thunder Bay to Sandy Lake. It has acted as a unifying
link between eastern and western Canada and knits together the
vast geographic area of northwestern Ontario. It has done this by
establishing some very creative and superior programming.
CBC Radio provides Canadians with a unique alternative to
commercial radio. Satire, discussion, stories, readings, drama,
music and pertinent regional information; pure Canadiana.
Thank you CBC and thank you CBQ for serving Canada so
successfully for so many years. Keep up the good work.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the exceptional spirit of partnership between
representatives of private enterprise and labour, the air traffic
navigation and control system is being handed over today to
NavCanada.
This new private non-profit corporation, which owes its
existence to our government, paid $1.5 billion to take over
ownership of Canada's air traffic control system.
The appearance of NavCanada will make possible improved
safety in air transportation, since the Department of Transport will
now oversee the work of a private enterprise, instead of its own
work, as was previously the case.
The 6,200 federal government employees will keep their jobs,
but as of this morning are employed by the private sector. This is
another fine example of the economic possibilities offered by
partnership between private enterprise, workers and the
government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, like the swallows' returning signals the coming of spring,
so Liberal announcements of subsidies signal the coming of an
election and a campaign of vote buying.
There is no rational defence of the subsidies to film makers and
Bombardier which were announced recently. Canadian business
representatives urged the finance committee to end all subsidies to
industry. Huge subsidies to the Atlantic provinces were shown to
have hurt rather than helped economic development.
All subsidies hurt the innocent competitors of the beneficiary. To
add insult to injury, the subsidies are financed with taxes paid by
the competitors. Job creation through a subsidy is matched by jobs
lost through taxation.
Subsidies at election time are a Liberal tradition that stinks.
_____________________________________________
6003
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1115)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, two decisions by the federal government may threaten the
6004
existence of Quebec's nuclear industry. The gradual closing of the
office of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Montreal and the
decision to stop financing the Tokamak project are two decisions
by the Liberal government which constitute an attack on a major
industrial sector in the Montreal area.
Does the Acting Prime Minister realize that the combined
impact of these two decisions on Montreal may permanently
undermine the entire nuclear industry in the Montreal area, which
has 36 companies specialized in the nuclear sector?
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, as the Minister of Natural Resources has explained
repeatedly in the House, it was decided that the priorities of Atomic
Energy of Canada Limited would include not only research and
development but also the sales of CANDU reactors.
I believe the hon. member is well aware that many Quebec
companies benefit as a result of CANDU sales, and that is the
priority of this organization.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec companies could hope to win contracts, and they
did, because there was an office of Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited in Montreal. The rest is just promises.
However the federal government can do more than just make
promises, when it manages to find the $33 million needed to
guarantee the survival of the Triumph project in British Columbia.
How do we explain the fact that the government is unable to find
the $7 million needed to guarantee the survival of Tokamak in
Varennes, which happens to be the most important hi-tech research
project in Quebec? Why could the government not find a mere $7
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, first of all, I notice it is not the former science and
technology critic asking this question, because he sent me a letter
saying he agreed with the government's decision to shore up
previous investments in Triumph.
A number of scientists at Quebec universities are doing their
research at Triumph and also at CERN in Europe. This is a very
important package.
Second, I am really surprised to hear the hon. member say that,
as far as research and development is concerned, Tokamak is the
most important research centre in Quebec. The hon. member is
actually saying that all other research in sectors such as
biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, aeronautics and aerospace are
less important. And this in spite of the fact that we explained
recently in the House that the only hi-tech sector where Canada has
a trade surplus is the aerospace sector.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we did not say that we were against the $33 million for the
Triumph project. We did not say that.
The minister could look at the blues, in French or in English, and
he will see I never said that. He just has a one track mind. I said that
if the government was capable of finding $33 million for British
Columbia, it should be able to find a mere $7 million for Quebec. I
am talking about nuclear energy and the most important hi-tech
project in the nuclear sector in Quebec. That is a fact.
I do not understand why the minister does not understand, unless
he will not understand-that is another problem, and I am not sure
there is a cure.
How can the minister go along with patriating the entire nuclear
energy sector to Ontario? And subcontractors will follow. These
are major contracts. How can the government patriate all this to
Ontario, at a time when economic spinoffs in this sector are starting
to materialize?
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 believe the lack of understanding comes from the other
side of the House.
Mr. Young: No doubt about it.
Mr. Manley: The hon. member should realize that science and
technology produces benefits for all Canadians by creating the
research which then creates jobs in commercial applications.
(1120)
Only recently, we made some very important investments in the
Montreal area and elsewhere in Quebec. We invested non only in
Canadair, which is very important, but also in Mitel, in Bromont,
which is engaged in research or semiconductors. We have invested
in biotechnology at the biotechnology institute of the National
Research Ccentre in Montreal, to create a kind of incubator that
will create jobs in this sector.
There is more to it than just saying: All right, you cut here, but if
you did not find the money there, because we have limited funds,
so we must establish certain priorities. The priorities in the
Montreal area are the pharmaceutical industry, biotechnology and
aerospace, and that is the kind of investment we made.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I imagine it
6005
will greatly reassure the Minister of Industry, since I will be taking
the liberty of quoting the Prime Minister of Canada, so I trust both
of us will understand the same thing.
On October 22, in Montreal, in a fine speech filled with good
intentions, the Prime Minister stated as follows, in connection with
the high tech industries: ``In the future, the federal government
must, and will, help these industries to expand in Montreal.'' Yet
this is far from the situation in reality. Again this week, we learn
that the federal government is speeding up the closure of CITI, the
Centre for Information Technologies Innovation, in Laval, and has
given up on the idea of privatizing it, despite an offer from the
private sector, which was made in due form.
Does the minister realize that closing CITI, which had more than
135 high tech jobs two years ago and received some $13 million
annually, is not the way for his government to help high tech
industries to expand?
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, we made the decision to begin by privatizing CITI some
years ago, and we negotiated in good faith with MicroCell the
possible purchase of the centre.
We have determined that accepting the proposal they made did
not represent a good return for us. It must be understood, however,
as I have just stated, that priorities need to be determined. Where
does the money come from to help Canadair? Where does the
money come from to invest in the Institut de biotechnologie?
Sometimes choices have to be made. We have taken what I
consider to be wise decisions. If a good proposal for the
privatization of CITI could not be found, perhaps that was the best
choice.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Madam Speaker, the minister is very skilled at dragging out red
herrings by reminding us that the $85 million interest-free loan to
Canadair is not just some trifle.
Of the 143 federal research centres in Canada, 23 were located in
Quebec. Is he going to realize, finally, that the Liberal government
is the one undermining the economy of Montreal, and that CITI,
Tokamak and the high tech sectors of Atomic Energy of Canada
being moved-in case these have slipped his mind-are blatant
examples of their bad faith?
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, what astounds me is that, every time the Bloc asks science
and technology related questions, they pass themselves off as
victims.
(1125)
The figures, in actual fact, are as follows. They indicate clearly,
if the National Capital Region is excluded, as Quebec does for its
own figures, that Quebec receives over 27 per cent of science and
technology spending. Still more important, moreover, is the
efficiency of our spending, since the objective is to create jobs and
not just to be theoretically in favour of science. If the objective is to
create jobs, we find that 41 per cent of R & D tax credits are
claimed by Quebec businesses.
This tells me that our investments in the sectors I have noted:
pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, aerospace, are more effective in
Quebec, because they have created businesses capable of claiming
tax credits. This is a strong sector in Quebec. They need to see
themselves as winners, not losers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the people
of Canada turfed the previous Conservative government in 1993
they did so because they wanted to trust their government again.
Some voted Liberal because of the red book promises which
headlined: ``Honesty and integrity in our political institutions must
be restored''. It seems that the implementation of the red book
promises has been directed more to improving damage control
procedures than to actually insisting on integrity among ministers.
Because of his close association with the Prime Minister, even
the ethics counsellor is viewed as part of the damage control team.
Will the Prime Minister set the ethics counsellor free so that he
can do the job Canadians expect him to do for them instead of
merely being another mouthpiece of the Prime Minister and his
government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ethics counsellor is doing the job expected of him by
Canadians. This is clear by the rulings he has issued and the overall
manner in which he is carrying out his work.
At the same time, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is
the one who has to take ultimate responsibility for his ministers and
he is also doing that. This is a further sign of the high priority he
puts on ethics and integrity.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in all of my years
of teaching I did not allow my students to mark their own exams.
This government has marked itself and claims that the appointment
of the independent ethics counsellor has been achieved, and yet we
observe that the ethics counsellor receives his instructions from the
Prime Minister and answers to the Prime Minister.
6006
What is the Liberal working definition of the word independent?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is very clear from the way the ethics counsellor does his work
that he is operating independently, using his own good judgment.
The comment of the Reform spokesman is an unfair and
unjustified reflection on the good work done by the ethics
counsellor.
That is why when the Canadian people mark the Reform Party in
the next election it will be marked as a complete failure and the
hon. member will be back attempting to teach.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make it very clear that we are not here attacking either the person
or the work of the ethics counsellor. We are challenging the
conditions under which he must try to do his work.
No one knows this government's standards of ethical conduct.
The ministers should know them, but it seems they do not.
Canadians in general and even ordinary MPs in the House do not
know them because they are kept a secret. The standards which are
upheld change from day to day. It is like taking a measurement with
a rubber ruler.
Can the Prime Minister please explain why he is afraid of
divulging the standards that he expects from his ministers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has made it very clear that because of his views
on integrity and the high priority he places on it that he feels that no
one can take a higher degree of responsibility than he. He has
conveyed his rules and standards to his ministers. He is ready as
Prime Minister to be accountable to the Canadian people. I would
think that when it comes to using a rubber ruler, if the hon. member
continues with these questions the Canadian people will take him
to the office and use a rubber ruler on him in the next election.
* * *
(1130)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Acting Prime Minister. As the fighting between
the Tutsi rebels and the Zairian army continues today around the
Goma airport, the humanitarian workers in that city are getting
ready to evacuate to avoid being caught in the middle. Some ten
Canadian aid workers, including five Quebecers, were to be
evacuated in a land convoy to a safer location.
Can the Acting Prime Minister give us an update on the current
situation in Zaire and tell this House if humanitarian workers from
Canada and Quebec are currently safe?
[English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are seven Canadians in the national
humanitarian organizations in that region.
Given the rapid deterioration of the situation, plans are being
implemented for their evacuation. The Department of Foreign
Affairs is closely monitoring the situation to ensure that all efforts
are being made to ensure their protection.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is
cause for alarm as the centre of Goma is now being pounded by
mortar and gun fire. As a result, foreign nationals have been
confined to their hotels.
Can the Acting Prime Minister or the Secretary of State tell us
what orders the Department of Foreign Affairs has issued regarding
the Quebecers and Canadians working over there, and what
measures it has actually planned to help these workers in case they
are unable to leave the battle zone?
[English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the seven Canadians I talked about are in the
Goma region. As I indicated earlier, we are preparing plans for the
evacuation of those Canadians. We are monitoring the situation
very closely.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the only
way the ethics counsellor of Canada can be independent is if he
reports to Parliament. That is number one.
Number two, the guidelines for the ethics counsellor to
administer must be made public so they have credibility.
My question for the Prime Minister is why are they not made
public so that they can stand the test of the public and determine
whether cabinet ministers are ethical in their actions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister treats these guidelines as confidential advice
from him to his ministers.
The important thing is that the Prime Minister considers himself
ultimately accountable to Parliament and to the Canadian people
6007
for the conduct of his ministers. If we are concerned about
parliamentary procedure, then surely what the Prime Minister is
doing is totally consistent with the highest standards of
parliamentary procedure, namely the accountability of the Prime
Minister to Parliament and through Parliament ultimately to the
Canadian people.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in light of
the minister's answer, can the minister explain, in terms of the
ethics guidelines that allow a minister of the crown to make a
deposit on a fur coat and go on to charge thousands of dollars of
expenses on a government credit card, how that is ethical? It is not
based on whether there is reimbursement or not. Could the minister
explain that kind of unethical conduct in a cabinet of this country?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I refer my hon. friend to the findings of the ethics counsellor on this
matter. He confirmed his earlier ruling through a further review of
the matter.
I also refer my hon. friend to the very complete and forthright
statement of the Secretary of State for Youth. I think this provides a
complete and satisfactory answer to my hon. friend's question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence. The President of the
Treasury Board has decided to turn a blind eye to the benefits
granted General Boyle. However, specific sections of the Privacy
Act clearly provide that the benefits paid to General Boyle on a
discretionary basis must be made public and the public interest
requires the minister to mention any other benefit granted.
(1135)
In 1994, the information commissioner said, regarding a similar
case involving the golden handshake paid to the Governor of the
Bank of Canada, that the rule was simple: whenever anyone gets a
gift paid by taxpayers, the public has the right to know about it.
Given that the Bank of Canada had to disclose the benefits paid to
its governor, why is the minister still trying to circumvent all the
rules and hide this information from the public?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
also have lawyers who give us the best possible interpretation of
the act. The interpretation is that General Boyle is entitled to the
same benefits, the same pension and the same protection of
personal information as other officers, public servants and people
covered by the act.
In this case, the entitlements and amounts to which a person is
eligible are considered to be personal information whose disclosure
is prohibited under the Privacy Act.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, back in
1994, no government minister talked about a gift. It is the
information commissioner who told us that and we agree: it was a
gift to the governor. Unless I am mistaken, the government,
regardless of the act, the precedents, the public opinion and the
interest of Canadians, is interested only in hiding at any cost the
amount of the golden handshake that taxpayers had to pay,
following General Boyle's gaffes.
Does the Minister of Defence realize that, by continuing against
all logic to hide this information from the public, just after taking
over his new responsibilities, he is perpetuating the lack of
transparency displayed by his predecessor and condoning the
secrecy that is poisoning the armed forces?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
terms and conditions relating to the departure of governor in
council appointees are a Treasury Board responsibility, which is
why I am answering these questions. Obviously, if the hon.
member does not agree with the interpretation given by our legal
officers, he can go to the information commissioner.
As for us, we feel that General Boyle faithfully served his
country and that he is entitled to the same protection as any other
Canadian, under the Privacy Act.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health advised the Canadian
people not to vote for the Liberal Party unless it brought tobacco
legislation into the House. He also said that he would bring forth
legislation when he is good and ready.
While the minister dithers, 40,000 Canadians die of smoking
related illnesses every year.
I ask the government how many more Canadians have to die
from smoking related illnesses before it brings legislation into the
House?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the
Minister of Health is working with due diligence to ensure that a
new piece of legislation will be brought forward. As he said
yesterday, he will introduce it when it is ready.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us look at an example of due diligence.
6008
Last March the Minister of Health promised legislation
forthwith; forthwith twice last June, twice last month. The hon.
member who just spoke promised a year and a half ago that
legislation would be coming forthwith and that she would do
anything to stop Canadian children from smoking.
While the government is dithering about the issue, 250,000
children take up smoking every single year.
I ask the government, for the sake of the children of this country,
when is it going to bring tobacco legislation to the House?
(1140 )
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is working actively to complete the legislation, to
have it ready for Parliament.
We do have to make sure it is consistent with the rulings of the
Supreme Court. I hope the concern expressed by the hon. member,
which we share, will be confirmed when the legislation comes
forward by the full and active support of the Reform Party.
That will be the test because we intend to bring it forward as
soon as we can in light of the challenges we have in having the right
kind of legislation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Labour.
Following an incident that took place in 1995 during a labour
dispute involving Ogilvie Mills in Lachine, a strikebreaker was
found guilty of assaulting a striking worker and leaving him with a
permanently disabled wrist.
So as to avoid other violent incidents during labour disputes
covered by the Canada Labour Code, will the minister admit that
the federal government should follow the lead of Quebec and of
British Columbia and pass antiscab legislation?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for almost a year now, under my direction and that of my
predecessor, consultations have been held throughout the country. I
will have the honour, next Monday, of tabling in this House
amendments to part I of the Labour Code. I therefore invite the
member to examine them Monday.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since it has
always been said that this would not be included in the labour code,
I have trouble understanding the minister's reply. Are we to
understand him to be saying that the use of scabs does not
aggravate labour disputes and that antiscab legislation would not
help to establish and maintain civilized negotiations?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I was saying, the Sims committee has made
recommendations. There was departmental consultation. The bill
will be tabled Monday, and the question of regulations affecting
replacement workers will be covered in the bill. I there ask the
member to be patient, and he, along with all members and all
Canadians, will be able to examine it Monday. And we will have an
opportunity to debate in this House how the government plans to
resolve this important issue.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
Automobile airbags were designed to save lives. However,
statistics indicate that people are being injured and killed by these
same safety devices. Children in particular are at risk.
What action is the minister taking to ensure that airbags save
lives, not jeopardize them?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Nepean for the
best question of the day so far.
Some six weeks ago, I wrote to the auto industry on the urgent
need to improve airbag performance. I am very pleased to report to
her and to the House that the auto makers have responded
positively and constructively. They announced this morning in
Washington that from now on airbags will be depowered.
I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. It allows
me to say, Mr. Speaker-you, I know, are a parent of young
children-that it is tremendously important to have seat belts done
up, the children in the back seat and to make sure that we cut down
on this dreadful toll of over 3,300 Canadian lives lost annually in
automobile accidents.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
government says that it cares about coastal communities but let us
look at the record.
The Liberals have cut back funds to search and rescue, fisheries
surveillance and enforcement, TAGS benefits and fish hatcheries in
British Columbia.
6009
The Liberals have hurt coastal communities, not helped them.
They say that taxpayers cannot afford these services any more,
but they say that taxpayers can afford an $87 million corporate
handout to Bombardier.
Why is the Prime Minister more concerned with the corporate
welfare of multibillion dollar companies than the welfare and
safety of our coastal communities?
(1145 )
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the undertone and the assumptions behind the
question are really not correct.
However, for the hon. member's benefit and for the benefit of the
House and the coastal communities, I will tell the hon. member
what we have done. We have put together a salmon revitalization
plan that has resulted in record returns in the Skeena River, where
he is from, and the Fraser River, where it is double what was
expected.
The government has signed an unprecedented memorandum of
understanding with the British Columbia government, a province
that he represents, for the roles and responsibilities in the fisheries
and an impact analysis on the very coastal communities that he
says this government does not care about.
Not only do we care about the coastal communities, we have
made a commitment. I will reiterate that commitment in the House
today to ensure that they are looked after.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the fisheries
minister for Canada suggests that the Fraser had a record return this
year, I wonder what he is smoking.
The legacy of the government is broken promise after broken
promise. Outraged fishermen will not forget how the Prime
Minister preferred to cut coast guard services from B.C. to the
Gaspé to the east coast to pay for million dollar grants to rich
corporations. Take from the poor and give to the rich, that is the
Liberal way.
If the coastal communities of the Gaspé had given $170,000 to
the Liberals in political donations would they have had their coast
guard services cut?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the hon. member is not in
trouble with his constituents. He is from Skeena and if he checks
the blues he will see that I said it was the Skeena River that had the
record run. He said Fraser and I just wanted to make sure the hon.
member does not get in trouble with his constituents.
As we speak, a three member team, one from the British
Columbia government, one from the federal government and an
independent analyst is going around listening to what the coastal
communities have to say. They have made an interim report on
which we will act.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
In the report of the Standing Committee on Finance tabled
yesterday, the Liberal members recommended establishing a
federal consumer protection bureau.
Since according to the White Paper, the government is in favour
of reducing overlap and duplication in regulations that apply to the
financial services sector in Canada, how does the Acting Prime
Minister react to this recommendation from the Liberal committee,
which would have the effect of creating further overlap and
duplication?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the report was received very favourably by the government. A
tremendous jobs was done by the finance committee, as you know,
whose members represent all the political parties here in this
House.
As far as the consumer is concerned, there is no doubt that we are
all very concerned about the fact that, in many cases, the consumer
feels he is not being treated fairly by the financial institutions. It is
therefore our intention to look at the report and examine it very
carefully.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Globe and
Mail reports that this bureau would require only about 20 hours'
work per week to deal with all of Canada, in other words, half the
workload of a single civil servant. How can the federal government
justify this additional intrusion in an area which in any case is the
exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces? Does the government want
to give the impression that it protects its citizens, although it is
obvious that this bureau will be useless?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows perfectly well that both, and in many cases
all three levels of government will have to work together. But he is
also aware that a committee of this House has the right to draft a
report, to conduct investigations and to examine what it believes is
important, and it is the government's responsibility to respond to
the committee. We intend to do so at the appropriate time.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the most recent broken red book promises are in the area of
research and development and jobs, particularly projects at Chalk
River, Ontario and Pinawa, Manitoba. The internationally
recognized cyclotron facility at Chalk River, TASCC, could be
closed due to a lack of funds and the future of the Whiteshell
Laboratory
6010
in Manitoba remains in doubt while the government ignores its task
force recommendation to privatize the facility.
(1150)
Is the natural resources minister going to do anything to ensure
these research initiatives and jobs remain in Canada?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised this question last week. An
adequate answer was given by the Minister of Natural Resources.
I appreciate the respect the hon. member has in the House but he
knows we are still talking about that. He knows we have had to cut
back. Reform Party members talk about smaller government. I
wonder what they would do if they were in our position.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a specific suggestion for what we would do if we were in the
Liberal's position.
The U.S. Brookhaven Institute is in a position to pick up jobs
that Spar Aerospace would otherwise give to the cyclotron in Chalk
River. The same situation exists for Whiteshell where our scientists
are leaving for the United States due to inaction on the part of the
government.
I have this specific suggestion for the minister. Would the
minister use $3 million of the $40 million in refund that is coming
from the European Space Agency to keep the Chalk River facility
open and start the process of privatizing Whiteshell as was called
for in the task force report?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if we were to follow the budget of the Reform Party,
which is not a platform but a springboard into the swimming pool
of disaster, there would not be any atomic energy in Canada or the
world.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister recently appeared before the Standing Committee
on Finance to present his 1996 fiscal and economic update. Now
that the minister is working on the 1997 budget, can he tell the
House how Canadians can get involved and have their views
represented in the content of the next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member's question is very timely as we are now going into the
prebudget mode.
As she knows, the prime focus for national consultation will be
the House of Commons finance committee which has already had
five weeks of hearings here in Ottawa and next week is to embark
on the national consultation. The committee will be going from
coast to coast to coast.
At the same time, there are other vehicles. We have invited
Canadians to write to us directly. I will be meeting with individual
groups. Because I am aware of the hon. member's interest, I would
like to highlight the ability of individual members of Parliament to
hold forums in their ridings. In past years those forums have
proved to be of enormous benefit.
The main focus, which I am sure the hon. member is driving at,
is that we have made the budget process open and transparent. That
is one of the reasons we have been so successful in our budgets.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Since his appointment, the new defence minister has kept rather
mum about his intentions regarding plans for major purchases of
military equipment. As we know, his predecessor had not ruled out
buying new submarines and wanted to equip the next class of
shipborne helicopters for anti-submarine warfare.
When is the minister going to make public his intentions
regarding plans for major purchases of military equipment, and
will he once and for all drop the idea of spending several hundreds
of millions of dollars on submarines of dubious usefulness?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's role
with regard to defence, not only its own, but in terms of its well
known responsibilities towards its allies, requires that we proceed
with extreme caution when deciding to purchase military
equipment.
We are not ruling out anything, but I can assure my colleague
that we do not intend to spend billions or hundreds of millions of
dollars without taking into account all criteria that have a bearing
on such a decision. I hope to come to a decision on the purchase of
some of the elements the member mentioned in a not too distant
future.
(1155)
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister commit to having a debate in the House of Commons on
his purchasing plans so that the urgency and usefulness of such
purchases be publicly discussed, in view of our financial priorities
and means?
6011
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
wonderful things about Parliament is that all decisions made have
to be accounted for to all of our peers.
The policies of the Government of Canada with respect to
national defence, I think, have been articulated. They have been the
result of unprecedented consultations. We have had the white paper
and the joint parliamentary reports. We have had debates on our
participation in various military activities around the world.
We will continue to function in an open and transparent way,
always trying to balance the needs of domestic and international
security with our capacity to pay the bills.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada Post mandate review recommends that Canada Post be
made subject to the Freedom of Information Act and to annual
audits by the auditor general. To date the minister responsible has
ignored these recommendations.
Canadians have a stake in how their crown corporations are run.
They have a right to know what is going on and the Radwanski
report makes it clear that Canadians have legitimate concerns
regarding Canada Post.
My question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. The
Liberal government promised Canadians more open and
transparent government. Will the minister deliver on that promise
and make Canada Post open and transparent by making it subject to
the Freedom of Information Act and to the scrutiny of the auditor
general?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is a very
valuable corporation. It belongs to the people of Canada, but it also
has a commercial mandate and, as such, one must respect
commercial confidences.
That being said, I have asked Canada Post to look at establishing
a plan to ensure that it operates with the most openness and
transparency possible.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister.
This week CBC Radio is celebrating 60 years of service.
Especially in remote areas, it is a vital link that holds our country
together. For example, CBQ in Thunder Bay serves half the
province of Ontario.
Despite all the rosy promises in the red book about stable
multi-year financing for the CBC, when will the government
deliver on one of its most important commitments to the Canadian
people? What is the future of the CBC and stations like CBQ with
the Liberal government?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
has consistently spoken about the government's commitment to the
CBC.
Let us not forget that the government continues to fund the CBC
to the tune of almost $1 billion. There is $200 million which is
going into a production fund and $100 million of that will be used
by the CBC for specific programming which will enable local
communities to produce Canadian programming, especially in
British Columbia.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the industry minister.
With one breath the government and the minister say they are
committed to removing barriers to interprovincial trade. With the
next breath the finance minister announces his GST harmonization
plan, which in the words of the Retail Council of Canada ``divides
the Canadian economy into two separate entities''.
If the industry minister is committed to removing interprovincial
trade barriers, as he says he is, why is he supporting the finance
minister's harmonization plan which is, in itself, a barrier which
will hurt Atlantic Canadians?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course I support, without reservation, everything the
finance minister does. I want him to know that.
I would also say that the issue of interprovincial trade barriers is
a very important one. In fact what has been accomplished in
Atlantic Canada is a demonstration of what could happen with the
kind of co-operation we are trying to achieve. Instead of it being a
barrier to interprovincial commerce, that there are rates that differ
across these provincial barriers, what we have got there is the
opportunity with a harmonized system to give consumers exactly
what they want, which is the ability to go to the cash register and
know that they are paying the price that they saw ticketed on the
counter.
6012
(1200)
What we face in interprovincial trade barriers, as the hon.
member knows, is very often the result of provincial governments
exercising their constitutionally valid powers to favour businesses
or citizens within their own jurisdiction without having a broader
view of what could be done if they were to take down the barriers.
I hope he will join with us in supporting our efforts to encourage
the provincial governments to operate on a consensus basis once
and for all to create a truly harmonized federal national market in
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members
to the presence in our gallery of Mrs. Kaba Saran Daraba, Minister
of Social Affairs and the Promotion of Women and Children in
Guinea.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my point of
order references are citation 64 of Beauchesne, reflections on
members, and citation 417 which refers to replies to oral questions
by ministers.
During question period the government House leader made what
I call verbal physical threats to my colleague from Elk Island by the
use of what he calls a rubber ruler. I think that provokes debate. I
would appreciate asking the hon. government House leader to
withdraw that threat from the floor.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think my hon. friend should have been listening more carefully.
The reference to the rubber ruler was made in the first place by his
colleague the former school teacher.
I did not threaten to use the rubber ruler on my hon. friend. I said
simply that the Canadian public in the next election was going to do
it in a figurative and symbolic way. If this offends my hon. friend, I
would be happy to withdraw the reference, but I cannot speak for
what the Canadian people will ultimately do.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the Chair should rule that as a
point of humour, rather than a point of order. The hon. member for
Elk Island on the same point of humour.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since I was
named I would like to simply say I thought that Liberal S and M
meant smoke and mirrors.
_____________________________________________
6012
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the
honour to table in both official languages the government's
response to 15 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present in both official languages the third report of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on
Bill C-61, an act to implement the Canada-Israel free trade
agreement.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. This course of
action is undertaken on behalf of constituents and concerned
parents across the country for the safety of their children in an
effort to create a national pedophile registry.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our children. They are opposed to the current status
quo in the screening of pedophiles within the community.
The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile
registry be established in order to help better protect our children.
(1205 )
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Lethbridge.
The first petition, which bears 86 signatures, calls upon
Parliament to refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental
benefits and to put on hold any future consideration of such a tax
until a complete review of the tax system and how it impacts on the
health of Canadians has been undertaken.
6013
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition bears 100 signatures.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament enact Bill C-205
introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West so as to
provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a
crime.
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition sent in recently
by members of my constituency of Niagara Falls.
This petition is certified correct in form and content. It calls on
the House of Commons and Parliament to ask the Canadian
government to renegotiate the tax treaty with the United States and
give consideration to enacting a tax credit refund to those who are
now being taxed under the treaty. The existing tax treaty reduces
the social benefits received by retired Canadian citizens in the
United States.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present today.
The first comes from Pickering, Ontario. The petitioners would
like to draw to the attention of the House that our police and
firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they serve the
emergency needs of all Canadians. They also state that in many
cases the families are often left without sufficient financial means
to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts
and bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Newmarket, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition comes from Williams Lake, B.C.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of submitting
two petitions which bear 400 signatures from citizens of the
Outaouais region, in the federal riding of Verchères, within the
greater Montreal region in Quebec.
The petitioners call on the Parliament to take all the necessary
measures in order to abolish the Senate. This request is supported
by several arguments such as the fact the Senate members are not
elected and are not accountable for their actions; the operating
budget of the Senate of $43 million a year; its refusal to account to
the House of Commons committee for the funds it receives; the
Senate's failure to fulfil its mandate as far as regional
representation is concerned; its duplication of the work of elected
members of the House of Commons and finally, the need to
modernize the parliamentary institutions.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table two petitions on behalf of people in the
constituency of Vegreville, both dealing with the same subject.
They say that whereas the law now allows criminals to profit
from the sale of videos, books and the use of 1-900 numbers, the
petitioners would like the House to immediately enact Bill C-205
so that convicted criminals would no longer be allowed to profit
from their crimes.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
6014
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, the amendment
and the amendment to the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: I must inform the hon. member that he
still has eight minutes left to deliver his speech.
(1210)
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before I was
interrupted by the question period, I was making a parallel between
the throne speech and the budget speech. I was outlining some
elements of rhetoric, still believing that the budget speech is
intended to update, clarify and give shape to the throne speech. I
will then continue, in my presentation, to refer to the budget
speech.
The Minister of Finance claims in his speech to ensure our
financial future. He says that to us with a straight face. Given our
current situation and also the fact that we are in a world where the
economy is open, where major changes are occurring rapidly, I
think it may be somewhat pretentious for the finance minister to
say that he will ensure our financial future. Perhaps we would have
preferred to hear him say that he would do his best to ensure that
Canadians can benefit from the development of the world
economy, without giving too many assurances that he cannot pay,
as I believe to be the case.
I noted in the budget speech and also a little in the throne speech
that many things are muddled up. The finance minister is playing
over several years, 1994-95, 1995-96, and goes back to 1993-94 for
some statistics. He even goes up to 1999. For all the issues relating
to the deficit, the figure goes from 3 to 2 per cent, but it is 2 per
cent in 1999. We see that the finance minister muddles many things
up.
He muddles up concepts of financial needs, he adds numbers and
talks about the GDP, the past one and the future one. After reading
all of this, we get the impression that the minister knows what he is
talking about and that we have no other choice but to trust him,
because it is sometimes hard to check the debt levels and the
financial requirements that he mentions for 1999. What can we do
but trust him.
I think the Minister of Finance is not really sure that everyone
trusts him, which is why he has laid down some principles. The
throne speech, for example, contains a number of principles, which
the previous speaker, the hon. member for Shefford, listed. First,
the Minister of Finance said his mea culpa. He stated that
governments are responsible for the deficit. This is very interesting
coming from a Liberal minister whose party has been in office for
36 or 38 years over the past 50 years. He was probably talking
about the Conservatives, and forgot about the Trudeau years.
The minister also talked about jobs and growth, just like the
governor general. This is all fine, except that the average citizens
and the economists have now realized that job creation does not
necessarily keep pace with growth, and this is a very serious
problem. I am not blaming the Minister of Finance for not having
the solution to this problem. If he had the solution, Ministers of
Finance from around the world would be in meetings in Ottawa,
right here, right now.
The minister talked about a frugal, trimmed down government.
It is all well and good to say that the government is too big and
involved in too many things. Maybe what we should say is that the
government has been mismanaging some of these areas. However,
the fact that the government is withdrawing from some areas might
cause problems in the years to come.
The Minister of Finance even implied that some government
operations may not be efficient. I think everybody knows that some
government operations probably need to be reviewed. Like in any
other area, when we keep doing the same thing, even though it is a
good thing, we become inefficient because their is no innovation. It
is high time the minister decided to innovate in the area of finance,
as the governor general asked us to be more innovative and creative
in the throne speech.
In terms of principles, the finance minister talked about justice
and compassion, as did the governor general. It is with a tear in his
eye and his heart on his sleeve that the minister then proceeded to
make his budget speech.
(1215)
But I noticed that he did not talk about money right away. He
lingered on the perspectives. He used a new trick, which I have
seen different finance ministers use in several provinces. They go
as far ahead as 1997, 1998, 1999. They confuse people. We think
we no longer have debts, but they are talking about 1999 or 2000 or
2002.
In a way, these budgets become what I would call crystal ball
budgets prepared by people who try to predict the future, but when
we read newspapers from previous years, we can see that most
finance ministers, as well as economists from the major banks and
from the academic world, were wrong in their predictions. Some
have received the Nobel prize in economics, but we notice that it is
often given to people who have worked in the field for a very long
time. That minimizes the risk of error.
The finance minister mentioned two urgent needs. I am talking
about the throne speech and I keep referring to the finance minister
because I was under the impression that the throne speech was
supposed to state certain principles, to tell us where we are headed
as a country, and that, since we are in the economic age, the
6015
finance minister was supposed to provide us with the solutions, to
translate into reality the general directions outlined by the governor
general.
We heard about the need to increase revenues and to cut
expenditures. Of course, the official opposition agrees with these
objectives. Regarding the need to increase revenues, we might
perhaps have expected the minister to announce a reform of our tax
system, but he talked about tax equity instead. Then he went on to
talk about the banks, about the progressive tax, and said a few
words about tax loopholes. He talked about family trusts, but that
was before we learned that $2 billion was taken out of Canada
before Christmas without any taxes being paid on it.
The minister did not talk about keeping the surplus in the
unemployment insurance fund, which has become the employment
insurance fund. Of course he knew that a reform was forthcoming,
that the fund was growing and that he needed that money. But he
never told us how he would increase the revenues without raising
taxes. I think that, today, a minister of finance who would propose
raising taxes directly, rather than indirectly, by asking taxpayers to
make a certain contribution would be severely criticized rather than
congratulated.
As for expenditure reduction, cuts are never mentioned and the
role of the government is never openly questioned, although its role
is under review and things are changing. Basically, a throne speech
or a speech by the finance minister are always optimistic and little
concerned with issues.
Last weekend, I heard a reporter put this question to the
President of the Treasury Board: ``Sir, are there problems in
Canada?'' The minister was flabbergasted. In Canada as a whole, in
Quebec or in my own area of Chicoutimi-Jonquière, there is still a
huge unemployment problem.
Unemployment rates are 9.9 per cent in Canada, 12.6 per cent in
Quebec, and a staggering 14.6 per cent in Chicoutimi-Jonquière.
Thus I would say that the throne speech as the budget speech are
only rhetoric, claptrap and fine words that lead to naught. It has
been six months since they were delivered,-the figures I have
mentioned were for September 1996-and Canadians are still
unemployed. Both these speeches propose no solution to put
Canadians and Quebecers back to work.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member, following his
comments today, the same question that I asked prior to question
period of one of his colleagues.
(1220)
During the so-called economic summit Premier Bouchard
recently held on the economy of Quebec it was revealed in the
local media that experts hired by Premier Bouchard to research the
issues surrounding the economy, the job rate, the brain drain and
other problems afflicting Quebec currently reportedly advised him
the problem is with the separatists and the uncertainty created by
the separatist movement.
In light of this I asked his colleague if he would be prepared to
support the Reform subamendment that says this is the problem
with jobs and the economy in Montreal. It is created and caused by
the separatist movement and the uncertainty that flows from that
and not by any other things in the economy. Would the hon.
member support the subamendment put forward by the Reform
Party?
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
question, because it gives me an opportunity to answer those who
blame Quebec's economic problems on the fact that the national
debate remains unresolved.
I should point out that the issue of Quebec sovereignty has been
around for many years, if not decades. If we look at the economic
fluctuations, we can see that these cycles do not always follow
Quebecers' fluctuating interest in giving themselves a country.
In the 1980 referendum, Quebec sovereignists were clearly
defeated with 60 per cent of the people voting no and 40 per cent
yes. People looked at this 20 per cent gap and thought the battle
was over. They thought the sovereignist movement would not
recover.
The sovereignist movement did have trouble throughout the
1980s until the Meech Lake accord was rejected in 1990 after many
people in Quebec-I was not among them-tried once again to
negotiate a new alliance with Canada.
If Quebec's economic problems are indeed linked to political
uncertainty, how come there was no economic boom in Quebec in
the 1980s? We did not have a boom in Quebec. What we had,
beginning in 1981-82 was a major economic crisis. That was
followed by the election of a Liberal government, headed by Mr.
Bourassa, which should have led to great things, because what we
were essentially saying to financial markets was: ``Quebecers said
No in 1980, they elected a government that was clearly federalist''.
There should have been an investment boom in Quebec. But there
was not.
This means that Quebec's problems are not directly related to the
political environment. Perhaps there is a link, but perhaps there is
not. It depends. Economists will tell us one thing, others will tell us
something else, and in the field of economy, even if it is a science
taught in our universities, the accuracy of forecasts and the various
theories still often leaves a lot to be desired.
I do not think that a close examination of Quebec's economy and
politics over the last 15 years justifies saying that Quebec's current
disastrous economic situation is, in some ways, related to the
6016
political climate, which is in terrible shape according to my
colleague from the Reform Party.
(1225 )
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines. I will
use the next ten minutes to meet two objectives. I will prove that
Canada is on the right track and then I will go on to illustrate that
there are ten reasons to believe in a brighter future in Canada.
October 25 marked three years since our Liberal government
took office. A tremendous amount of change has taken place since
then. Over 650,000 new jobs have been created. The deficit has
decreased. The crime rate has dropped. People are paying less for
their mortgages. Small businesses are exploring more and more
emerging global markets. The United Nations pegged Canada as
the best country in which to live. Those are a few of the reasons I
believe Canada is on the right track.
Our fiscal house is indeed in order. By 1998-99 the deficit will
have been cut to $9 billion. That is a reduction of $33 billion or 80
per cent in five years. A recent OECD report stated that Canada
will rank first among G-7 countries in employment growth both in
the years 1996 and 1997.
What are these ten reasons to believe in a brighter future? First,
the unemployment rate has gone down from 11.1 per cent in
October 1993 to approximately 9.9 per cent in October 1996. This
figure is still a bit high, but when we consider that we are going
through global restructuring here at home and abroad it is very
positive.
That we have been able to exceed our deficit reduction target is
also quite impressive. I stated the statistics earlier, but I also want
to make sure Canadians understand that the deficit has been
reduced through spending cuts, not tax increases. By 1998-99
program spending will be at its lowest level since 1949-50.
Canada, as I said earlier, is expected to rank first in economic
growth among G-7 countries. In part that is because of our deficit
reduction action. There is no question that has increased investor
confidence in our country and improved the overall economic
environment.
Over the past three years Canada's inflation rate has been the
second lowest among G-7 countries and among the lowest in the
industrialized world.
Short term interest rates have declined 4.5 per cent since early
1995. That means that someone renewing a $100,000 mortgage for
one year will save over $3,000 annually.
Also we are blessed to have youth who are the most educated and
technologically advanced generation in our country's history. With
a strong entrepreneurial spirit and a very positive eye on
technology, Canada's young people are ready to face the challenges
of the new economy. We are doing our share to ensure they can
compete in the global marketplace.
Since April 1994 over 760,000 young people have taken
advantage of federal government programs and services. Locally,
in my riding, over 13,000 young people have accessed federal
programming.
There have been recent amendments to Canada student loans.
The government has realized that the provinces, universities and
community colleges have increased tuition.
(1230)
We feel it is our responsibility to respond to those changes. It is
for this reason that we have increased Canada student loans
allocation by $2.5 billion over the next five years. That accounts
for approximately a 57 per cent increase at a time when the
government is, like many governments throughout the world,
dealing with the deficit and the debt.
We have also increased government funding associated with
youth employment services by $315 million. That means that we
are clearly not only stating in our speeches that young people are a
priority but we are acting on it.
Another issue related to building the type of economic
infrastructure required to remain globally competitive is
technology and how this government is helping in this
technological revolution.
Through technology partnerships Canada, the federal
government is providing approximately $250 million to lever
additional investment from the private sector and strategic
technology sectors.
Strategis, Industry Canada's web site and one of the largest
Internet sites in the world, is a business oriented data base of
connections and opportunities.
We have also increased support to the Business Development
Bank. That will result in an additional $350 million in bank loans to
growing knowledge based, export oriented businesses.
We have also modernized Canada's social security net. I have
personally been involved in this. The new employment insurance
system will provide results that will help people get back to work.
We have measures such as the wage subsidies, income
supplements, self-employment assistance, skill and loans grants
that will help unemployed Canadians re-enter the workforce, not to
mention the new seniors' benefit. It will fully protect low and
modest income Canadians.
Those receiving the guaranteed income supplement will get
$120 more per year. Seventy-five per cent of single seniors and
couples will receive the same or higher benefits. Nine out of ten
6017
seniors, women, will receive increased benefits under the new
system.
Going back to the issue of economics and global trade, the
international trade strategy of this government is opening doors to
greater opportunities. Team Canada trade missions to China, India,
Pakistan, Malaysia and Latin American have brought home
approximately $20 billion of new business deals for Canada's
firms. When we think about it, every $1 billion of new exports
protects or provides approximately 11,000 jobs for Canadians.
The Canada infrastructure program is a $6 billion cost shared
program between the municipalities, the provinces and the federal
government. This initiative has been quite successful because it
deals with local priorities. It really speaks to the issue of when we
pool resources as a government we can achieve great things locally.
Over 80,000 to 100,000 jobs have been created as a result of this
program. We have not forgotten that there is something in this
country that we all cherish as Canadians, that in many ways is
identified quite clearly with our country. It is the issue of health
care.
There is no question, based on the budgetary measures we have
taken as a federal government, based on the excellent work done by
the Minister of Health, that we are and we will continue to uphold
the Canada Health Act ensuring that the system remains accessible,
comprehensive, portable, universal and publicly administered.
I think I have clearly outlined to the viewers and members on
both sides of this House that Canada is on the right track. I have
clearly outlined 10 reasons why Canadians ought to believe in a
brighter future not only for themselves but for future generations.
We are certainly better off than we were four or five years ago. Our
country is more optimistic about the future. Consumer and business
confidence is up. The future looks bright.
(1235)
I leave Canadians with one fundamental question. Is there any
other country they would like to live in?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to be able to speak to the House today. I thank the member for
York North for his excellent review of this government's three
years in office. He clearly enunciated the youth and infrastructure
programs which he has been greatly involved in. I welcome back
the member for Jonquière. It is good to see his smiling face in the
House and I am sure we can work together on many items.
I will talk about science and technology. A commitment was
made in the throne speech to create enduring jobs for Canadians in
the economy of the 21st century where investment in knowledge
and technology is very essential. The government will establish
guiding principles to improve the effectiveness and focus of the
federal science and technology effort.
In particular, the throne speech spelled out that the government
will make specific proposals to support technological development
in the aerospace industry, in environmental technologies and in
critical enabling technologies such as biotechnology. Further
measures will be taken to promote technology diffusion, including
the launch of the Canadian technology network.
The government has promised to support technology innovation
by providing a predictable policy and regulatory framework for the
information highway. The government has promised to continue
expansion of SchoolNet access and community access programs.
Thus Canadians, particularly those in rural communities, will be
able to use technology to increase their knowledge, their access to
each other and to the rest of the world.
On March 11 the Minister of Industry and the Secretary of State
for Science, Research and Development released the new
technology proposal. The new technology strategy echoes a
number of elements in the red book, for example, the importance of
partnerships and the role of science and technology in increasing
productivity, growth and the standard of living.
The strategy adds a new element to the Liberal government's
commitments, the importance of getting our house in order and
better managing the federal government's science and technology
activities. To that end an advisory council has been appointed for
science and technology as promised. It will report directly to
cabinet and the Prime Minister. This became effective on July 5.
We have delivered on the promise to define the core of the
federal government's science and technology activities. The
required federal departments must publish annual outlook
documents on science and technology for scrutiny and review by
Parliament. We will implement new human resources policies so
that science and technology professionals can be more effective in
managing and delivering on the federal commitment to science and
technology in the workplace. We have directed the federal
departments of science and technology to co-ordinate with their
provincial and territorial counterparts so we can work together on
all these items.
I had the opportunity to meet with some some of the appointees
to the advisory council that will report to the Prime Minister and to
cabinet. It was great to see that we had people from across the
country: André Caillé, president and chief executive officer of
Hydro Quebec; Pierre Fortier, chairman of the board and senior
partner of Innovitech Incorporated; Martha Piper, vice-president,
research and external affairs, the University of Alberta; Michael
Smith, Peter Wall distinguished professor of biotechnology, the
University of British Columbia; Jacquelyn Thayer Scott, president
and vice-chancellor of the University College of Cape Breton.
6018
Those are only a few of the 12 great advisers we have. They are
excellent advisers from coast to coast.
(1240)
I take the comments of the auditor general very much to heart, to
understand that the auditor general is always looking for areas to
advise the government of where improvements can be made, and
continued improvement in this day and age is really what counts to
reach higher levels.
A recent letter to the industry committee, to which all of the
parties of this House belong, stated: ``There is a tremendous
challenge ahead. We believe that four ingredients are now essential
to the successful implementation of the strategy and the
framework: persistent leadership at all levels of government, from
ministers to scientists; results oriented, time framed
implementation plans; a clear accounting for results; and
parliamentary oversight on progress in implementing the strategy
and the framework''. This is exactly what this government has put
into place.
In the industry committee where all parties are involved we are
looking at the critical industries and technologies that will create
opportunities for the Canadian economy in the next century. We
must look ahead five, ten, fifteen years, dream of what it is going to
be like in 2010, 2020 and then try to make that a reality of the
future.
What is the role of government in promoting emerging
technologies? Where do we fit as a government? Where do we not
fit as a government? What are the things we should do and should
not do? What impediments stand the in way of emerging
technologies? Which government programs create the greatest
barriers to economic growth? What can the government do to
lessen the burden on innovative firms? What steps should be taken
to promote a climate that encourages science, technology and
entrepreneurship? How well are Canadian institutions meeting the
skills and needs of high technology industries?
Today there are many job openings in the high tech field,
thousands of openings that cannot be filled by Canadians because
we are lagging behind the training and the requirements for the
industries that are developing very quickly where they need
scientists. How can Parliament ensure that the government follows
the result oriented science and technology strategy? How can
Parliament organize itself to ensure full governmental
accountability for science and technology? What sort of data
should be collected to monitor progress of science and technology?
As I mentioned earlier, science and technology is something we
must think of in terms of the future, five, ten, fifteen, twenty years.
It is not something we can start and stop. It is something we must
continually plan.
I have had the opportunity to travel this country to be involved in
some seven of nine workshops on this subject, recently touring the
NRC and CML Technologies, Jetform and Vitana, which very
kindly showed us their facilities this past week. It was also
interesting to visit and discuss the roles that each plays in research
and development and to see leading edge technologies in action,
leading edge technologies just ready to be put into the business
sector.
CML Technologies explained how air traffic control products
could be developed and sold in the highly competitive North
American market and win large contracts such as the one it wants
in metropolitan Chicago where it has beat out Motorola, which is
almost like David beating Goliath.
Jetform told us about how it has become the world leader in
office forms, the software required, with an impressive 78 per cent
annual growth and with first quarter world sales of over $15
million.
Vitana demonstrated its Shapegrabber, 3-D imaging package
based on NRC technology, which has been adapted for its clients in
forestry, mining, tire production and industrial assembly. We have
many great firms that we are working with to discuss how science
and technology should be rolled out in the future.
(1245)
I would be remiss if I did not mention a Canadian controlled
company, Newbridge, which works with many affiliates. It has
come to our committee and many committees to talk about how
Canadians can make things happen in science and technology.
Yes, there have been recommendations and that is what we are
looking for. We are looking for better means to make things
happen. We want a competitive and stable environment for R and
D. We want to improve access to markets and capital. We want a
financial risk sharing of R and D and rapid deployment.
May I conclude by saying that what was said in the throne speech
is being delivered every week and every month by this government
to make things happen in a just and timely way just like we
promised.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, since February, this session of Parliament has delivered
exactly what the throne speech promised in the fields of economics
and finance, nothing. Policy is on auto pilot with the Prime
Minister regularly issuing reassuring messages that he is in control
and that no corrections are needed.
The country's biggest problem, the deficit, has been dealt with
by benign neglect. Sure, the numbers have improved but mainly
through downloading $6 billion on to the provinces a year earlier.
There has also been an economic recovery in the United States
which spilled over into Canada through increased demand for
exports. As a result, spending on unemployment insurance benefits
6019
has dropped by $5 billion. There is not much credit to the
government here.
With tax rates set at very high levels, the export stimulated
growth has resulted in higher revenues of $25 billion which exactly
matches the reduction in the bottom line of the deficit. The much
advertised spending cuts on the outer rim of bureaucracy have been
very minor. More are slated to come but not for another year. In
other words, the much vaunted deficit reduction has been achieved
by taking more money away from Canadians through higher tax
revenue.
Canadians who want a smaller government in Ottawa and less
bureaucracy wrapping them in red tape even when it is not
Christmas, will not be pleased by the reduction of less than $1
billion a year when that total government spending is $150 billion,
$50 billion on interest alone.
Now the Prime Minister has announced that there will be no
more cuts to government spending. The Ottawa leviathan will stay
the same size for at least the next two years, by the end of which we
can expect higher tax revenue of about $7 billion a year to have
eliminated the deficit.
Hurray, then the Liberals will be free to get back to what they are
best at: feeding the Ottawa monster. The Prime Minister already
has promised to use the higher tax revenue for more spending at the
rate of $7 billion a year. The Deputy Prime Minister is licking her
chops as she anticipates and already promises money to some of
the unlimited number of good causes that she attracts in whatever
portfolio she is in.
Of course, Canadians know the flip side of this kind of policy.
They feel it in their pocketbooks. Their family income has dropped
by $3,000 a year after taxes, primarily because of increased tax
revenue since this government came into power.
(1250)
Then of course there is the biggest red book promise of jobs,
jobs, jobs. How many jobs have been created? Just enough to
employ the growth in workers, those coming out of high school and
those who have immigrated to Canada. The fact is that nearly 1.5
million Canadians are still looking for work. Many more have
indicated they are so discouraged that they have stopped looking
and many more millions are working only part time.
Let us look at the government's commitments for the future.
Over two years, $7 billion more in revenue for each year will go to
the elimination of the deficit. Thereafter, increases in revenue are
promised to be used for increased spending. That means if the
government gets elected again, the pattern they have been on will
produce another $3,000 reduction in family income because that is
exactly what happened in the preceding four years. All the revenue
increases from these rates of taxation has gone into feeding the
monster government here in Ottawa.
It is not very encouraging for the people of Canada. I
recommend that they look at an alternative which is laid out clearly
in the document called Fresh Start for Reform. Under this program
the leviathan will be tamed. We will cut another approximately $10
billion out of government spending, not from transfers to
provinces. In fact, we will restore some of these transfers that were
cut earlier. It will not come out of transfers to people nor out of
transfers to the provinces for social programs.
It will come out of programs that should be cut, ones we hear
about in the finance committee and from people to whom we talk.
Let me list a few. There is overlap in the delivery of services
between the federal and provincial governments. There are huge
bureaucracies such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the
Department of the Environment, the Department of Industry, the
Department of Labour. There is a whole list of departments where
the provinces have been saying: ``You are making life too tough for
us''. Business is asking: ``Why do we have to fill in the same
information that we have just delivered to the provincial
governments? Why do we also have to give it to the federal
government?''
On my shelf I have the Nielsen task force report. Mr. Speaker,
you were here when this was produced. It has gathered dust. It
indicates that billions can be saved through the elimination of
overlap and duplication. That was 15 years ago. This government
has not taken the hint. Not only would it reduce the leviathan, but it
would also save money and make it better and easier for business to
succeed.
Other expenditure cuts involve special interest group funding. A
report was released recently which indicated that Canadians
through an objective survey have indicated that multiculturalism is
not working. Why do we insist on feeding that monstrous
bureaucracy and all those activities? Reform is not against
multicultural activities. We are against having them financed by
the federal government.
(1255)
Reform has proposed a large number of other cuts. For example,
the elimination of the industrial subsidies that are now being given
to business. Last week in the finance committee business
representatives said: ``Please government, get rid of all of the
subsidies to business and lower the taxes''. That is exactly what
Reform is proposing to do.
What would Reform do with the surplus that would be growing
and continue to grow? We would target tax cuts primarily at the
reduction of barriers to the efficient operation of labour markets.
6020
Whole books are written about this and why our unemployment
rate is so high. New thinking is required in that field.
Reform would deliberately bias the fiscal structure in support of
the maintenance, growth and strength of families rather than the
current system which deliberately favours the splitting up of
families so people can go to work and send their children to child
care. People who stay at home, fathers and mothers, deserve that
same support. Reform would have broad based cuts that would
remove several hundred thousand poor people completely from all
tax rolls.
Canadians now have a clear alternative. On the one side, a
promise of a government that will keep the size of Ottawa and the
bureaucracy where it is right now; use increased tax revenue to
eliminate the deficit and then go on its merry old way, spending the
increases in tax revenue that comes thereafter. Reform offers an
alternative. It offers the elimination of the deficit through growth,
some more reduction in the size of government and revenue
increases thereafter used to give money back where it came from,
the people of Canada.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to my hon. colleague's comments.
Could he elaborate more on the Reform subamendment and how it
deals with the question: What is the real situation as it pertains to
the economic outlook for Montreal and Quebec?
I have endeavoured twice today to ask that question of two hon.
members from the Bloc Quebecois. Both have declined to properly
address the question that separatism is the real culprit when it
comes to the uncertainty that it creates for the economic climate of
Quebec.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I spent two hours with a
group of highly concerned citizens who met at the McGill faculty
club. They were discussing possible steps that might be taken to
create a renaissance in the city of Montreal.
These were people who have spent all their professional and
business working lives in Quebec and Montreal. They have seen
this wonderful Canadian city go from one of the most prominent,
rapidly growing, charming and great cities of North America into a
tailspin that makes them extremely sad. They all acknowledge the
root cause. What they were trying to do was to say: What can we do
to reassure the world to come back to Montreal even though this
threat exists?
(1300)
Unfortunately, I did not have much good advice for them. I
talked about my experiences with countries that have pulled
themselves up by their bootstraps, such as Singapore, Hong Kong
and other of the Asian tigers. They rejected the view that the
separatist government, if it comes into power, would model itself
after those countries because of its great commitment to social
democratic values meddling in the economy. That is not reassuring
for any of the potential businesses that might consider moving to
Montreal.
The insight I gained is that it is not just the idea there might be
separation with all of the uncertainties surrounding it. There is also
the added problem that all of the pronouncements we have heard
until quite recently from Mr. Bouchard are that we will continue to
have huge government spending on all kinds of worthy projects
which are preventing the growth of the economy and the restoration
of confidence.
I do not know the answers. I would say to my colleague there is
no doubt that the threat of separation, plus the prospect of what
might happen after separation by a very left wing government,
carries the primary responsibility for the sad decline of the city of
Montreal from one of the great cities in North America to a city
with a sick economy.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I gave my
first speech in the House on January 20, 1994 during the debate on
the speech from the throne. I am disappointed that after two and a
half years and two throne speeches little has changed.
Back then I expressed the views I had heard from people in the
Wetaskiwin riding during a year of campaigning. They were
concerned about the economic future of Canada. They were
worried about the kind of Canada their children and their
grandchildren would inherit. Over the Thanksgiving break I heard
the same concerns repeated time and again by my constituents.
Before tackling the 1996 throne speech however, I would like to
take a few moments to look back over the last two and a half years
at the expectations and the realities of the 1994 throne speech.
The first throne speech promised that MPs pensions would be
reformed but hopes for meaningful change were dashed when the
Liberal caucus troughers would only accept minor alterations to
their gold plated MP pension plans. The Reform Party MPs who
anticipated fair retirement packages had their hopes dashed as well,
so we opted out.
The ongoing unity debate and the continued growth of the
national debt over the last two and a half years exposed this
government as inefficient and ineffective.
The litany of broken election promises and forgotten
pronouncements of two throne speeches are signalling an end to
this government's honeymoon.
The 1996 throne speech commits the government to ``promote a
proper climate for economic growth and jobs''. The government
promises to do this by modernizing part I of the Canada Labour
Code dealing with labour relations, an area not substantially
changed in the last 20 years.
The workplace of the 1990s is very different from that of the
1970s. Restructuring and downsizing are the new realities. The
government, instead of responding to the new challenges in a
6021
positive and progressive manner, reverted to that old Liberal
standby, a half million dollar study.
Studies do not put gas in the tank or pay the mortgage.
Employers can no longer guarantee lifelong jobs to employees.
Workers want the government to provide an environment where
labour and management can focus their attention on the task at
hand without the threat of a strike or lockout.
(1305 )
Last year when the Minister of Labour appointed a task force to
review part I of the labour code, I hoped that the recommendations
would include a mechanism for solving disputes. In the last 20
years Parliament has legislated an end to 19 work stoppages,
including three in the last two years in the transportation and grain
handling sectors. The combined costs of the west coast ports
dispute and the railway strike/lock-out are estimated to be in the $4
billion range. Yet the task force failed to seize the opportunity and
recommend measures that would ensure Canadian products reach
their markets.
I recommended final offer selection arbitration to the task force
as a mechanism to effectively and permanently resolve labour
disputes that fall under federal jurisdiction. The industrial inquiry
commission into west coast ports supported my position. Final
offer selection arbitration gives labour and management the tools
to resolve their differences. It does not favour one side over the
other and it eliminates government interference in the negotiations.
It puts the onus on both sides to reach an agreement and can be used
equally by labour and management.
If the government is serious about improving industrial
relations, minimizing conflict and bringing greater stability to
federally regulated sectors, labour and management must be
provided with a permanent, just, and effective dispute settlement
mechanism. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to reflect
on the report and compare it to the recommendations from the
industrial inquiry on west coast ports, I expect that he will
recognize the benefits of final offer arbitration and will make it a
focal a point in the code.
Canadians have always been a step ahead of the old line
governments. On October 25, 1993 voters showed that they wanted
change. They tossed out the Tories believing that the Liberals had
the people and the plan for the 1990s. What did they get? They got
more of the same.
My colleague the member for Beaver River put it quite
succinctly when she said that the Liberals find it very difficult to
take a firm stand on anything except of course fences. After putting
up with three years of fence sitting, Canadians are demanding
decisive leadership.
My constituents told me that they want immediate action on the
economy. They want tax relief now so that job creation can occur.
What have three years of Liberal rule brought Canadians? Since
coming to power the Liberals have raised taxes 31 times. As a
result of these tax increases the government will collect $25 billion
in extra revenue by 1997. We know now what their debt reduction
strategy is.
Even when the government reaches its target or if it reaches the
target of 2 per cent of GDP or $17 billion, $70 million a day, $70
billion annually will have been added to our debt. If the debt
increases at the rate that it has been, it will be $615 billion by
1997-98, an increase of $107 billion since the Liberals took office
in 1993.
As long as the government continues to spend more than it
collects in revenues it has to keep borrowing to meet its
commitments. The interest on that borrowed money will be a
whopping $50 billion this year alone. When that $50 billion is
added to the $600 billion that we owe already, it is a double
whammy for Canadians. That is $48 billion or $50 billion that will
not be available for health care and social programs.
The Minister of Finance has to balance the budget by 1997-98. I
suspect that he would like to balance the budget but I believe that
his task is made even more difficult because of his prime
ministerial aspirations. Unfortunately for him, his current boss
does not realize the seriousness of the problem.
The Prime Minister acknowledges that ``of course we have a
debt but we can pay off our interest; we have no problem at all''.
Canadians know, even if the Prime Minister and his cabinet do not,
that if you borrow money to pay the interest on loans and credit
cards, you put yourself deeper and deeper into debt. Somehow the
Prime Minister has missed this very basic reality of finance.
(1310 )
Only when there is an end to deficit financing will Canadians
find the hope alluded to in the throne speech. When deficit
financing ends, the Minister of Finance will be able to follow
Reform's fresh start lead and ensure that future budget surpluses
will be used to reduce taxes and to lower the debt.
Had the Liberals adopted the common sense suggestions made in
Reform's taxpayers budget released last year, Canadians would be
on the way to budget surplus, investor confidence, job growth and
social program securities this year. Instead, the Liberals are
extending the pain with no prospect of gain, to the point that their
fiscal policy is not just being called unsustainable any more but
immoral.
Canadians are willing to take the bitter medicine now if there is
tax relief in sight. An aggressive attack on the deficit and a
commitment to eliminating it by the year 1997-98 will be accepted
6022
by taxpayers who do not want to leave a legacy of debt and deficit
to their children. We simply cannot continue to borrow against our
children's futures.
Studies show that if the Liberal trend of taxation is allowed to
continue, children born today will pay 32 per cent of their life
income in taxes. Future generations will be even worse off. They
will have to pay an estimated 65 per cent of their earnings in taxes,
thanks to the inability of today's government to come to grips with
the debt and deficit.
After years of inept governments, Canadians are ready to take
their future into their own hands. They recognize that the Canada
pension plan and OAS programs cannot be counted on to finance
their golden years. Canadians want control over their retirement
savings to ensure that those golden years are not tarnished.
Canadians do not want the government to impose higher taxes to
prop up programs when their future viability is questionable.
Canadians can look after themselves but only if the government
curbs its appetite for taxes.
When the government embarks on a plan to make the Canada
pension plan sustainable for future generations as proposed in the
throne speech, it must completely revamp the program and not
simply increase the premiums and raise the age of eligibility.
There are solutions to the problems we face. We need new ideas
and a government that is not afraid to change. 1970s solutions are
not applicable in the 1990s.
On October 17 the Reform Party took another unprecedented
step and released a fresh start election campaign. Our plan will
reduce the size of government. It will provide tax relief. It will
make families a Canadian priority. It will make our streets safer
and it will repair our social safety net.
I have appreciated the opportunity to speak on the throne speech
today.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed a pleasure to participate in the throne speech debate today.
The throne speech develops themes and initiatives that will
guide the government in its actions for the coming period. In
reviewing the throne speech, it reflects some of the values that we
have in Canada.
Canada for the third year in a row has been recognized by the
United Nations as being the best country in the world in which to
live. This is a great honour. It also is reflective of the underlying
values and supports Canada provides to all Canadians. It is a value
system that distinguishes Canadians.
Recently the CBC had a special in which it interviewed
Canadians across the country and tried to define what it is to be
Canadian. It found that it was very difficult to find a simple
definition of Canadian. In reflecting on that, it appears to me that
what really defines Canada is that it is indefinable. We are a very
diverse society. From coast to coast to coast we are very diverse in
our cultural backgrounds, in our basic systems of operation.
One only has to look at Quebec itself. Quebec is a delightful
province with a tremendous history and culture. It is a province
which has been the subject matter of much debate over the years,
yet most Canadians who have visited Quebec know what a lovely
province it is, just as every other province in the country is.
(1315)
It is clear when one goes to Quebec that it is the guardian of the
French language, culture and laws. It has a distinctiveness. In fact,
it is something to be cherished and protected by Canada. In my own
mind, Canadians own a little piece of every part of this country.
You, Mr. Speaker, own a little part of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, all of the provinces from sea to sea to sea. As the
taxpayers of the country, we invest in Canada. Through our various
levels of government, we make sure that the value system that we
have developed over the years is available to all Canadians.
What a wonderful country we have that we can travel from
province to province to enjoy the diversity that every province has
to offer. If I have a need I can receive health care in any province in
Canada, not because I have money but because I have that health
care need.
I could move to another province and have the same rights,
privileges and freedoms as anyone who was born and raised there.
That is the diversity of Canada and what makes it the best country
in the world in which to live.
I want to concentrate a little bit on the theme of credibility and
integrity in government. Since becoming a member of Parliament
in 1993, I have become more exposed than I ever was before to the
public reaction to people who are in political life. There is no
question that over the last 25 years there has been this attitude
toward people in politics which is really, quite frankly,
discomforting.
The day before I was elected I was a community member with a
family. I was involved very actively in the community. The day
after the election I did not change. In fact I think I was elected, like
most members here, because I had demonstrated a knowledge and
sensitivity to my community and the ability to do a very important
job on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of Canadians.
When I came here and started a constituency office it was very
interesting to find that people would all of a sudden start calling as
if the election was still going on and start being critical and treating
me as if all of a sudden I was one of them.
I understand the partisan emotions that people have but once the
election is over I wish that those who want to continue to fight
election campaigns after an election would take into account the
6023
fact that all hon. members of Parliament have a responsibility first
to their constituents.
In my constituency office I am blessed to have excellent staff.
There are Irene, Joan and Lyanne. When I am not able to be in the
office they are there working on my behalf to make sure that my
constituents get the service they need when they need it. If they
have to speak to me I know my staff will make sure I find out at the
earliest convenience so that I can personally address the needs of
my constituents.
We have an excellent opportunity to provide service. I know all
members work very hard to keep that service level within the
constituency offices so that Canadians are properly served and
informed about the government's programs and services and also to
get the assistance that they need when they are not sure or have
some questions or doubt about the applicability of certain things
within their jurisdictions or within the jurisdictions of the
Government of Canada.
We have another office in Ottawa with other staff. I have Nancy,
and today Trudi is taking care of my office. We have people who
are always contacting members of Parliament who really need to
let them know what the issues are as they see them and try to
determine whether or not those members of Parliament can give
them some perspective of where we are coming from and how we
can work together to see how we can make legislation work better
within Canada.
Many of these people are lobbyists on behalf of specific
industries or business groups or social or political causes. Members
of Parliament have a tremendous challenge to sort out special
interest groups that deal in their own interests rather than in the
interests of the broad base of Canadians which we as members of
Parliament represent.
(1320)
Each member of Parliament belongs to a political party. Each
party has a caucus structure which allows members to convey the
input of constituents. Members receive input from constituents
from meetings, from phone calls or letters or from general
encounters. As we work throughout our constituencies and attend
many events, people talk to us. They tell us what is on their minds,
when they like something or when they do not like something. That
is what the job is all about.
As a member of Parliament I can bring that information back to
Ottawa. I can go to my regional caucus and let my caucus
colleagues know what people are saying. I can ask them about their
people to see if we have consensus. We often find there is
consensus within our own regional areas. There are similar
problems. Our ridings are very close. We have this opportunity
through the communications mechanism of the caucus to let that
message trickle up to the next level.
The regional information goes to a provincial caucus. The chair
of our regional caucus makes a report at the provincial caucus of
the areas in which the members had consensus. On top of that, all
members of that caucus-in my case the Ontario caucus-have the
opportunity to further emphasize the issues that are most important
to their constituents. I work hard at it.
After that level we look for consensus again. It goes to the
national caucus level where all the members of Parliament of a
particular party get together and find out how all the regions of the
country feel about the challenges that face them. We want to find
some balance, some priorization of the issues that face Canadians
at large.
Every member of Parliament in my caucus has an opportunity to
stand up in his or her place before the Prime Minister, before all the
cabinet ministers, before all of their colleagues to say ``in my
riding this issue is important and this is why''.
The point is Canadians should know that members of
Parliament, even those not in the cabinet who do not have high
profile positions, have an extremely important job to do and a very
good opportunity to raise issues in their caucuses right up to the
level of the leader of their party or the Prime Minister.
Further, legislative policy development is a very important
aspect of a member of Parliament's job. We do this work within the
theme of trying to enhance the credibility and the integrity of the
profession of being an hon. member of Parliament.
Members of Parliament have many issues that are of particular
importance to them. Through the mechanisms of this place we have
an opportunity to raise petitions on behalf of our constituents, to
make statements in this place on behalf of issues or on behalf of
constituents who let us know what really concerns them.
We also have an opportunity to present motions in this place and
propose changes to government legislation. I had one. We had a
resolution on Bill C-41 which allowed me to raise a motion to
change the law so that abusers of spouses or children will get stiffer
penalties under the laws of Canada. That passed in this place, and I
am very proud that I had an opportunity to participate in the
development of a piece of legislation of the Government of
Canada.
That did not come out of the air. Nobody told me to do it. It came
because I was involved in my community before I was elected. I
was involved with Interim Place, our shelter for battered women. I
knew what a terrible problem this was to our society. The problem
has always been there. I saw this opportunity.
6024
I know all members of Parliament from their own backgrounds
and experiences have the opportunity to bring up their life
experiences so they can help to shape and craft legislation in the
best interests of all Canadians.
(1325 )
I have spent a lot of time talking about family issues. I think for
the last three years I have been giving the same petition ``that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society''. And it goes on to say that we need some tax reform
because families are very important.
I have given many speeches in this place in which I have used
lines such as: If the family was strong, the deficit would be gone. I
have used other lines like: Strong families make a strong country.
We have to invest in our children and invest in our families. These
themes are coming through, I know they are.
Even though my bill on splitting income between spouses did not
get the confidence of the House, I know that when we introduce
new legislation on employment insurance there will be wage
subsidies for parents who have parental leave so they can come
back into the workforce when they have taken care of their
responsibility of caring for their children.
I also know that the legislation includes training allowances so
that those people who have taken the time to provide direct parental
care will have the opportunity to get their skills back into shape and
can properly take their role in society, working and being as good
as they can be in the employment sector.
I also spent some time working on the underground economy. I
spent six months studying it in Canada and the U.S. I put forward a
private member's motion in this place which prescribed a program
to address the underground economy. All members of the House
who spoke supported the motion. In fact, it passed and was then
taken by the then Minister of National Revenue and with
departmental officials, a seven point program was developed to
address the issues related to the underground economy.
Last June the new Minister of National Revenue rose in this
place and thanked me, saying that as a result of that seven point
program that she could announce that they had assessed over $1
billion of additional taxes which were unbudgeted because of
problems in the underground economy. That is the kind of thing
that happens in this place which make me excited about this job,
because I know there are opportunities to make good things happen
if you can only continue to earn respect within your own caucus
and in the House to garner support for issues that you feel are very
important.
Members in this place will also know that I have spent a lot of
time on the responsible use of alcohol. They know that I got
unanimous consent of all parties on December 7, 1995, supporting
health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages.
That has been stuck in committee. I am afraid that it may stay there
and when the next election comes it will still be there and will die. I
did not give up. I continue to work on it and it is continually being
studied as part of the review of Canada's national drug strategy.
As a result of my research I did into the problems associated
with alcohol misuse, I started to put together a program which is
now called ``Drink Smart Canada''. Drink Smart Canada today is a
national public awareness campaign on the responsible use of
alcohol. There are over 8,000 posters circulating across Canada,
over 120 municipalities have passed resolutions in their chambers
endorsing Drink Smart. The Canadian Police Association and the
Association of Canadian Chiefs of Police are the honorary patrons.
We have a toll free number and we receive several calls every day
from people who want more information and who want to
participate.
On November 7 there will be a special forum of national groups
and organizations that are going to come together to help to kick off
the remaining strategy of the Drink Smart Canada campaign.
I did not have to do these things, but I sensed from the support I
received from all parties in the House on the health warning labels
on the containers of alcoholic beverages that members in this place
wanted to make sure that the issues associated with alcohol did not
die. The members here are wondering what are those issues. Those
issues are: 50 per cent of family violence; 65 per cent of child
abuse; 1 in 6 family breakdowns; 45 per cent of automobile
collisions; 30 per cent of suicides; 45 per cent of fires; 50 per cent
of hospital emergencies. These are all directly or indirectly due to
alcohol misuse. It costs Canadians $15 billion a year and 19,000
people die each year as a result of the irresponsible use of alcohol.
This is an important issue and I am prepared to fight for it, to work
hard and to make sure that the issues are before Canadians.
(1330)
I have talked a lot about fetal alcohol syndrome. Fetal alcohol
syndrome is the problems associated with alcohol consumption
during pregnancy. Five per cent of birth defects are caused by
alcohol consumption during pregnancy. It costs Canadians $2.7
billion a year to deal with the problems associated with FAS,
additional health care costs, social program costs, criminal justice
costs and lost productivity in our society; due to a child who is yet
to be born. It is a 100 per cent preventable tragedy.
In 1992 the Standing Committee on Health prepared a report on
FAS, the 100 per cent preventable tragedy. The report
recommended health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic
beverages so that we could alert Canadians of the risks associated
with consuming alcohol during pregnancy.
6025
From those examples Canadians probably have a reasonable
idea that members of Parliament, even those not in cabinet, have
an important role to play in this place. We have an important role
to support the themes articulated in the throne speech, to improve
the integrity and the credibility of people who change their lives
to come to this place to represent constituents and represent all
Canadians.
Politics is really a team sport. There are several teams but by and
large I know members of Parliament in this place in their hearts
come here to do a good job for their constituents, and to do what
they can to shape and to craft important legislation that will make
sure that Canada continues to be the best country in the world.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order. I am almost certain that I rose to my feet a split
second before my hon. colleague from North Vancouver.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. We have 10
minutes and each member can have five minutes.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was
such an enthralling speech I could have sworn I saw you dozing off
for a moment there.
I would like to question the member on two particular issues. He
rambled on at great length about the wonderful health care system
we have and how universal it is.
The first question deals with the province of Quebec, which
refuses to properly reimburse other provinces for the health care
given to its citizens when they use the health services of other
provinces. The present health minister, when he was in opposition,
regularly complained about that in this House and said the Liberal
government would do something about it. Then on the TV program
``Ottawa Inside Out'' just a few months ago he suddenly says it is
not at the top of the priority list anymore. Yet he was more than
happy to punish Alberta and B.C. for trying to find alternative ways
to fund their health care systems. Why is the Minister of Health
now ignoring the serious violation of the Canada Health Act by
Quebec?
The second question deals with waiting lists. Can he please
explain why the Liberal government has given the entrepreneur of
the year award to a company in Winnipeg that provides waiting list
insurance for Canadians so that they can go to the United States for
medical services when they have to wait too long in Canada?
Finally, what does he have to say to one of my constituents, Mrs.
Gawenda, who waited nine months for an operation in Vancouver
that should have been done within weeks? She ended up going to
Seattle and paying $15,000 of her own money to have it done. The
doctors down there said what sort of a country would have allowed
a person to go nine months waiting for an operation that should
have been done in three weeks.
(1335)
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of the member's
question has to do with the issues surrounding what happened in
Alberta and B.C. What happened there was they were operating a
two tier health care system-
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Quebec is the issue.
Mr. Szabo: I will address Quebec in a moment, if the member
would give me an opportunity to respond. It took several months.
The health minister of the day gave several months for Alberta to
change the situation so that Canadians could get health care not
because they had money but because they were sick.
With regard to the Quebec situation, the rules guiding the
provinces from the federal level are contained in the Canada Health
Act. The five principles of the Canada Health Act are portability,
accessibility, universality, comprehensiveness and publicly funded.
The government, through the Canada health and social transfer,
transfers the moneys. If there are problems there the rules are in
place to deal with them and the provinces will surely have to
comply with the spirit and in fact the law of the Canada Health Act.
With regard to waiting lists, that is a provincial jurisdiction. I do,
however, understand that people have to wait. I spent nine years on
the board of the Mississauga hospital and five years as treasurer. I
know that the tremendous shift to an ambulatory philosophy
toward providing health care has made sure that hospitals even
when they downsize actually are serving more patients than they
used to more efficiently. They are more cost effective.
There are certain things they cannot do on demand. Any business
has to respond to fiscal realities. I do not think that in this case the
member has convinced me that his constituent is not getting
appropriate health care.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the hon. member a
question following, as my colleague says, his riveting presentation.
We can certainly tell there is an election coming when politicians
become so full of themselves.
Earlier the hon. Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie made a presentation in this
House. He talked about what he viewed as the Reform Party
inconsistency in our policies.
I point out from Hansard page 5561, October 22, 1996 that in
response to a question about the announcement of a grant of $11
million to Viet Nam and the concern expressed by an hon. member
6026
during that question about human rights abuses in Viet Nam, the
hon. minister replied that the Canadian government should not use
economic pressure to resolve a situation concerning human rights.
That is what he said basically, that he did not believe that.
Later on the same day the same minister in response to a
question about the situation in Afghanistan and the concern
expressed there for human rights replied: ``The Canadian
government is extremely concerned about human rights not being
respected, in particular women's rights, in Afghanistan. That is
why we have suspended all Canadians funds for local initiatives
until further notice''.
We talk about inconsistencies. Unfortunately there was not time
for me to put this question directly to him, but I will put it to his
hon. colleague because he does represent the Liberal government.
This minister is saying in connection with Viet Nam that no, we
cannot tie human rights to economic aid and yet with Afghanistan
we do prevent economic aid because of human rights abuses.
I am wondering, as are the people of Canada, which is it?
(1340 )
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that I clarify one
thing for members of the House and for Canadians.
As a backbench member of Parliament I do not speak on behalf
of the minister and I do not speak on behalf of the Liberal Party. I
am part of a team, but I have no authority and no way to represent
the position of the government.
Notwithstanding that, I am familiar with the issues which the
member has raised and I will give him my personal input, which is
what my job is.
The member will well know that human rights issues are very
important to Canada. The social values that we have in this country
have meant that every time international situations arise Canadians
look to Canada to provide leadership where possible. The member
must surely know that with a population of just about 30 million
people it is very difficult to go to China and say ``I am the Prime
Minister of Canada. I represent 30 million people and you should
stop doing what you are doing''. The premier of China would say
``I am the premier of China and I represent one billion people''.
Canada has a role to play in terms of its model. We supported our
UN allies with the embargoes on South Africa. We supported our
allies in the Afghanistan situation. However, we are not singing
from a linear song sheet.
For example, let us look at the Cuba situation. Canada does not
support the U.S. position on Cuba. Canada's position appears to be,
very clearly, that the best way to change human rights abuses in
Cuba is for Canadians to be there, to be doing business there and to
have some input and show Cubans how we can work together to
make the world a safer place.
The point is do not look for a simple solution to the complex
problems of the world. Every situation has different circumstances.
Canada will play its role as it always has.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after listening to
the member's intervention I am reminded of the immortal words of
Forest Gump: ``Blah, blah, blah, blah''. That is all I have to say
about that.
Throne speeches are an opportunity for the government to chart a
course and lay out its plans for the country, for the people and for
the government for the ensuing months.
Different kinds of thrones often produce different results. I am
afraid that the Canadian people have received a vastly inferior
product with this throne speech.
Let us examine the facts. The government talked about all the
wonderful things it was going to do for Canada. It talked about all
the wonderful things it was going to do for the coastal communities
of Canada, for example. The reality is vastly different.
The government has made vicious cuts to essential services such
as the coast guard, search and rescue, fish hatcheries and light
stations, to name a few, in the pursuit of saving a small amount of
money in comparison to total government spending.
In the case of fish hatcheries we are talking about $3 million to
$4 million a year. In the case of light stations we are talking about
$3 million a year. In the case of the coast guard we are talking
about $7 million a year. That is the coast guard; not for aids to
navigation, but search and rescue. Those are coast guard services
that actually are there to prevent the loss of Canadian human life,
mariners and fishermen on the high seas.
We are told that these services have to be cut. We cannot afford
them any more. The government just does not have the money.
(1345 )
We agree that this country has a serious deficit and debt problem.
However, we say that the places where the government ought to cut
last is where the government is actually delivering a service in the
field to Canadians.
I have told people in my riding that if they want to find out where
the DFO office is in Ottawa, they should fly to Ottawa, take a cab,
drive around the downtown core and when they find the nicest,
biggest, shiniest ivory tower, get out of the cab and walk over to the
front door. I guarantee they have just found the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
6027
The building is full from the top to the bottom with bureaucrats.
A whole floor is dedicated to communications. What is meant by
communications? They are talking about spin doctors. The whole
floor is designed to sell the minister's decisions to the Canadian
people. That is what the government considers to be an essential
service. It is not the coast guard boats that are out there to save and
preserve Canadian lives during problems, storms and so on. No,
that is not an essential service.
The government uses the throne speech in a despicable way. It
tries to convince Canadians that it is actually concerned about their
welfare. In reality it is more concerned about its own welfare and
places that as a much higher priority than any of the other priorities
it has.
Let us examine for a minute the fact that after all these cuts the
Government of Canada turns around and gives an $87 million no
interest loan to its corporate buddies over at Bombardier. If the
people at Bombardier wanted my money as a taxpayer, could they
not ask me for it? Could they not knock on my door and say: ``We
would like to have some money. We need to do some R and D. You
are a Canadian citizen and we think you should contribute to this
cause''. They could but they do not. Do you know why they do not?
Because I would tell them to go play in the traffic. I would tell them
they do not need my money because they have $6 billion in assets.
They are making millions of dollars in profits and there are
Canadians who do need my money. I would tell them to get lost.
However, Bombardier does not have to come to me or to the
taxpayers of Canada to get permission to steal my money. No, it
comes to the government and gets permission to coerce money out
of me and all of the other taxpayers across this country to support
its corporate objectives.
When I was first elected and came here I was absolutely
dumbfounded one day when I opened the Financial Post and read
that the government had made a $60 million U.S. loan for the
construction of an aluminum smelter in South Africa. Think about
this for a minute. Canada is one of the leading producers of
aluminum in the world. There are 10 smelters in Quebec. There is
one world class smelter in my riding in Kitimat, British Columbia.
Not only the company, but the people who work in those companies
are all contributing to the tax base here. The government does not
ask them: ``Do you think we should send $60 million to South
Africa to build an aluminum smelter down there?'' No, it does not
ask anyone; it just says it is doing it.
And what is SNC-Lavalin? Just another corporate buddy of the
Liberal government. It is another corporation which happens to
make hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to the Liberal
Party.
When we look at the record of this government and consider its
approach to issues, it does not take very long to come to the
conclusion that the Liberal government will put the priorities and
the interests of Canadians behind its own political interests every
time out of the starting gate. Frankly, it is starting to really annoy
me and a lot of other Canadians.
The Liberal red book is a Liberal dead book. The speech from
the throne is nothing more than a pompous, self-inflated statement
designed to mislead Canadians and has no real intent to serve their
interests.
(1350 )
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to finally address the throne speech. Only in the Canadian
system could we be addressing a speech where all the goals and
finances were established six months ago. In fact, half the
programs have already been spent.
I will address my area as critic which is public works which
deals with a number of areas within government and with
government contracts.
One of the first areas we dealt with in the government operations
committee was the Senate. The finances of the Senate can come
before our committee. I moved a resolution to have one of the
Senate financial people come before our committee to explain how
the Senate was going to spend its $40 million allocation plus
another $11 million in expenses. It went through this House. It was
the first time in Canadian history I might add that the Senate was
asked to come before a committee to account for its expenses.
Guess what? The people from the Senate did not show up. They felt
that they did not have to. This brings us to the crux of the Canadian
system.
Here we have a group of senators-I will call them a double U
Senate, unelected and unaccountable-refusing to come before this
House to justify their expenses. That is absolutely wrong. This is
why we need a triple E Senate, elected, effective and equal. A lot of
the legislation that went through this House-the GST is a good
example, and gun control-would not have gone through if there
had been an elected Senate, an effective Senate.
It happens in the United States and the Australian governments.
They have Senates that work. Unfortunately we do not. It is
fundamental to our system that this government right across the
board voted to give the Senate its allocation of $40 million plus $11
million in expenses without questioning where it was going to
spend that money.
Another area within public works is contracts. My colleague
from Skeena commented on Bombardier. Why in heaven should
Bombardier receive millions of dollars? It is one of the most
profitable corporations in Canada yet it went to the Liberal
government and got that money. Why? Because it donated
$174,000 over the past three years to the Liberal Party.
6028
Another one is the mine sweeper contract that went finally to
SNC-Lavalin. This is a $35 million contract. Halifax Shipyards
submitted the lowest bid and the best technical bid. It was the
outfit that was recommended by the Department of National
Defence but did Halifax Shipyards get that contract? No. It went
to SNC-Lavalin in Quebec which is a very large Liberal supporter.
Is this the kind of government Canadians want? Canadians want
a straight up, level playing field so that when contracts are given
out, they are given out to the best possible competitor. That does
not happen. I have seen contracts that have been rewritten. A
contract on the east coast is written one way and when the contract
goes to a west coast firm, the contract is rewritten so that the west
coast firm cannot compete. That is absolutely wrong.
There has to be a level playing field in all contracts. That simply
is not happening right now. The government is playing favourites
like Bombardier, like SNC-Lavalin. This is clearly the old style
politics. This is the Mulroney style politics. We know what
happened to the Mulroney gang. The same thing is going to happen
to this gang because Canadians simply will not put up with it.
We are in a debt and deficit hole. We need to spend our money
wisely. We Canadians do not really like paying our taxes, but if we
paid our taxes knowing full well that they were going to go to the
right cause with efficiency, with economy, Canadians would be
quite happy to come forward with their taxes. Right now they have
absolutely no confidence in this government when it comes to
spending their money. This will change come the next election.
(1355)
Another area within public works is Canada Post. What has
happened to our postal system? Over the past 10 or 12 years we
cannot get a letter across a city in the same day or between cities in
two days and anywhere in the country in three days. That is what
the Radwanski report is saying. This should be the goal of Canada
Post. Get of the courier business. Get out of Purolator Courier and
get out of the ad mail business.
I will describe exactly what has happened in Canada Post.
Canada Post owns half of Purolator. It is the biggest player in the
courier business. By allowing Canada Post to falter, not to be able
to get a letter across town for 45 cents, we then have to go to
Purolator and pay $9 to get it across town. This is really good
business, is it not? But they are playing with Canadian tax dollars.
Canada Post absolutely refuses to show the cross-subsidization that
is happening, where the 45-cent stamp is going. It undercuts ad
mail. It undercuts it so that it is then the best player in town. It
undercuts Purolator so that the other players, the private sector, are
at a disadvantage.
Canada Post has to get out of that altogether and get back to its
real mandate of efficient and economical delivery of mail. That is
what the Reform Party believes. Canada Post should have the
mandate to get back to the basics. If it cannot do that after being
given a perfect chance, then the Reform Party will consider
privatizing it. If that is the only way we can get mail delivered in
this country, then we will do it.
The United States and Australia have similar distances, similar
problems within their postal systems yet they can do it. Why can
Canada Post not do it? Canada Post cannot do it because it is
embroiled in trying to get into the public sector, which is absolutely
wrong.
Canada Post has forgotten its absolute beginning mandate and
this is where the Radwanski report is absolutely bang on. Allow
Canada Post to be opened to access to information. Allow the
auditor general into Canada Post to deal with it. Right now we
cannot get any information from Canada Post on its finances or on
what is going on. This is absolutely wrong.
In summary in the contract area and in the big corporate areas
such as Canada Post and CMHC, the government has a dismal
record. We must get government out of the faces of Canadians, get
back to the basics and have contracts awarded on a real, effective,
level playing field. In that way Canadians will be getting the best
bang for their buck.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to comment on the speeches from the previous two speakers
who shared their time.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. I stood for questions and comments. Is that not permitted
now?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, it is questions and comments. This
Speaker always recognizes a member from a party other than the
one which gave an intervention.
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker, I would
particularly like to compliment the first speaker of the two. He
made it very clear to us and described in detail the needs of some of
his constituents in the coastal communities of British Columbia.
As a member who comes from Ontario who has had brief visits
to British Columbia it is good for me to hear a member from that
part of the world describe these things in great detail. In so doing he
is educating all of us in our responsibilities. The member had the
wisdom to put price tags on some of the things his people at home
needed. I found that description an honest presentation of the needs
of the people of British Columbia. It was in stark contrast to the
criticism that followed on the government's movements with
Bombardier and the criticism of SNC Lavalin.
The member and the speaker previous to him implied that the
government's dealings with Bombardier and SNC Lavalin were
related only to politics. They failed to recognize that those two
corporations are tremendous Canadian companies. As the Minister
of Industry said the other day, the Government of Canada is
backing a winner in the world of aerospace when it backs
Bombardier and all governments around the world lucky enough to
have aerospace industries provide subsidies to them.
6029
In SNC Lavalin we have one of the greatest engineering
companies in the world. It is highly regarded by its colleagues in
the private sector because it is leading the charge of the Canadian
private sector into the markets of China which is where some of our
subsequent wealth in future years will come from. Therefore we
should be encouraging that company, not berating it in the House of
Commons.
Both previous speakers accused the governing party of old style
politics. I suggest they have given a demonstration of old style
politics. They have come to Ottawa to say this is what I need to take
back home and do not give anything to anybody else who is not
from my community or my province or my region. That is the kind
of regionalism that is divisive.
It is perfectly legitimate to express the needs of your
communities. That is what I want to hear. But I do not want to hear
criticisms of other communities, other corporations, other
provinces that are doing the same thing in order to build the
federation as a whole. That is old style politics, coming to Ottawa
and asking what can I grab, what can I take home?
My questions to those speakers are: What are they bringing to
the federation? Which shared Canadian values are-
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired because
only five minutes are allowed. Only the member for
Comox-Alberni may reply since there has already been a question
period for the member for Skeena.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, the member said that we only come
to this area to grab something for our own province. I would point
out that three provinces are have provinces. One of them is British
Columbia. We are very much at the bottom of the stick when it
comes to receiving from the other end.
All we are asking for is a level playing field with equal give and
take. British Columbians are tired of give, give, give. As my
colleague for Skeena said, in the coastal communities it has been
lighthouses, coast guard, fisheries. It is an on and on list of
abandoning British Columbian coastal communities. This is not the
way a government should be operating, particularly toward a
province like British Columbia that contributes more in transfer
payments than it gets.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further speakers and it
being approximately 2 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose
of the subamendment and the amendment now before the House.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the
amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Yea.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment 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: Pursuant to order adopted, the division
stands deferred until Tuesday, November 5, 1996, at 5.30 p.m.
It being 2 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.04 p.m.)