CONTENTS
Thursday, November 7, 1996
Bill C-67. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6226
Bill C-347. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6226
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 6226
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 6226
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 6248
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 6257
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6258
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6262
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6262
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6262
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6263
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6263
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6266
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6266
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6269
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6269
Consideration resumed 6272
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 6279
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6281
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 6281
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 6296
6225
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 7, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised
by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East on Monday, October 28,
1966 concerning the status of the hon. member for Wild Rose as a
substitute member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
[Translation]
I thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for raising this
matter and the chief government whip for his contribution to the
discussion.
[English]
This matter was first brought to my attention on Tuesday,
October 22, 1996 by the hon. member for Wild Rose. At that time
he described to the Chair how he had been selected as a substitute
from the Reform Party's list of associate members for the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and in that capacity
attended the meeting of the committee on Monday, October 21,
1996. The hon. member claimed that he had attempted to give
notice of a motion but was ruled out of order by the chair on the
basis that he was not a regular member of the committee. The
member indicated that he had sought a resolution to this matter
within the committee and had not been successful.
[Translation]
The matter was raised a second time, on October 28, by the hon.
member for Fraser Valley East. In his presentation, he argued that,
as a duly selected substitute pursuant to Standing Order 114, the
member for Wild Rose should have been permitted to give notice
of his motion notwithstanding the committee's internal rule
requiring 48-hour notice for consideration of new business.
Having examined the arguments put forward, I find it
appropriate in this instance to offer some clarification.
The Standing Orders provide a mechanism whereby members
who are associate members of a committee can become substitutes
for regular members of the committee at a particular meeting. I
have looked carefully at the wording of the relevant Standing
Orders and in the case before us, it is clear that the requirements
were met and the member for Wild Rose was acting as a bona fide
substitute member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs for the meeting on October 28, 1996.
[English]
There is no doubt in the Chair's mind that substitute members
should be considered on an equal footing with permanent members
for the period of substitution. This status must remain unaffected
by any internal rules adopted by a committee for its own
convenience, otherwise committees risk having two classes of
members at the committee table.
In my ruling on June 20, 1994 at page 5,583 of the Debates, to
which the hon. member for Fraser Valley East also made reference,
I pointed out that:
While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own
proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers
conferred upon them by the House.
Committees have found it efficient to establish their own
internal procedures such as the 48-hour notice requirement
concerning new items of business that was adopted by the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs at its organization meeting
on March 12, 1996. I would encourage members involved in
committee work to bear in mind that such internal rules and
procedures should not be crafted in such a way as to diminish the
role of substitute members whose ability to fully function in the
committee is a status conferred on them by the House.
[Translation]
There have been difficulties with the understanding of rules and
practices regarding substitute members of committees and this is
why I found this a suitable opportunity to give my views on the
matter.
(1010)
[English]
In the past I have referred to the longstanding practice of the
House that the Speaker will not intervene in procedural matters
arising in committee. Bearing in mind what I have said, I trust that
the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East can reach some
accommodation in this particular matter. I hope that my statement
6226
today will be of assistance to members and everyone concerned
with the work of committees.
_____________________________________________
6226
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
* * *
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.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-67, an act to amend the Competition
Act and another act in consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-347, an act to change the names of certain
electoral districts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in my capacity of Joint Chairman of the Special
Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct. Instead of a report, the
committee asked me to present a motion today. I move:
That, in relation to the Orders of Reference adopted by the Senate on March 21,
1996 and on June 19, 1996, and by the House of Commons on March 12, 1996 and
June 19, 1996, the reporting date of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of
Conduct be extended to Friday, December 13, 1996;
[
English]
That, if the House is not sitting when the final report of the committee is
completed, the report be deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons and
shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to the House of Commons; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this
House for these purposes.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands have the consent of the House for the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. We just received the request from the member for
Kingston and the Islands regarding this motion. While unanimous
consent has been denied at this point, it is so consultations with
colleagues can take place. I would ask if you could seek unanimous
consent to waive the usual 48 hour notice and have this motion
stand under motions for tomorrow in order for me to have time to
consult with my colleagues and grant the approval that the member
seeks for the motion.
(1015)
The Deputy Speaker: We are reverting to motions, I take it, if
there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to do as he
has proposed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and pleasure to present
two petitions to the House today. The first is signed by a number of
my constituents and also other Canadians in the region of
southwestern Ontario.
The petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation to define
marriage as the voluntary union between one man and one woman.
I am happy to present that petition.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by several hundred people in
southwestern Ontario, including my own constituents of
London-Middlesex. I want to put this on the record on behalf of
these Canadians, although the government has acted on this matter.
The petitioners call on the government not to tax books. I am
happy to present that petition.
6227
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 1, 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.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all I wish to inform you that I will share my time with the hon.
member for Bourassa.
I welcome this opportunity today to respond to the speech from
the throne pronounced by the governor general last February, on
behalf of the government. How time flies: it has already been eight
months since the speech was pronounced.
Nevertheless, today's debate is useful in that with the passing of
time, we have a better picture of how the government has acted on
its commitments.
As we read the speech from the throne, we notice, for instance,
that the government officially set the scene for its post-referendum
strategy in dealing with the Quebec government. This strategy,
known by everyone as plan B, basically consists in a hardening of
the government's position on the freedom of Quebecers to decide
on their political future.
In this respect, the governor general said the following, and I
quote: ``But as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum
exists, the government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that
the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules
of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear, and that
Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the
future of their country''.
Considering last year's quasi-victory of the sovereignists in the
referendum on October 30 and the way every part of English
Canada criticized the role played by the government during the
referendum, the latter felt it would be politically more effective to
take a hard line. But in fact, the government's strategy of resorting
to plan B merely confirms the chronic inability of Canadian
federalism to renew itself and to find durable solutions for dealing
with Quebec's traditional demands.
A few days before the referendum, when the polls were leaning
increasingly to the yes side, the Prime Minister had the fright of his
life. He then shook himself out of his legendary torpor in Verdun
and went so far as to promise to entrench the distinct identity of
Quebec in the Constitution and to give Quebec a veto.
In an article entitled ``The Secret Summit'', published in the
October 21 issue of Macleans and excerpted from the forthcoming
book Double Vision by two journalists, we read that a few days
after the referendum, the Prime Minister had become obsessed by
the promise he had made in Verdun to have Quebec recognized as a
distinct society.
(1020)
In an attempt to trap Jacques Parizeau's successor, Lucien
Bouchard, the Prime Minister developed an ultimately
unsuccessful scenario that would allow him to enshrine the distinct
society concept in the Constitution. He needed the support of 7
provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population. In this
regard, according to the article in Maclean's, the Prime Minister
could count on the support of the premiers of Prince Edward Island,
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but not
of course, that of the then premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells.
Knowing that the Prime Minister could not count either on the
premiers of Alberta and British Columbia, he had to get Ontario's
Mike Harris on side.
Maclean's also tells us that, three days after the referendum, the
Prime Minister had a secret meeting with Mike Harris so he could
explain to him his plan for entrenching the notion of distinct
society in the Constitution.
Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, Mike Harris refused to
support his post-referendum strategy. Make no mistake: the Prime
Minister's main concern was to save the little credibility he had left
in Quebec and force our hand so we would accept a meaningless
concept.
If the Prime Minister's strategy had worked, that is to say, if
Mike Harris had decided to support him, the blame would, of
course, have been laid at Lucien Bouchard's door.
When his strategy failed, the Prime Minister tried to save face
with regard to his last-minute referendum commitments in Verdun
by passing, in December 1995, a simple parliamentary resolution
stating-it was more like wishful thinking-that Quebec is a
distinct society, and a bill giving Quebec and Canada's four other
regions the right of veto with the effect of further reducing the
likelihood that the Constitution will ever be amended.
Since then, the Prime Minister has repeated at every opportunity
that he would like to enshrine these two measures in the
Constitution, but is prevented from doing so by Quebec's
sovereignist
6228
government. We have since come to realize that the argument
raised by the Prime Minister is nothing but a smoke screen.
In fact, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister, exasperated by all
this, said on the French-language all-news channel that he had done
enough in this area and now wanted to focus his efforts on
economic issues.
After inflaming the situation, the Prime Minister would rather
bury the whole constitutional issue, knowing full well that any
amendment to the Constitution that would deal specifically with
Quebec would not received the necessary support from the other
provinces.
Consequently, this week, the Minister of Justice told us he was
contemplating asking that the Supreme Court to define what would
be involved if Quebec were considered a distinct society, if the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cannot achieve a consensus
on this issue in the next few months.
It is as though this government cannot make a move without
seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court. In September, the matter
of the legality of Quebec's sovereignty was referred to the Supreme
Court. Now, they are considering asking the Supreme Court to
define the concept of distinct society.
This going to the Supreme Court all the time to settle what are
essentially political issues is cause for concern. By constantly
referring matters to the Supreme Court, the government is simply
shirking its responsibilities.
Need I remind the House that Confederation as we know it was a
compromise between two founding peoples, the French speaking
one being found mainly in Quebec. These two peoples entered into
a confederal agreement where the various political entities, that is
to say the provinces, have delegated certain powers to the central
government.
(1025)
This solemn agreement between the two peoples has always
been perceived, at least in Quebec, as something that cannot be
changed without the consent of both parties. This agreement was
breached at the time of the patriation of the Constitution by the
federal government in 1982.
On May 15, 1980, before the Quebec referendum on
sovereignty-association, the Prime Minister of the day, Pierre
Elliott Trudeau, had made it clear that voting no in the referendum
would be interpreted as voting yes to renewing Canadian
federalism.
Instead, two years later, the Constitution was patriated and a
charter of rights incorporated in the Constitution, all without the
consent of Quebec. The principle whereby all Canadians from
coast to coast are equal, a right guaranteed under the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, precludes the specific recognition
of Quebec as a society in the Constitution. Similarly, the principle
of multiculturalism has been entrenched in the Constitution, while
Canada's duality and Quebec's distinctiveness were not. The 1982
constitutional changes, which were implemented despite Quebec's
persistent opposition, reflect the contempt in which the
government of the day held Quebec.
It is obvious from the constitutional debates over the past three
decades, and more recently, the failure of Meech and
Charlottetown, that there is no hope of the renewal of federalism
being in line with the best interests of Quebec. The five conditions
set out in the Meech Lake accord, the least ever requested by a
Quebec government, were already enough to make English Canada
shudder, and there is every indication that Ottawa-Quebec City
relations are going nowhere.
Whether we like it or not, Quebec is still in a catch 22 situation
in the federation. Will we realize once and for all that it would be a
sheer waste of time, energy and public funds to go down the road of
constitutional negotiations again, when these are doomed to fail?
Under the circumstances, it is in the interests of the peoples of
Quebec and Canada that all these issues be resolved once and for
all. The only solution that will allow our two peoples to thrive is for
Quebec to achieve independence. As equal and sovereign partners,
they will be able to move on and develop side by side in the best
interests of both.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to reply to the throne speech by raising, among other issues,
Canada's relations with Latin America and the upcoming visit of
the Chilean president.
Before dealing with the main topic, I want to say that I am very
sensitive to and concerned by the tragic situation and the
humanitarian disaster taking place in Africa's great lakes region.
The international community must immediately take action to help
the more than one million refugees in Zaire.
A summit was held in Nairobi two days ago, and eight countries
asked for a neutral multinational force to be sent to the region to
establish temporary humanitarian corridors and safe havens for
refugees. Unfortunately, Rwanda has so far opposed the idea. I urge
the federal government to do its utmost to ensure that this
humanitarian assistance is sent as soon as possible, and I wish the
best of luck to the mission headed by Raymond Chrétien.
In the speech from the throne, we are told that Canada will do
everything possible to extend the scope of NAFTA, the North
American treaty that includes Canada, the United States and
Mexico. We are also told that Canada is committed to establishing
priority relations with Latin America.
6229
(1030)
However, efforts to extend NAFTA have so far failed. The heads
of state of our continent met in Miami, in December 1994. They
decided to invite Chile to join NAFTA. This was two years ago, and
no new country has acceded to the treaty.
This past January, Canada and Chile decided to began
negotiations on an interim bilateral agreement, to make it easier for
Chile to join NAFTA. I expected these negotiations to be very
quickly brought to a successful conclusion, but it is still not the
case. Chilean president Eduardo Frei was supposed to visit Canada
from October 1st to 4th, but the visit was postponed to November
17, 18 and 19, because of the failure to reach an agreement during
these negotiations.
As you know, I come from Chile and I attach a great deal of
importance to the visit of the Chilean president in the coming days.
The president will come to Ottawa and Toronto. I must express my
great regret, in this House, that he and his delegation will not be
going to Quebec, in spite of the invitation sent by the Quebec
premier and his government. I hope the federal government has
nothing to do with this decision. At times, I have personally noticed
federal interference in Quebec's relations with other countries.
I am pleased that Chile returned to democracy in 1990, after 17
years of dictatorship and systematic violations of human rights. I
myself came to Quebec in 1974 because of the hard line
dictatorship that had ruled in Chile for 17 years. Today, Chile is a
country with a very high rate of growth and has resumed its place
within the international community.
Santiago is the headquarters for ECLAC, the prestigious
economic commission for Latin America. It has an annual growth
of approximately 7 per cent and a population of 14 million. It is the
site for an increasing number of international meetings. In the
coming days, 21 countries will be meeting in Santiago for the
Ibero-American Summit, which includes not just Latin American
countries but also Spain and Portugal. This summit will look at
economic problems, as well as social and political problems, and
the issue of democracy and human rights.
In March of 1977, Chile will also host the summit of heads of
state and heads of government of the Americas, which will be
attended by approximately 44 countries and in which the Prime
Minister of Canada will participate. Chile also belongs to APEC,
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, which will be
meeting in Manila in a few weeks and in which the Prime Minister
of Canada, the President of Chile and other heads of state and heads
of government will take part.
I am also glad to see that relations between Chile and Canada
and Quebec are very good. They are at the highest level in all areas
of the economy and trade. Last year, the Prime Minister of Canada
visited Chile and other Latin American countries. Fortunately,
Canada finally decided to join OAS, the Organization of American
States, in 1990.
Quebec has very close ties with Latin America. We share many
fraternal ties of friendship based on our common Latin heritage.
Relations are intensifying.
(1035)
Former Liberal minister, Charles Caccia, went to Chile. Bernard
Landry also visited that country in late August and early
September. The Canadian Chilean community, which numbers
35,000 throughout the country, with concentrations in Montreal,
Toronto and Vancouver, is very pleased and satisfied with this visit,
a first. No Chilean head of state or head of government has visited
Canada for at least 50 years.
We were expecting this bilateral trade agreement to be signed.
However, all signs so far are that it will not be, because
negotiations have been more difficult than foreseen. There are still
a few details to be worked out. I do not think these problems will be
resolved in the next ten days.
However, a social security agreement will be signed during this
visit between Chile and Canada, providing benefits in the form of
disability pensions for the surviving spouses of individuals who
have worked in both countries, Chileans who worked in Chile and
who are now here, or Canadians who are now working in Chile.
This is an agreement I have been pushing for since Chile's return to
democracy. It is an agreement that also, in my view, meets the
aspirations of the Chilean community in Canada. I hope that
Canada will sign other such agreements with other countries, such
as El Salvador and Guatemala, which have sent many of their
nationals here.
But I also regret that, since the president is not coming to
Quebec, the social security agreement between Quebec and Chile
will not be signed this time, although there are 10,000 Chileans,
10,000 Quebecers of Chilean origin, living in that province who
would like to see it signed as soon as possible.
Today the exchange of goods and services is being liberalized on
this continent. Canadian investments in Latin America are
increasing daily, eight billion dollars in Chile alone, primarily in
the area of mines, forestry and communications.
There are still problems to be resolved, however. Many Latin
American countries complain about how complicated it is to get a
visitor's visa to come here. This is the case for Central America.
The problem is greater there because Canada does not have
ambassadorial representation in some Central American countries,
such as Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador.
6230
This is a problem, because people have to travel to apply for
a visa. I hope that, some day, the Canadian government will be
represented by ambassadors in some Latin American countries,
because there is a principle of reciprocity in international law
which ought to be respected. These are countries, Bolivia for
example, which have embassies in Ottawa.
I have said that I was in favour of these efforts toward
continental economic integration, but I do have a couple of
reservations, because a process of integration should be able to
benefit all of the population in the countries concerned, which is
not the case at the present time. In Latin America, there is still
extreme poverty in many countries, with immense differences
between social classes. The great majority of people do not have
essential services, sometimes lack housing, do not have access to
education, face some very serious problems.
(1040)
What I would like to see in meetings and discussions between
Latin America and Canada is for us to also be able to address the
problems of poverty, unemployment, underemployment, exclusion
and human rights issues. During the Chilean president's visit, I
hope that the agenda will include, not only economic questions,
investment, exchange of goods and services, but also social,
cultural and political questions of concern to the entire Chilean and
Canadian population.
I would also like to see this Parliament make more effort to link
Canadian and Latin American parliamentarians. Since I was
elected to Parliament in 1993, I personally, with the support of my
party, the Bloc Quebecois, have made every effort to intensify and
strengthen parliamentary relations between Canada and Latin
America. I have personally visited Chile and Argentina, Cuba and
Central America. I have met many parliamentarians.
I think we have the resources, the capacity to do more. With
Mexico, for instance, we have a parliamentary friendship group but
we should have a recognized parliamentary association. We have
other associations, especially with Europe, the United States and
Japan. The parliamentary groups do not have the resources to do
anything effective.
As a member of Parliament of Chilean origin, I welcome this
visit by President Frei. I hope it will be a successful one. Meetings
will take place here in Ottawa between the two governments. I
previously noted visits by the Argentine President Carlos Menem,
by President Zedillo of Mexico and Central American presidents. I
hope the Canadian government will invite other heads of state and
government leaders. We share the same continent. We have
common problems, and we should have more extensive relations.
Here in Ottawa, I often met the ambassadors from Latin
America. We speak the same language. Sometimes they do not
have a very good understanding of the political, legal and
constitutional structure of this country, because in Latin America,
generally speaking, all states are centralized. For instance, they do
not realize that if they want to conclude an agreement on social
security, they also have to negotiate with Quebec, separately from
Canada, because social security is a shared jurisdiction. The
provinces in Canada have a great deal of autonomy. We have to
make the effort, and whenever I have a chance, I try to explain the
situation in Canada to them. I also explain the situation in Quebec.
I think the federal government has sent the wrong message to
Latin America by saying that Canada is a united and homogeneous
country. It has emphasized Canadian unity without ever informing
the international community that Quebec has legitimate
aspirations, that it wants to use democratic means to become a
sovereign country, and that this is legitimate. The United Nations
have recognized more than 25 countries during the past ten years.
There is nothing anti-democratic about what Quebec and
Quebecers are doing.
Again, I hope this visit by the Chilean president will help expand
relations that are already very good between Canada and Chile, and
between Chile and Quebec.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Bourassa for
his lesson. His presentation was very precise, and he did a very
good job of explaining the new North American trade context as
well as the importance of relations with Chile.
(1045)
I would like to ask him a question in a different vein. According
to the throne speech, which we are debating today, the Canada
Labour Code was to be reviewed so as to meet the demands of
Canadian workers and employers. This week, in my opinion, the
Minister of Labour gave birth to a mouse when, in the document he
tabled, he refused to include real antiscab regulations in the revised
Canada Labour Code.
I know about the hon. member for Bourassa's past experience in
the area of labour relations. I would like him to explain what was
the impact in Quebec of this antiscab legislation that regularized
labour relations and helped reduce the number of days lost to
conflicts. Is there a way of making the federal government
understand how relevant such a measure is by looking at Quebec's
experience? I know there is similar legislation in British Columbia.
Are we then not justified in saying that the federal government's
actions show it is not fulfilling the mandate it gave itself in the
throne speech? In the final analysis, in this area as in many others,
all it did was engage in wishful thinking. Could the hon. member
6231
for Bourassa comment on this to try to convince the members
opposite that the bill that was introduced in this House does not go
far enough?
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my friend
and colleague, the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup as it deals with an extremely
important issue.
In the speech from the throne, the government promised a
complete overhaul of the Canada Labour Code. It was long in
coming, but just a few days ago, a bill was finally introduced.
Unfortunately, it does not contain any real anti-strikebreaking
provisions.
Parliament has been looking at this for many years. Across
Canada, there are more than 700,000 workers under federal
jurisdiction, subject to the Canada Labour Code, who are not
protected by anti-strikebreaking provisions like workers in Quebec,
British Columbia and, until just a few months ago, Ontario. The
Conservative government of Ontario abolished this protection.
In Quebec, since the anti-strikebreaking legislation was
introduced in 1977, labour disputes are no longer as violent and
tend to get settled more quickly. Today, we enjoy unprecedented
social peace in Quebec.
Having been involved in the labour movement for 19 years, I
know this area pretty well. I even introduced a bill of my own
containing very specific anti-strikebreaking provisions. I hope that,
when the time comes, we can count on the support and co-operation
of this government. While many Liberal members are quite
sensitive to this issue, all the Minister of Labour actually told us is
that anti-strikebreaking provisions may be included, but would
apply only when an employer tries to break the union.
This would be extremely hard to prove. How can one tell that the
employer intends to break the union? You cannot prove that. This
provision will have no immediate, concrete impact on labour
relations.
This is a most unfortunate shortcoming, which will hopefully be
remedied through amendments to this bill, when it is considered at
committee stage. I do hope the government will reconsider and
include real anti-strikebreaking provisions in the Canada Labour
Code.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
those watching the debates in the House of Commons this morning
I would like to once again say that this morning we are engaging in
debate and comment on the government's speech from the throne
which was presented nearly a year ago but which comes up on the
Order Paper from time to time.
The speech from the throne was about 13 pages and dealt with a
number of areas where the government made representations to
Canadian citizens that it would deal with those areas and how it
would deal, what measures it would put into place.
(1050 )
I would like to use my time this morning to address the area of
justice and public safety and how it was dealt with in the speech
from the throne. I would also like to make some comments where I
believe and we believe this country needs to be going in this
important area.
The speech from the throne dealt with the area of justice with
one short paragraph of 7 lines in a 13 page document. I hope that
does not indicate to Canadians the emphasis, importance and
priority this government places on public safety.
However, in those seven lines we find very little substance and
no specifics at all. These seven lines deal with the non-violent
character of our country, stating that because our country is
non-violent citizens are secure. I guess the government has not
been looking at some of the recent trends in crime. In fact, violent
crime has tripled since 1962. Crimes against property have
skyrocketed during the same period. Violent crimes, most
disturbingly, by young offenders have increased 244 per cent from
1980 to 1993 alone.
Statistics Canada, which is an arm of the government itself,
estimates that fully 90 per cent of sexual assaults are not reported,
that 68 per cent of other assaults are not reported and 53 per cent of
robberies are not reported.
When we talk to Canadians across the country as elected
representatives it becomes increasingly clear that Canadians no
longer feel secure in what the government is pleased to term the
non-violent character of our country.
We do need to get serious and take a serious look at measures
that can provide safe homes and safe streets for the citizens of this
country.
The government is trying to find ways to keep people out of
prison and out of contact with the justice system. I would suggest
that whatever measures are being put in place are not effective. It
talks about reforming criminal procedures to better serve the
victims of crimes. That is a goal I think all Canadians would agree
with. Unfortunately, the Liberal record does not square with that
very laudable goal.
In fact, if we look at the major bills that have been introduced by
this government we see some very disturbing trends that continue
to emphasize the rights and considerations being given to criminals
and law breakers instead of really looking at how victims can be
given a greater standing and consideration in the justice system.
If we look at five of the major bills that have been put forward in
the justice area by the justice minister, I think we need to very
6232
quickly assess the efficiency and effectiveness with which
government has kept promises to Canadians made in the throne
speech.
First there was Bill C-41 which purported to deal with hate
crimes and put more emphasis on what was in the mind of the
perpetrator of a crime, the criminal, rather than the effect on the
victim. We say that assault is equally wrong regardless of who was
assaulted or for what reason. If someone beats a person up it hurts.
They need to have redress. There needs to be protection. This
emphasis on what was in the mind of the criminal surely is of no
comfort or help to Canadians whose rights and safety have been
breached.
We then have Bill C-45 which again continued to leave in place a
provision of the Criminal Code which allows a cold blooded
murderer to be let back out on the streets after serving only 15
years of his or her sentence. In fact, the sentence that is handed
down for premeditated, cold blooded murder is life in prison.
However, after only 15 years murderers can apply to have early
parole and are very often successful when they do apply. Again we
see that victims of crime, their families and friends come second to
the extra considerations that are given to murderers.
(1055)
Bill C-53 dealt with temporary passes from prison. It quadrupled
the time that criminals could be absent from prison. One person
described the bill as giving criminals an opportunity to apply for a
two month vacation from prison for whatever reason, for example
shopping trips. In some cases individuals who are out of custody
have committed further crimes.
Bill C-55 is the government's centrepiece legislation to deal with
violent offenders and to get tougher with them. Unfortunately there
are many flaws in the bill which have been debated in the House at
some length. Violent offenders will still be released back into
society with only minimal supervision.
In addition, Bill C-55 includes a rather bizarre and very
troubling provision. Citizens who have been neither charged nor
convicted of any criminal offence can be monitored electronically.
Once again we have a government that shies away from strong
measures to protect society while it allows for more government
intrusiveness into the lives of law-abiding citizens who have not
been convicted of any law breaking activities.
We had the same problem with Bill C-68, the so-called gun
control bill. It controls law-abiding citizens while it does little or
nothing to stem the tide and the growing use of illegally obtained
firearms.
In spite of the nice words in the seven lines of the throne speech
about public safety, the government's record is dismal.
It is not right to criticize measures unless good alternatives can
be proposed, which is why I am pleased to put before the House the
Reform Party's measures to increase public safety, to ensure the
safety of our families and communities in this country.
We would first enact a victims bill of rights. We have provisions
for such a bill which have already been put before the House. We
have urged the government to enact those provisions. Victims,
innocent citizens, law-abiding citizens of this country should get
the top consideration. However, the Liberal government has quite a
different philosophy on public safety.
In 1971 the Liberal solicitor general stood up in this very House
and said: ``We are going to put the rehabilitation of individuals
ahead of the protection of society''. That philosophy is continued in
present Liberal bills. Victims are second and criminal rights and
considerations are first. Canadians are tired of that. They want a
whole shift. They want the justice system changed so that the
protection of society, the protection of law-abiding innocent
citizens, is number one. That is exactly what should be done.
We would repeal the universal firearms registry enacted by this
government and replace it with meaningful laws to control guns
and to fight the criminal use of firearms.
We would replace the Young Offenders Act. As we are all aware,
in the past 20 to 25 years youth crime has shyrocketed. It is a very
troubling aspect of our society. Young people themselves are the
greatest victims of this increase in youth crime. Many young
Canadians do not feel safe in our schools and communities. We can
see examples of this over and over again. Something needs to be
done about this. We need to deal with this issue seriously and the
Reform Party is proposing measures to do that. We believe that
young criminals must be held accountable for their actions in this
society.
(1100)
We would also reform the parole system and abolish the early
release of first degree murderers. We would also pave the way for a
national referendum on the return of capital punishment. Many
citizens are concerned that there is not a strong enough signal being
sent to law breakers in this country, particularly to cold blooded
murderers, that we will not tolerate that kind of victimization of
innocent members of our society.
We need to look at the specifics of how the past approaches to
justice measures have been ineffective in protecting our society. In
1991 Brian Mulroney's Conservative government introduced new
gun control measures. At that time the auditor general criticized
those measures because they lacked the necessary background data
or evaluation process to really show whether there would be any
potential benefits for such legislation. In other words, when
measures are put into place by governments, they should have
some objective criteria to measure how effective those measures
6233
are going to be in light of the cost and in light of the fact that we are
dealing with the lives, property and freedoms of our citizens.
To compound what was already a flawed process, in 1995 this
Liberal justice minister introduced Bill C-68. This bill put into
place a universal firearms registry that included shotguns and
rifles. Of course the registration of handguns has been in place for
over 60 years.
The majority of the federal Tory senators who had put the 1991
measures into place supported Bill C-68. Their leader, the member
for Sherbrooke, did not show up for the vote on this measure in the
House of Commons.
We in the Reform Party were the only ones who actively opposed
the registration of shotguns and rifles. We have done so
consistently. It is very clear to us that this universal firearms
registry will squander already scarce law enforcement resources,
time and money. Our law enforcement officers will now spend
incredibly more time shuffling paper instead of fighting real crime.
Our opposition to this registry should not be interpreted as being
anti-gun control. Every citizen in this country and certainly myself
and other members of my caucus believe we must control the
criminal use of firearms which threaten the safety of our streets and
of our citizens. We have a very tough zero tolerance policy for
criminal offences involving firearms.
The waste of money and resources involved in a universal
registry for law-abiding citizens is something we oppose. We
believe in the long term it will only hurt our goal of public safety
which is the goal of our citizens. We want to see that goal reached
in effective ways, not in the ways this government has brought in.
The prison system as well needs to be looked at. We have some
proposals to make it a more effective instrument of both
rehabilitation and deterrence. In most Canadian prisons for
example inmates are not required to work. They are also provided
with taxpayer funded amenities which many of our citizens cannot
hope to enjoy.
This week my colleague from Fraser Valley West mentioned an
older couple in his riding. The wife is in dire need of dental
treatment. They were unable to save the amount necessary for the
wife to get that treatment. Yet criminals are given such treatment
routinely at no cost to them. Something is wrong with that picture.
(1105)
At some correctional facilities inmates even have access to golf
courses, pool tables, cable television and extensive workout
equipment. They qualify for free counselling, full medical and
dental coverage, free university education and legal aid.
Many young people in our country are worried about whether
they will be able to afford the necessary training and university
education in order to have secure jobs and a good future. Tuition
fees are rising and student loan burdens for graduates are growing.
We therefore have to look at the priorities of a government which
provides those kinds of free services to law breakers.
In Canada inmates even have the right to vote. These people
have flouted the law. They have victimized law-abiding innocent
people in our society. They still have all the rights and privileges of
citizenship. They even have amenities and services which
taxpaying law-abiding citizens cannot afford. Something needs to
be done about this.
With respect to the Young Offenders Act, youth account for more
robberies than those in the next two older age groups. In 1991
youth were charged with a full 18,000 violent offences, twice as
much as five years ago. In fact, violent crime by young offenders
increased in all categories between 1986 and 1994. Homicide was
up 36 per cent. Sexual assault was up 16 per cent. Aggravated
assault was up 78 per cent. Robbery was up a whopping 131 per
cent. We need to seriously address this problem.
The Reform Party would replace the ineffective Young
Offenders Act with measures which would truly hold young people
accountable for crime. It is a small minority of youth. Most of the
youth are upstanding citizens working hard to build a future for
themselves and to gain the skills necessary to have a strong future.
They should not be put to shame by the small minority which flouts
the law virtually without consequence.
The key to crime prevention is to strengthen families and
communities rather than to rely exclusively on the judicial, parole
and prison systems. When it comes to young offenders this means
supporting the introduction of programs for the early detection and
prevention of youth crime and the introduction of more effective
rehabilitation measures and measures to support education and
literacy, skills training, discipline and community service.
We would also shift the balance from the rights of the accused to
the rights of the victim and law-abiding citizens. As I said, we
would replace the Young Offenders Act. We would redefine young
offenders as 10 to 15 years of age. We would also permit the
publication of names of all convicted violent young offenders.
Serious offenders 14 to 15 years of age or any offender over 16
would be tried in adult court.
A Reform government would repeal section 745 of the Criminal
Code which allows for the early release of first degree murderers.
We would also ensure that violent offenders served their entire
sentence, that repeat violent offenders would be declared
dangerous offenders and that all parole would be tightly monitored
and earned.
These are measures which Canadians are asking for. They are
common sense measures. They are designed to send a clear signal
to law breakers that we will not tolerate the violation of the rights
of innocent citizens. I urge the government to replace the vague
6234
seven line paragraph in the throne speech with some of these real
effective measures which the Reform Party is proposing.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments made by the hon. member from the
Reform Party. A debate on the throne speech provides ample
opportunity to find flaws in the way the government is following up
on the concerns of Canadians.
(1110)
The Reform member spoke at length about crime-related issues.
However, two things must be considered when dealing with the
issue of crime. It seems to me that the hon. member overlooked one
of these aspects, and I am going to ask her, in a few minutes, to give
me her thoughts and beliefs regarding this aspect.
The hon. member focused primarily on what happens once a
crime has been committed, including the resulting problems for
victims. However, she was silent on how to ensure that some
crimes are not committed, and thus avoid having victims. As you
know, for some time now and increasingly so, the federal
government has been withdrawing its financial support to the
provinces in the fields of education, health and welfare, with the
result that some young people no longer have the support they need
to start off on the right foot in life.
It goes without saying that, later on, if these young people turn to
crime, and some may even commit sordid acts, there are going to
be victims. These victims deserve our compassion, and so do their
families and friends.
However, it would have been better to prevent the offender from
turning to crime and thus avoid having victims. Until recently, the
federal government assumed major responsibilities in terms of
financial support to the provinces in the areas of education, health
and welfare. By withdrawing its support, it has left the provinces in
a tight situation and some are hard hit. Think of Ontario. And these
provinces must now make major cuts, leaving segments of the
population disadvantaged or in need of assistance. However, there
will no longer be any help for these people.
We know that, in certain cases, not all, most of the poor are
honest folk, but this does not help young people get off to a good
start, and the statistics are there to prove it. In certain cases,
unfortunately, these people are drawn into a life of crime. The
federal government therefore has a role to play here when
taxpayers' money is involved. We are talking about prevention.
The federal government no longer assumes this role, or is doing so
less and less, to the great detriment of the provinces.
Would not my hon. colleague from the Reform Party agree with
me that this federal disinvestment also impacts on the crime rate,
and that the federal government should therefore not focus solely
on resolving problems after the fact, but should take greater action
before the fact, which would be much safer for the people of
Canada?
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague was
actually listening to my speech, which was very pleasing to me. I
appreciate that. I know how busy members are sometimes and we
are not able to pay attention to every intervention, but I appreciate
the fact that you did and you raise excellent points.
In my speech I did touch on the whole area of prevention. I agree
with you that it is something we need to look at.
(1115)
The Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member please pretend
the remarks are going through the Chair?
Mrs. Ablonczy: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how I
could have left you out of this equation, it was most improper.
Please accept my apologizes.
Mr. Speaker, I did touch in my intervention on the whole matter
of prevention. I agree with my colleague that it is most important. I
had a discussion with some police officers in Calgary a few months
ago and they told me they can tell as early as five years of age if an
individual may be predisposed to a life of crime and law breaking. I
found that very interesting. When my colleague suggests there can
be early detection and prevention of a tendency toward criminal
activity, that is borne out by some of the things I have heard and
read.
Reform members believe there should be support for the
introduction of programs for the early detection and prevention of
youth crime. There needs to be more effective rehabilitation
programs, not just to put people away or put them in a closed
facility for a period of time, but to have that time spent in activities
that emphasize education, literacy and skills training. These people
would then have a better opportunity to become productive
members of society rather than otherwise. There should be an
emphasis on discipline and community service.
Reform believes that the key to crime prevention is to strengthen
families and communities rather just relying exclusively on the
judicial parole and prison systems.
I would say two things in reply to my colleague's concern with
regard to the decreased funding for the support of these kinds of
activities. The Reform Party opposes such measures as a universal
registry of every law-abiding citizen's firearms. This is a very
ineffective deployment of scarce resources when every dollar is
6235
needed for the kinds of programs that will help to give us safety.
However, those dollars are going to activities that simply cause
problems for law-abiding citizens and take away law prevention
and enforcement time. Reform opposes that.
Second, this is why the Reform Party has kept saying that
governments cannot continue to borrow. The government's interest
bill when it took office three years ago was only $38 billion-I
should not say only, that is a lot of money-and today it is $48
billion. In three short years we have lost $10 billion to interest to
lenders. That could have gone toward the kinds of programs that
my colleague and I have been speaking about: to prevent crime, to
detect crime early and to seriously assist people to become
law-abiding citizens rather than lawbreakers. We have to get
government spending under control so we do not continually have
the resources that we need for these important programs eroded.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the enlightened words
of my colleague on helping get young people off on the right track
and on prevention. This is a topic dear to my own heart as well.
For every dollar we invest, the government invests, in
prevention, scores of dollars would not have to be invested in the
administration of justice, and in incarceration, further down the
road.
It costs about $100,000 a year to keep someone in a federal
penitentiary--an astronomical sum. Helping a young person in
difficulty, however, costs only a few thousand. What extraordinary
savings could be realized, then, by putting our money in the right
place.
I would like to know whether my colleague from the Reform
Party shares my point of view.
(1120)
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the member makes a very
important point, a point to which we need to listen. We talk a lot
about dealing with crime after the fact. We do not talk enough
about prevention and assistance to our young people especially. I
am in complete agreement with the hon. member.
We need to more seriously focus on that area of the justice
system. I thank him for bringing forward those points.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate today on the subject of
the government's throne speech some months ago. I can tell from
the enthusiasm in the House today that it is still a topic of interest
and that members are looking at lots of issues.
I would like to touch on four separate elements of the throne
speech and the government's current program that arose from or
were referred to in the throne speech.
The first area is that of economic opportunity and jobs. This has
been a theme of governments for many years and it will probably
always be so. The government had mapped out a game plan on
being elected in 1993 and the economic opportunity program
continued with this throne speech.
Everyone in the House will agree that the issue of jobs is a
function of economics. Governments simply cannot go out with a
bucket of money, pour it into a particular city or region and hope
that jobs will accrue. That is not what happens. The creation of jobs
is something that happens when the rubber hits the road, when the
business person decides to hire, decides to invest in a new
production facility and sells more product. Where all of those
business functions are positive that is when jobs are created.
What is the government doing to foster the economic conditions
that give rise to those jobs? There are several indicators. In fact
there are hundreds of indicators. Of the most important ones I have
selected four where the indicators are showing very positive
economic progress, the kind that gives rise to job creation. They are
not in any particular order.
Canada's current account, the balance of moneys moving in and
out of the country, has entered positive territory for the first time in
many years. That was tough to turn around. When the government
was elected in 1993 there were many who thought the circumstance
was desperate. I am very pleased to see that we now have current
account surpluses in existence. In the most recent quarter and in
future economic quarters and years we project a continuing current
account surplus.
This of course has a very positive effect on the Canadian dollar
which has moved recently over the 75 cent U.S. mark and which
economists predict is going to continue to appreciate. While that
sounds great, I know there are exporters in Canada who are not
always comfortable as the dollar appreciates because that means
their Canadian goods and services are more expensive for outside
Canadian purchasers.
The second area is a prominent one. It is the battle to eliminate
the deficit. I do not think there is anyone in the House who could
deny the substantial progress that the government under the
leadership of the finance minister has made toward the elimination
of the deficit. We are now in 2 per cent of GDP territory. The
objective for the following fiscal period is now targeted at 1 per
cent of GDP.
In approximately the second quarter of 1998 the government will
have zero cash borrowing requirements. We simply will not have
any new borrowing needs for current operations. We will have to
continue to recycle the government debt, but that is a very
significant point. Perhaps I should not be projecting, but the
economic models are showing no new borrowing in approximately
the second quarter of 1998.
6236
(1125)
If we were in one of the other G7 countries, France, U.S.A.,
Germany and Great Britain, the government accounts are measured
differently from the way we do it in Canada. If we measured our
public accounts the way they measure theirs I could stand here and
say we would have no deficit in the second quarter of 1998.
However, we measure our government finances differently.
We cannot change it now because we will all get the sense that
we are cooking the books and changing the rules. Therefore, we
will keep our unique Canadian way and aim for the elimination of
the deficit based on the Canadian measuring sticks. I think we are
headed toward approximately 1999 or 2000. These issues are up to
Canadians who spend money, Canadians who pay taxes and the
finance minister who has his hands on the purse strings.
The last indicator of economic prosperity has to be interest rates.
It was only yesterday that I noted that mortgage interest rates were
publicly advertised now at 5.4 per cent. We have not seen interest
rates like that since roughly the end of the last war.
I can recall in my previous incarnation, prior to being an elected
member of the House, meeting people who had one of these old
30-year, CMHC mortgages with interest rates of around 5 per cent,
6 per cent and 7 per cent. Those mortgages would have been
amortized and maturing approximately at the end of the 1970s and
beginning of the 1980s. I remember people saying: ``We will never
see those kinds of interest rates again, never. Those are part of
history''. Here we are in 1996 looking at those kinds of interest
rates again.
The point I would make is that, as Canadians, we can be seen to
actually be in control of interest rates. We are able to do things in
government that directly affect interest rates. Maybe we never
believed we could to that before but now we see that we can do it
because we did it. I think we can take credit for all that we have
done. It was not just a decision of the finance minister. It was not
just a decision of a bank. It was a whole constellation of political
decisions and acceptance by Canadians of a fiscal program that
would enable these interest rates to reduce.
I want to leave economics now and go into the area of trust of
government. I served in the 34th Parliament and I know that my
first two weeks in this place the House had to deal with a matter
involving trust. It was my first intervention in this place in 1989. I
think it is fair to say that in the last two, three or four years there
has been a lot fewer incidents where material issues of public trust
have been taken up in this House. I do not want to suggest that there
are never any. There are always some.
However, in terms of material issues of public trust, I am very
confident that the Prime Minister has shown us a standard which
we can comfortably follow, hopefully for many years. I know I am
proud to follow that standard and I think Canadians believe that.
I think public polls, where various types of questions are asked,
indicate that Canadians are beginning to have a sense of trust in
government, not in the sense that government can do everything, it
never could and just cannot, but in their sense of confidence in the
integrity at least of this Prime Minister and this government's high
standards. I know, the cabinet knows and I think members opposite
know what those standards are. I think we are doing a much better
job of meeting those standards.
(1130)
One way which we show that we are meeting the standards falls
under the rubric of accountability. Journalists write about,
politicians speak about, Canadians ask about it. This government
has made a very real attempt to be directly accountable. It is a very
big manifestation.
When I sought election to the House as a Liberal member I ran
on the policies in the red book. I used it in my campaign and in
much of what I do and what I vote on here and sometimes what I
speak about. The Prime Minister and the cabinet are following
what is in the red book and proof of that was the decision of the
Prime Minister a couple of week ago to publish what he and his
cabinet and the government have accomplished in delivering on the
red book promises.
Some people viewed that as political grandstanding. To be sure,
it was political. However, it was an attempt to account to Canadians
for what the government had accomplished vis-a-vis the red book.
Individuals may disagree with the score card and may say we have
done 8 out of the 10 things but there are still two remaining. That is
fair. This was intended to say that by our account we have fulfilled
78 per cent of the commitments of the red book and we still have
approximately another year left in our mandate. Every week, every
month there are announcements and decisions by the government
which continue to improve the record of accountability. I am proud
of that.
I realize that at some time I will have to account to my electors in
Scarborough-Rouge River for only scoring 86 per cent of 87 per
cent. In this modern complex world I challenge any institution, any
government or corporation, whether it be a hospital, a school or a
commercial entity, to deliver 100 per cent on anything as the years
unfold. Do not forget, we are dealing with government which is
very complex and very broad. I am very comfortable with the
process of accounting.
Another little element of this, one little snapshot of where I
believe the Prime Minister and the government have shown they
are more accountable is in the innovation of the government's
decision to put in place a commissioner to oversee the activities of
the Communications Security Establishment, a signals intelligence
agency with a high degree of capability of eavesdropping. This
agencies has carried on since the second world war with out any
6237
legislative mandate and without any accountability mechanism, as
far as I have been able to determine. There certainly was a minister
in the House, but rarely if ever were there any question put in the
House on this subject. Even more rarely were answers given.
Now a former judge has been appointed, and the accountability
mechanism there to assist Parliament, sharing accountability, was
an innovation which was not there before. I am very proud to be
part of a government that was bold enough to address that issue.
(1135)
Third, what has happened in the region I represent in terms of the
throne speech? What has the government delivered? What has the
throne speech done? My riding of Scarborough-Rouge River is
part of the greater Toronto area. It is difficult to look at a particular
riding in that area in isolation.
However, I know that the financial community on Bay Street
likes what this government has done, what it has delivered. I know
that for the second year in a row, Canada's exports are hitting
record highs. Never before have we exported as much as we have
recently, which means jobs for Canadians.
Never before have I as a Canadian felt so plugged into the world.
From my riding and from the GTA I see goods and services being
exported from Canada to all parts of the world. Now there is no part
of the world in which Canadians are not marketing, selling,
building, advising. It is really a treat to see this happening. We have
a lot of Canadians with a lot of abilities who are working in that
area.
Rouge Valley Park is a unique 5,000 acre green preserve within
metropolitan Toronto. The federal government has done its part. It
has delivered on its funding commitment. We are very proud that
the Rouge Valley Park alliance is moving ahead with the
co-operation of all the other levels of government, provincial,
municipal, metro and the regional conservation authority, to
accomplish its objectives.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the
GTA caucus are dedicated to taking a piece of the Downsview air
base and turning it into green space and other positive
infrastructure for the GTA.
The commercialization of the Toronto airport is now proceeding.
The carpet has been ripped up; the doors at the entrance to terminal
II, which never worked, have finally been replaced; a new tower is
being constructed; a new runway is being constructed; the other
runways have been repaired. Millions of dollars in investment are
going into the Pearson airport which is a huge economic entity. It
is the gateway to central Canada and for many people around the
world it is the gateway to Canada.
One of the things visitors to Toronto will see is the new trade
centre which is being constructed on the Canadian National
Exhibition grounds. The centre is a product of the
federal-provincial infrastructure program, a federal program
contained in the red book. This huge attractive trade centre will be
open shortly. Canadians will market our goods and services to the
entire world through this trade centre. We will compete with trade
centres globally. There are some great centres out there, just as the
GTA trade centre will be.
I cannot talk about the throne speech without mentioning
national unity. The government has a program which has been
debated in the House. We want to modernize the federation in little
bites because we have found the big bite is too much for Canadians,
too much for this House. We have not been able to do it in big
chunks. We are working on that in many areas, co-operation
federally and provincially, avoiding duplication, job training,
environmental protection, a national securities commission, which
I think is an excellent objective, and dealing with partitionists in
Quebec who would partition Canada. Some are called separatists,
some are called secessionists.
(1140 )
This is a matter that has to be addressed and will continue to be
addressed maybe for another 100 years. However, I believe that
Canadians and Quebecers are going to be able to deal with this
issue, as tough as it is. We have to give a lot of elbow room to all
the provinces, including Quebec, so that each of the groupings
across the country can achieve their goals as a region or as a
province. I am confident that this government, under this Prime
Minister, will be able to accomplish this objective and all others.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know where to begin. We are having a lively debate on the throne
speech which was presented nine months ago. The government
must have pretty thin legislation to offer this up for debate today. It
should be an embarrassment to the government.
The hon. member painted a rosy picture about all the great and
wonderful things that are happening in this country. He tied them
into trust. I would like to talk about trust a bit. I believe that
looking at some of the truths is also important.
It is true that when the Liberals were in opposition they opposed
the NAFTA and free trade itself. In fact they had a leader who ran
on a platform against free trade. There was a red book promise that
the NAFTA would not be approved until the dispute settlement
mechanism was revisited. That would have avoided the unneces-
6238
sary nasty deal that was recently negotiated on softwood lumber.
That is not good news.
In opposition the Liberals complained incessantly about the
philosophy of the governor of the Bank of Canada, Crow, and his
anti-inflation policy. When the Liberals were in opposition they
were against that. Now they are taking the credit. It was that policy
of the Bank of Canada which toed the tough line when it was
necessary and it was the right thing to do. Canadians knew it, but
the Liberals did not know it in opposition. They were against it.
Now they are taking credit for low interest rates. Now they are
taking credit for the expansion of exports. That is what is
expanding the economy. Domestic growth is nil. When interest
rates are really low, that is a sign of failure. That means that the
economy has stalled. They should not be patting themselves on
their backs.
The banks and all lenders want to lower their rates to induce
people to borrow. Why? Because they are not borrowing. We
should talk about the other side of the story.
The Liberals are saying that in two years from now, when our
deficit is only $9 billion, there will be no new borrowing. We will
have a balanced budget because of the way in which the countries
which belong to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development measure their deficits.
Consider this logic. We will have a $9 billion deficit. The hon.
member said that when we hit that single digit level we will have a
balanced budget. There will be no new borrowing. Where are they
going to get $9 billion? They are going to borrow it from the civil
service pension fund. That is a loan. That is a debt. They should not
be telling Canadians that there will no longer be deficit financing or
borrowing. That is a distortion of the truth. I am embarrassed that
the finance minister is talking that way and letting the Prime
Minister get away with things like that. It is cooking the books. It is
saying that they broke the back of the deficit when they are not
coming clean with the Canadian public.
Let us do that. Let us say that we have a $9 billion deficit. We are
going to borrow it from the civil service pension fund, but we will
have a balanced budget. That is not true.
This government brags about the steps it took and the spending
cuts it made. It will be sad when the member goes back to his riding
to seek re-election. I am going to submit that it is his government
which is responsible for the nurses who are losing their jobs and for
the teachers who are losing their jobs. Who reduced spending for
education and health care by $7 billion? The government. Who has
to live with it? The provincial governments, and these guys are
patting themselves on the back and blaming the provinces for doing
a poor job. Excuse me. That is a sorry way to run a country. It is a
poor excuse for taking responsibility and telling the truth to
Canadians.
(1145)
Spending to the provinces by this government has been reduced
by 42 per cent. Spending on its own federal administrative costs is
only about 1.3 per cent. Tell me how all these spending reductions
were made. On the backs of the provinces and the government is
bragging about it.
I just wanted to comment for about five minutes. I will allow an
equal five minutes for the hon. member to comment. But that is the
other side of the story. It is the complete picture. That is what we
have to look at here: both sides of the story. The hon. member can
comment.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear all the doom
and gloom from the other side. Things are not nearly as bad as the
hon. member makes them out to be.
His comment that low interest rates signal a collapsed economy
is laughable. Perhaps the member would have visited Japan a
couple of years ago and said: ``My goodness, you only have a 6 per
cent interest rate. Your economy must be collapsed''. This is a joke.
The member does not understand what a low interest rate means.
But let us leave that and move on.
The member has suggested that the Liberals did not agree with
the Bank of Canada monetary policy in the last decade. There were
times when we did not, that is very true. The Bank of Canada policy
in targeting an excessively low inflation rate in the range of 1 to 2
per cent, which it was, underbid what the economy was capable of
doing. Consequently it caused a prolonged recession.
People are not going to be told that, but that is what happened.
The policy chosen by the bank and adopted by the government
prolonged and exacerbated the recession of 1991-92. Liberals
would have done it another way, just like we found other ways to
make cuts in government spending. There is more than one way to
skin a cat.
The member thinks that because we thought we could have done
a better job with the free trade agreement with the United States of
America and with Mexico, that it is a reason for giving up on
trading. Canada does not trade just with the United States or just
with Mexico; we trade with the world. Our trade with the rest of the
world is expanding.
It is simply inappropriate and silly for the member to focus on
the free trade agreement as being the function, the common
denominator of the current government policy to foster trade with
the rest of the world. The free trade agreement simply does not
apply to that type of trade. The World Trade Organization rules do
and that is where we are putting our money.
The member suggested that it has been a long time since the
throne speech, that we must not have very much going on now that
is important if we have started discussing a speech that happened
nine months ago. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me
6239
that we have been so darn busy dealing with important legislation
that we have not had the time or ability to get back to the throne
speech, which was a very good throne speech.
Some day the hon. member and his party will thank the Prime
Minister and his government for delivering us through, no matter
how they count the deficit, to a stable economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I want to commend the Liberal member who happens to
be the only Liberal who dared to speak in the House this morning to
defend the speech from the throne. None of the others did. He is the
first one we have heard from. We have not heard from any
members from Quebec.
I would like to ask him whether we, members of the official
opposition, are not clear proof that this government has done
absolutely nothing about the main problem it is facing. It was
elected, and now it has across the way, as the official opposition, a
sovereignist party that wants to make Quebec a sovereign state. In
the past three and one half years, the government has done
absolutely nothing to deal with this question.
(1150)
When you say that you will be glad to go back to your
constituents and tell them you got a score of 86 per cent, what are
you going to tell them when they say you have done nothing to
diminish the impact in Parliament of opposition members who
want to completely transform the Canadian entity by turning it into
two distinct countries? Do you think Canadians will be proud of the
Liberal government's score?
Here is the other question I wanted to ask, very briefly. It is true
that interest rates have gone down, but to buy a house today, you
need a job. What have you done to ensure that Canadians have
jobs?
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members will please direct their
comments to the Chair.
[English]
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I know where the hon. member is coming
from and we all do. He has a role to play in opposition. He is
critical of the government because it has not been able to help the
opposition in its objectives.
There is no way in the world that this government is going to
assist the official opposition in its number one goal of partitioning
Canada. I am sorry, I regret that we cannot do that. I am not even
sure we could do it legally if we wanted to. I hope he will forgive
the government for that.
In terms of modernizing the federation, we have gone some
distance. After the referendum last year, the government
committed to three separate things and we have delivered or gone
down the road to delivering on all three. I know the member
opposite will agree that the government has done it. It may not
accomplish his list. It may not get Canada dissolved. It may not
partition Canada but it does deal with the issue of modernizing the
federation.
This government is going to continue to work on that agenda
using small bites. If the province of British Columbia has a
problem with item X and the province of Quebec has a problem
with item Y, the federal government is going to work on it. The
federal government always has, provided the provinces
communicate and the federal government communicates back. We
have seen a lot of progress and I think we will see more.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak in this debate
on the address in reply to the speech from the throne-although
this particular speech from the throne goes back to last
February-because we now have a better perspective on what the
federal government has done in the past six months since it made
those promises in the speech from the throne. Today, we are in a
better position to evaluate the results.
Last week in committee, I had before me the President of the
Treasury Board, who said more or less that the role of government
was to meet the expectations of its citizens.
I suggest we evaluate on those terms the government's record on
what it promised in the speech from the throne. Did it meet the
expectations of its citizens during the past year? Did it meet its
objectives, deal with political situations and take corrective action
when necessary?
The first item is fighting the deficit. One could say that yes, on
the whole they managed to reduce the deficit, at least on the face of
it, but in fact, and the hon. member for the Reform Party hit the nail
on the head earlier, 42 per cent of the cuts were made in transfer
payments to the provinces. This means that today, when we see
50,000 or 60,000 people demonstrating against the provincial
government in Ontario, it is largely as a result of these cuts.
Twenty CEGEPs in Quebec are on strike as a result of these
federal cuts. The federal government decided to reduce funding in
this area because it was easier to cut at the expense of the provinces
than to cut closer to home. The most obvious example of this is that
this week, the Liberal majority voted against a motion to abolish
the Senate.
We spend $43 million a year on the unelected Senate, whose
members are appointed for purely partisan reasons. The govern-
6240
ment decided to turn a blind eye to this and continue paying this
$43 million but, at the same time, it did not hesitate to cut $1.2
billion from transfer payments to the provinces. Let the provinces
deal with their own problems.
That is what the government has done to fight the deficit. So it
did not get a passing mark. Clearly, the people of Quebec and
Canada are not happy with the results, especially in ridings like
mine, where people realize how they hid the fight against the
deficit behind UI benefits.
They changed the law, and we will see the results in the coming
months. The federal government's day of reckoning has yet to
come. It will come when people receive their last UI cheques in
February, March or April 1997. They will realize that the reform
cut 10, 12, 15 weeks and that they will have to go on social
assistance while the UI fund boasts a $5 billion surplus.
(1155)
This is unacceptable. I almost feel like saying it is practically
immoral to let people starve while the UI fund is growing. That is
the result of the deficit-fighting measures planned in the Liberal
government's throne speech.
As for employment, did this government deliver the goods? Two
and a half years ago, it campaigned on the following theme: we will
create jobs, we will put people back to work. It did create some
jobs, but there are still 800,000 fewer jobs than before the 1990
recession.
Above all, the government did not solve the problem of finding
jobs for those who are now unemployed. We can put in place every
possible measure to improve Canada's competitiveness in
technology, and ensure that engineers and technicians have jobs.
Fine, that is great. That is the way to go. But the problem today is
that, while technologies are being developed, we have all these
people with no technical training who are systematically being put
out of work, people whom we are unable to retrain so that they can
find another job to support themselves and be proud of it. That is
the challenge the Liberal government has failed to take on in any
way, shape or form. It is riding the wave of economic recovery. The
interest rates have gone down. Great, but that does little to improve
the situation of those who cannot afford to invest in the economy.
When you are 25 years old and jobless, you do not start a family,
buy a house and contribute to society, and that does not make you
happy.
The federal government should take a lesson from the Quebec
economic summit, where, in a show of solidarity, unions,
employers, the government and community organizations all
agreed on one thing: there must be a clear and precise job creation
target. When did this government agree to set a job creation target
like the deficit reduction it had set for itself? It would be a good
objective for this government to tell us what it is prepared to do, so
that in one, two or three years, the unemployment rate in the
country would go down by 2, 3 or 4 per cent, and so that we could
see the impacts on quality of life and social expenditures. It would
be interesting for Canadians to see their Prime Minister rise in this
House and say: ``Our challenge will be to ensure that Canada's
unemployment rate goes down by 2 per cent over the next two
years''. This is in fact what labour federations are asking of the
Prime Minister. To then see the whole government administration
work toward this objective would be of significance.
This is the type of concrete measure that is required, not a speech
from the throne in which there is nothing to really change the
situation, and in which the government relies on market forces. The
result is that those who are solid enough manage to survive, which
is fine, but those who are less gifted and who had less opportunities
through their education do not. This government evaluates its
performance on how it provides an opportunity to the strongest
ones. However, a society or a government should assess its record
based on the opportunities it provides to each and everyone to make
a contribution.
Society should be evaluated on how it uses its human potential.
There are people who have not managed to complete their high
school, who do not have a job and who have not been retrained.
This government will be a good government the day it will make
sure everyone is used to his or her full potential and is given an
opportunity to make a proper contribution to society.
The speech from the throne alluded to this issue, but these were
only words. There is no concrete action or result, and this is very
unsatisfactory. As autumn ends and winter begins, a tour through
our ridings will bring home the insecurity people feel about jobs
and the problems experienced by seasonal workers in particular
when they think of what they are facing next February and March
with the unemployment insurance reform.
They called it employment insurance. What a terrible piece of
marketing. Employment insurance should mean a system that
makes it possible to guarantee employment to somebody who has
potential and can achieve it. They change the name and the
packaging, but the product is even worse than before. It is
unacceptable, and the government will certainly be judged on it by
the people. I urge the government, if it dares, to go before the
public today on this issue. You can count on a very clear and very
direct message from Quebecers.
There is another point I wish to raise, which involves something
even more basic. It is the issue of this government's leadership.
This is a government whose management style is short-sighted.
Three years ago, the public elected 54 members of the Bloc
Quebecois, a secessionist party, a sovereignist party that wants to
create two countries within Canada. The message was not clear
enough.
6241
(1200)
The Prime Minister said that Quebec's problem was an
economic one, that the government was going to create jobs and
reduce the deficit and the problem would go away. Except that
there was the surprise of October 30, 1995, when they realized that,
despite everything, 49.4 per cent of Quebecers had voted for
sovereignty. That shook them to their short-sighted roots. For
almost a month, they had been saying: ``This time it is really
serious. We had better make promises, something must be done''.
The morning after the results were in, they started to say that the
only thing the federal government could do was to table a little
resolution in the House about distinct society, thinking that then the
effort would have been made.
I was never an admirer of Mr. Mulroney, but compare the effort
he made in the past to unite Canada with this lack of response to the
emergency situation created by the referendum. There is a world of
difference. The present government lacks leadership with respect
to the situation in Quebec. It is not surprising that Quebecers are
the only ones in Canada seriously dissatisfied with the federal
government at this time: 68 per cent of them are dissatisfied with
the performance of the federal government.
Despite a period of economic growth, despite the fact that there
has been at least some progress in the battle against the deficit, is
there not a message here which the federal government ought to
receive, to which it ought to adjust, on which it ought to make some
proposals? Yet nothing is forthcoming. There are no proposals, and
they are saying that they will react only once they have come up
against a wall. This strikes me as a truly aberrant situation. People
are waiting for concrete actions from this government, proof that it
is going to react.
To give another example, in the throne speech, reference was
made to the pertinence of reforming the way shipping is managed
in Canada. The diagnosis is fairly obvious, in my opinion. The
federal government has been letting its facilities deteriorate for the
past 30 years. The proof of this is that, today, 80 per cent of
facilities are more or less useless, because they have never been
properly developed. They have just been patched up here and there,
over and over.
We are in a problematical situation. The government says that
changes must be made, and the first statement made, one which we
agree with, is that the job of management was done by people who
were too far away from the action, who could not possibly know
what the concerns were in each region, who could not do any
separate marketing, who could not allow facilities to compete with
each other. Solutions had to be sought across Canada before the
government could finally grasp that some latitude must be given to
these facilities, but there are still many aspects that have not been
settled.
The address in response to the throne speech offers me the
opportunity to tell the government that there will still be much to
be done when the transportation bill is examined in the report or
third reading stage. Since Confederation, this field has been
characterized by a great deal of political partisanship. Every riding
has its own story of someone who was port master because he was a
Tory, another who was port master at another time because he was a
Grit. These situations have never been settled.
Yesterday in committee I proposed an amendment to ensure that
the people appointed are qualified, and it was turned down by the
Liberal majority. I was not calling for the minister to stop making
appointments, not calling for him to no longer be able to choose
between candidates, but only for assurance that they were
qualified. Once again, the system took too long for adjustments to
be made, and for actions to be taken accordingly. This is a specific
problem relating to partisan politics, and one that is important to
the public. It is important for the government to show evidence of
acting justly.
There is something even more fundamental involved as well. In
this reform, there is a provision for the regional ports, the ones that
are doing business, but not necessarily on an international scale, to
be able to be turned over to local interests.
(1205)
We have tried, and we must keep on trying to add components to
the legislation that will remove the arbitrary, political element and
ensure that decisions to invest in Baie-Comeau, Cacouna, New
Brunswick or western Canada are not made on the basis of the
political colour of their representatives but on the basis of
economic interest. The government should use the economic
profiles and statistics compiled by officials with the Department of
Transport and interpret them intelligently.
Another important aspect is to ensure that ports without any
commercial economic activity except a ferry service like
Rivière-du-Loup to Saint-Siméon or Trois-Pistoles to Les
Escoumins on the North Shore-can be sold at a good price without
any interruption of service. This is a good example of the
imperfections in our system and the need for reform. Ignoring the
need for reform reflects a major lack of leadership on the part of the
Canadian government.
If no guarantees are given, we may get some outlandish
situations. For instance, the federal government may decide it will
no longer maintain a harbour facility, it may decide to get rid of the
port of Rivière-du-Loup, for instance, even if the ferry offers an
essential service recognized by the Government of Quebec and
there is a subsidy for this service.
The federal government, which is responsible for wharves,
might decide it no longer has the money and no longer wants to
6242
maintain the facility. The region would then be in a totally
unacceptable situation. The government has to move, to react, to
implement concrete solutions.
I admit that in this particular case, Bill C-44, there was a lot of
consultation. Suggestions were made which were adopted, but
many aspects remain to be settled. I hope the government will find
a way to do that.
To sum up, should Canadians be satisfied with what they heard
in the speech from the throne and the way it has been implemented?
My answer is what people on the street, at the barbershop or the
cornerstore are telling me. They ask where are the jobs all these
government projects were supposed to provide. They ask me what
is happening. Why do they not see any results? People no longer
believe that millions of dollars have been cut and millions invested.
They want to know if their neighbour will get a job, if any positive
result will be achieved anywhere.
In a riding like mine, Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, it will be
a few more months before we can see if the government action was
successful in any real way. We will have to wait and see if the
transactions which are supposed to allow the local community take
charge of the port facilities in Cacouna and to ensure the future of
the ferries between Rivière-du-Loup and Saint-Siméon, and
between Trois-Pistoles and Les Escoumins will come through. That
is what matters.
Regarding the employment insurance reform, a bill providing for
the conversion of seasonal workers' contribution to the economy
will have to be tabled. Seasonal workers must be able to find work
during the winter. The government has increased the number of
weeks required to qualify for benefits while reducing the benefit
period. If only the negative aspects of the UI reform make it, we are
headed for a major social crisis. I urge the federal government to
find solutions and listen to those organizations that make
suggestions.
In my riding, there is a coalition of forest management
companies. They are developing a plan, not to artificially create
employment or to pay seasonal workers to do nothing, but to
provide them with an extra three or four weeks of work, either in
the spring or in the fall, through solutions involving forestry,
processing forestry products and developing new products in order
to achieve interesting results. This is my heartfelt cry to the
government in this respect.
We have fought long and hard against employment insurance
reform. If the government wants to send a clear message to the
regions, where there are many seasonal workers, telling them that
there is not only bad news in this reform, time is running out. Act
quickly, this is your last chance. The people in my riding will judge
you by your actions.
(1210)
In reply to the speech from the throne, I think we can say, and I
will conclude on this, the federal government has shown a blatant
lack of leadership in terms of reducing the deficit for instance, by
failing to cut back where it should have. In the area of employment,
the proposed solutions are not the right ones and, on the
constitutional issue, Quebec is being ignored and, to some extent,
insulted. If the federal government's attitude does not change, the
best solution will be to go our own way, because Quebecers are
very patient.
Twice already they asked Canada to change course and come up
with proposals and twice Canada declined. The third time will be
the right one. The Canadian economy will be completely
reorganized and the Canadian territory will be divided in two
countries, so that Quebecers can finally make decisions on what is
important to them and for their future.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to compliment the hon. member from the Bloc for a very
constructive critique of the government's throne speech. I would
like to dwell on one item that was in that throne speech which is of
particular importance to his party and his party's objectives.
There was a vague promise made by the Prime Minister months
ago when the speech was given and I cannot remember the exact
details, that all Canadians would have a say in the next referendum
on separation. It is an issue that is very important and I would like
to have the member enlighten me and clarify a few things because I
am confused about two or three things that happened in the last
referendum.
The hon. member indicated in his speech that 49.5 per cent of
Quebecers voted yes-it was very close-and that should send a
signal to Ottawa. I agree with him. The government is not listening.
It is not listening to westerners or to Quebecers and I agree.
I disagree on what the solution is. I do not think it is separation. I
am concerned about that. I would like to see Quebec stay in
Canada. I would like to see Quebecers and the Bloc Quebecois
argue for Quebec in the best interests of Quebec like an opposition
party can using those tools to help it.
I found the question in the last referendum to be ambiguous and
convoluted. It was not a simple, straight, direct question of the
citizens of the province of Quebec. I can verify that with the
surveys, the information that came to me from the people who
write stories in Le Devoir, which said that 39 per cent, or a high
percentage of Quebecers did not really understand what they were
6243
voting on. They thought Quebec could separate and still stay in
Canada and have some sort of economic association.
I do not know why there has to be another referendum.
Quebecers have voted twice on this issue and twice Quebecers have
said to stay in Canada. Should the people of Quebec want another
referendum and the member does get another referendum, would
he agree that a straight, simple, direct question would be better and
clearer for everybody? There would be fewer arguments, fewer
flare ups. The question would be in French and English along the
lines of: Do you want to separate from Canada, yes or no?
If the answer to that simple and direct question were to be
yes-which I hope it would not be-would the member explain to
me what the plan is of the Bloc Quebecois? How and when does it
plan to negotiate the separation agreement and terms? If there is no
mechanism in place, which there is not now and it is not legal now
as nothing in the Constitution allows for a province to secede, when
do the negotiations start? Who does the negotiations? How does the
Bloc Quebecois propose to settle issues, for example the size of the
debt, the type of currency, access for Canadians through the
province to the east coast. Issues such as those are extremely
important.
Those are the questions I would like to be enlightened upon by
the hon. member.
(1215)
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reform member for his
question. I find it very significant that this question was asked by a
member of the Reform Party. In fact, the Liberals are not asking
questions this morning. I wonder what is happening; they seem to
be ashamed of the throne speech.
It is the kind of question Canadians should ask themselves. Such
questions must be raised outside Quebec so we can search for a
solution and decide how the matter should be settled.
They are asking if Canadians will have a role to play in Quebec's
next referendum. I myself think Canadians have a role to play now.
If you want to show the people of Quebec that this country has a
future, it is up to you. It is up to the Canadians to put their
proposals on the table. But without any proposals, we cannot give
you any answers, or even make suggestions. There is no leadership
in this government. No one has made any significant proposal.
What is clearer and more shocking to Quebecers is that this
government's reforms are all superficial.
Back in October 1995, things were heating up as minor proposals
were being made left and right. One month later, they started to
forget. And then last month, the Prime Minister repeated what he
was saying in the fall of 1993: that Canada's problem is an
economic one; that once the economy recovers, Quebecers will
understand that Canada is the greatest country in the world and they
will stay.
Even if Quebec and Canada's economic situation were the best
in the world, the fact is that a process is taking place in Quebec. A
people is moving forward. A people is slowly learning. The
numbers went from 40 per cent in 1980 to 49.4 per cent last year,
and if the federal government does not meet their expectations, this
people will choose to become a sovereign state.
It will do so following a question whose wording will have been
decided by Quebec's National Assembly, the only parliament in
which Quebecers form a majority. This view is shared not only by
the current premier, Mr. Bouchard, but also by the leader of the
opposition, Daniel Johnson, and by the leader of Action
démocratique, Mario Dumont.
All Quebecers agree as regards the question. We are mature
people. We do not live in a banana republic. We put a question
twice. The first time, in 1980, we asked Quebecers for a mandate to
negotiate. Forty per cent of the voters were prepared to merely let
us negotiate. Last year, 49 per cent of them wanted us to build a
country and to offer partnership to the rest of Canada. This is a very
significant progress, because had we asked the same question last
year as we did in 1980, the result may have been 55 or 60 per cent.
This is an assumption, but one that could well reflect reality. In any
case, Quebecers are making progress and sending a clear message
to the current Liberal government.
So, the question will be decided by the elected members of the
Quebec Parliament. Until then, Canadians should tell us what they
want. They have time to make proposals to us.
The Canadian confederation is not unchanging. Since
francophones and anglophones have been present in North
America, we have had three or four different forms of government:
Upper and Lower Canada, the Canadian Union and the
Confederation. We must find formulae that are right for this
economic entity. With the new rules of the game, such as the free
trade agreement, this is very obvious.
When I travelled through western Canada with the transport
committee, this was brought home to me very strongly. Now, all
trade runs in a North-South direction. Everyone is asking us for
railway lines and highways that go south. This will bring about a
fundamental transformation of Canada, independently of the
options offered by politicians. This is therefore something that
must be looked at. Quebecers and Canadians must behave like
mature adults and tell one another that, in future, they wish to
function in a different manner, work differently together.
6244
Therefore the question ``Are we going to separate or not?'' does
not strike me as the right question to ask. The question Quebecers
should be asked should be: ``Is there a formula that you would
like to see, because the present one does not suit you?'' Basically,
what they have always wanted is a sovereign state, with all
decision-making powers in Quebec.
It must be recalled that what Quebecers agreed to in 1867 was
cultural and educational security, but we continued to grow and
mature and now we are prepared to take over all responsibilities.
Since I have been transport critic, I realize just how much the fact
that Quebecers do not have jurisdiction over transportation has
created major problems for them. Not because Canadians
systematically have it in for Quebec, but because decisions have
been taken that favoured east-west development rather than
north-south development, for example, which was devastating for
Quebec's economy.
(1220)
This is where it starts to get interesting again. Our challenge, on
the eve of the twenty-first century, whatever form Canada takes,
will be to develop this north-south link, but we must adapt our
political institutions to this new reality.
I will conclude by saying that our greatest criticism of the
present Liberal government is that it lacks the basic leadership to
resolve the problems of the year 2000. Sorting out this year's
problems is not too bad, but a government's responsibility extends
further. It must also have a vision of the future, and this is where
the Liberals do not make the grade.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to say a few words on the
government's throne speech, which I find most appropriate at this
time.
When the Liberal Party formed the government in 1993, the
country was, in my opinion, headed toward disaster. We were
dreadfully in debt. Before our time, the whole idea had been to
spend, spend, spend. The mortgage on the country, in other words
the national debt, was increasing madly. Every year we had a
deficit which was getting up near $50 billion.
Suddenly, in 1993, the new Liberal government was faced with a
situation calling for an economic program that held out some hope
for Canadians, some hope for young people, some hope for their
future and for the future of Canadian workers, and in particular
some reassurance for seniors about government programs.
Yes, the government did want to make cuts.
[English]
The bond market had a very negative outlook for Canada in
1993. The interest rates were going up and one wondered if the
international bond markets would keep on giving us a triple A
rating. We were near collapse, going in the other direction, and not
even getting requests for the purchase of bonds.
A program had to be instituted to put our house in order. That is
exactly what has happened. The deficit has kept going down, down,
down.
The government does not create jobs. It did that in the past and it
is only short term when it occurs. What we have to do is establish a
climate for jobs and that climate has to be the proper economic
climate.
Our program was disciplined in cutting some programs. We are
downsizing government, not shutting down government. That is
the difference between us and some members of the opposition. We
do not want to shut down government.
We have to stop giving to everyone who thinks that all they have
to do is write to the government requesting a grant. We have to do
this in a reasonable fashion.
This morning the interest rates decreased again. We have not
seen interest rates like these in 40 years. People can now borrow to
buy a home or to invest in some other fashion. That will create
jobs. That is good. People can now spend money. It is affordable to
borrow money in order to invest it. It is not to borrow money to
have fun, to be wasteful. It is for investment, for example, in a
home. Equity will build in that home and when it is sold in the
future the owner will be able to live on that equity or they will be
able to leave it to their children. We have to think of leaving
something to our children.
(1225 )
We had to downsize government. Government programs had to
be cut. I had some concerns about that because my constituency is
comprised of many public servants and people who have contracts
with the federal government. As vice-chair of the government
operations committee I was very diligent in ensuring there would
be no abuse on anyone's part.
The program review was to cut programs in an effort to downsize
the federal government. There was a question of a lump sum of
money that was to be cut. Obviously some jobs had to be
annihilated. We had to let go and make way for a better system. We
had to improve the way in which we were working. This meant we
had to abandon those activities that did not need to keep going.
We privatized in areas where the private sector could do better.
For example, we privatized many activities that were once under
Transport Canada. We developed Nav Canada and a great number
of public servants who once worked for Transport Canada were
transferred to this new private sector organization.
The media interpretation was that 45,000 jobs would be lost. I
did not appreciate the fact that 45,000 employees would be laid off.
Lately one newspaper reported that with the new calculations the
6245
number could be more like 55,000. Obviously this has a very
negative impact on the community. This made people in the
national capital region business community very insecure and the
economy slowed down quite a bit.
However, in the downsizing process the government made sure it
did not maltreat its employees. We had programs like early
retirement. The early retirement program was oversubscribed to.
Many public servants, those who were getting close to retirement
age, thought this was a wonderful opportunity to retire.
Others accepted the early departure incentive. They were mostly
public servants, managers or middle managers who were interested
in going into private business. They are now the people in the
national capital region who are working for the government, doing
some projects, working on contracts. They are now the private
contractors in the region.
We have saved a great deal of money but I do have concerns. I
want to make sure the government does not save money by
downsizing on the one hand while on the other hand increasing by a
phenomenal amount the money spent on contracting out. This is
something I am watching for very diligently at the committee on
government operations.
In September 1995 the unemployment rate in the national capital
region was 10.1 per cent. That percentage has now gone down to
7.4 per cent, an improvement. People in the national capital region
are starting to feel secure again.
[Translation]
They are at ease, can see that there is some future, and the
Canadian government decided that the National Capital Region
would not be a ``one horse town'', that it would have a mixture of
private industry and public industry.
As well, organizations such as Systemhouse have sprung up,
where former public servants have started up in high tech, and now
the National Capital Region has a burgeoning high tech industry.
The National Capital Region has, in fact, now become the major
North American centre for high technology.
(1230)
[English]
There is a balance between the private sector and the public
sector now. I am happy to report that the public service is
improving constantly in its effectiveness and efficiency. I am
asking the government to make sure, though, that there is a
renewal, that there is an opportunity for the young to be able to
enter our reputable public service.
We have to make sure that there is an entry situation where
young graduates can come to work with the federal government
and, if not the federal government, work on contracts for the
federal government. That is very essential. I appreciate the
opportunity to address the House on the question of the throne
speech.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
paid attention to the hon. member's speech. I can vouch for the
excellent representation he gives to the people of Gloucester. He
has been an excellent representative.
I would like to give him an opportunity. In the nation's capital, in
the House of Commons, we often speak of billion dollar budgets.
We speak about deficits in a very macro way.
We speak of the lowering of the deficit, the fact that we have not
increased personal income tax, the fact that the crime rate has
declined, as have interest rates. I would like the hon. member to
give us a feel of what has happened in his community as a result of
the policy directions that this government has undertaken in the
areas I cited.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Toronto
for his kind words.
In my riding, business is doing well. The private sector is getting
contracts. There is a movement in high technology in my
community. This afternoon, I will go to the opening of AMITA, a
high technology group of about 50 employees that are starting a
business in my community.
Almost every second week, a new business is starting, always in
high tech. Because of globalization, we have to do things very
differently. It is time for high technology.
We are very lucky that the national capital region a few years ago
started in high tech. Now we are becoming the high tech capital
above the American border. There is high tech in the United States
and the other place is right here in the national capital region.
Private industry is developing. Both universities and the two
colleges are producing specialists in high tech. Jobs are being
developed to the point where, at this moment, we are told that
thousands of jobs are available in high tech in the national capital
region that have not been filled yet.
The universities and colleges are trying to produce as quickly as
possible graduates to fill these jobs. This is a very big plus for our
community. Things are going better and better all the time.
People feel secure. People feel a sense of hope. People feel that
there is growth. By gosh, the national capital region is a heck of a
nice place to grow and to have a family.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to comment on the speech of the hon. member where he talked
about the advantages of lower interest rates. There is no question
that low interest rates mean significant savings for consumers and
businesses. It puts more money into the marketplace.
6246
(1235 )
However, to only zero in on that aspect and to only point out its
benefits, is wrong. That is only one sector of the population, only
the borrowers of the nation. It is only people who can borrow
money, qualify for loans or who already have loans in place. It is
not all Canadians. It is not all good news for all Canadians. It is
good news for those who have debts. It is also good news for this
government because it is lowering the cost of its huge debt which
does help all Canadians.
However, because it only benefits the borrowers, what message
is the government giving to those who do not have loans and who
do not borrow? What are in the policies of the Liberal Party for the
pensioners who have had been reduced and have lost their senior
age exemption? What about the students who do not have loans and
cannot borrow money? What is the government-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. The hon. member
has asked a question. I said it had to be very brief. This is five
minutes questions and comments. Five are gone. I call on the hon.
member for Carleton-Gloucester for a very short reply.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing is the point of
view of the Reform Party, a party that wants to shut down
government and government operations altogether. It does not care
about people who want to invest. In order to invest they need to
borrow money. They have to roll money around. For these same
people for whom Reformers say they want to protect the interest
rates, they seem to suggest that the interest rate should go high.
The Reform members are looking at their buddies who have lots
of money and they do not care about anybody else. Perhaps on
Sunday morning they give a donation to the odd person. They only
care about people with money. They do not care about promoting
the economy and those who want it developed.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon on the
throne speech, a speech which reflects the real needs and concerns
of Canadians.
The Liberal government's jobs and growth agenda has provided
Canadians with renewed hope for the future and its agenda is
focused on creating opportunity for Canadians, through a fiscal
climate which encourages investment, through ensuring that our
youth have the tools they require in order to fully contribute to
Canada's growth and competitiveness and through strengthening
our small businesses, a primary source for job creation and
innovation.
Today we are faced with a markedly different fiscal situation
than the one we faced when we took office. Interest rates are at the
lowest point in 38 years and that means Canadians have new
opportunities for investment and growth. All Canadians benefit
from lower interest rates; from home owners to small businesses in
my riding of Lincoln.
Inflationary rates are also at 38-year lows. Lower inflationary
rates mean that Canadians can operate in a stable economic
environment. They can more confidently plan for their futures.
Nowhere has the government's success in creating a stronger
fiscal environment been more evident than in its efforts to reduce
the huge deficit inherited when we took office. Indeed, getting the
government finances under control has been the most effective way
of getting interest rates down.
After program review and rationalization, we have brought
government spending under control. Today, we have not only
projected that the deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP will be met but
this target will be surpassed and in 1998-99 the deficit target of
about 1 per cent of GDP will be met.
Clearly the approach to restoring fiscal health has been
measured, deliberate and responsible. It has involved carefully
reducing spending, restructuring government and strengthening the
economy. This approach continues to reflect the desire of
Canadians to have their government develop a more sophisticated
approach to deficit reduction. It has not imposed greater costs on
the greater taxpayer by raising their personal income taxes. Nor has
the approach been a slash and burn attempt to get government
spending under control.
Borrowing on the backs of our children and grandchildren will
soon be in the past. Speaking of our youth, they have been
identified as being a vital resource in the continuing effort to stay
competitive. Today many young people remain unemployed. Our
youth are worried that the future will not hold jobs for them.
Employers are saying that there are jobs but that they are having
difficulty in finding the skilled labour they need in order to grow
and compete. Experts are telling us that the pursuit of education is
still important to success in the job market. Far sighted Canadians
everywhere argue that the country cannot afford to squander the
talents and creativity of our youth. I know that all government
members are aware of these concerns and are actively seeking
solutions. Clearly, young people need more help in making the
transition into the working world. They need more help in getting
that crucial first job.
(1240)
The government has doubled its summer employment programs.
It has also made a commitment to work with the provinces and with
the private sector. This type of co-operation is being encouraged at
all levels. Canadians want to know that all their elected officials are
working together, no matter what jurisdiction they represent.
In this process, partnerships are essential. Many Canadians have
expressed that only partnerships can solve the short and long term
challenges of youth unemployment. More needs to be done for our
6247
youth and they can be assured that progress will be made because
on this side of the House it has been made a priority.
Let me also address the role of small businesses in our economy
and in our country. Small businesses are the backbone of the
economic community of my riding of Lincoln. This fact is not
unusual given that the small business sector is very important to the
entire Canadian economy. Indeed, hope for our youth and for the
future competitiveness of our country rests with a strong small
business sector. Small businesses, including the self-employed,
now account for almost two-thirds of all private sector employment
and approximately 60 per cent of Canada's economic output.
As a small business owner, I know that the entrepreneurial spirit
that drives the small and medium sized business sector needs to be
encouraged and fostered because our economic well-being depends
on it.
What is the small business community saying? It is saying that
access to capital in the start-up and expansion phase is still very
important. The banks have done some work in this area and they
can point to areas of success where they have increased their access
for small business. But the demand is still there.
Small businesses are asking for higher risk debt capital. It is a
paradox that there are a number of small businesses in the
community which require more funds for start up or for expansion,
yet do not have the collateral to support the actual capital
requirements. At the same time they have good export ideas. If the
capital was available they would be able to expand their business
and create employment, adding to the GDP of the country. We need
more of what I will call high risk debt capital. We would look at the
credit rating of a particular small business person and based on that
rating the banks would provide the required capital.
As a government we need to continue to fight and to work
toward eliminating the regulatory barriers and the paper burdens.
We have made some progress in that area. It is still a concern of
small business and the government will continue to work toward
the elimination of regulatory barriers and paper burden.
As I mentioned earlier with respect to our youth, there is a need
to access skilled workers. There is still a mismatch out there. The
small business community requires skilled individuals. It has
positions to fill and is crying out, telling us that Canada does not
have the skilled workers to fill those jobs. We need to address that,
in partnership with the provinces, with the educational and
post-secondary institutions. Those are the partnerships that need to
be forged to deal with the question of providing skilled workers.
There is also a call from the small business community for a
reduction in payroll taxes, for some help in that area because they
claim they will be able to create employment if payroll taxes are
reduced. There has also been a cry for some direct incentives to
hire new employees and for some type of program that would help
the micro businesses that may need some assistance and some type
of relief. This would allow them to hire the one or two people they
need in order to continue to grow, expand and contribute to the
GDP of this country, to their local communities and to their local
economies.
(1245)
Those are a number of the issues and concerns brought forward
by the small business community not only in my community but I
am sure right across the country. This government will continue to
work hand in hand with the private sector, with representatives of
the small business sector to meet the needs of the small business
community.
This government believes that the small business community is
the engine and the backbone of the economy. We look to the small
business community to assist Canada, to assist this government and
to assist all Canadians in working, in being competitive, in being
efficient and creating those employment opportunities and jobs.
This government will continue to improve the climate for small
businesses and certainly will allow them to continue to compete
globally. This particular sector of our economy is crucially
important.
In terms of what this government has recently done to assist in
access to capital for the small business community, the Canada
community investment program was announced some weeks ago.
Communities from across the country are now participating in pilot
projects. We in the Lincoln area were very fortunate to have had the
opportunity to partner with the Hamilton, Brantford, Burlington,
Haldimand-Norfolk area, along with the Six Nations in
submitting an application for the Canada community investment
program.
The government will go forward to provide infrastructure dollars
to assist local communities in coming together to provide that
increased access to capital for small business. Those in small
business are the employers and they are the medium size and
multinational companies of the future.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's
excellent presentation. I note his tremendous interest and
enthusiasm for small business and industry in his riding, but more
so right across this country of ours.
Having had the opportunity to speak with many of the small
business people in my constituency, they are telling me as their
member of Parliament to stay the course and to encourage the
Minister of Finance to stay the course, to continue to bring our
financial house in order, to continue with those low interest rates,
6248
to continue with a low inflation under control. That is what
complements small business and the jobs that will go with it.
My question is based on the projections many economists and
the OECD are making that among the G-7 nations, in 1997 Canada
will actually exceed all of them in economic advancement and
growth. Perhaps the hon. member for Lincoln would like to
comment on this and on all the actions that have been taken, but is
it enough? Are there other things we should be doing to encourage
small business knowing that indeed those in small business are the
ones that will produce additional jobs in this country?
Mr. Valeri: Mr. Speaker, certainly small businesses in the
constituency of Lincoln and in speaking with small businesses
across the country, they want us to stay the course. They want us to
continue to fight the deficit, move to a zero deficit and continue to
maintain those low interest rates and the low inflationary course we
are on. Certainly they are very much in support of the government's
macro approach to our economy.
(1250)
As mentioned by the hon. member, Canada will lead the G-7 in
terms of economic growth in the coming years. In fact, yesterday in
Toronto the Bank of Canada indicated that it expects in 1997 there
will be growth in our economy because of the approach which has
been taken, because of low interest rates and because of low
inflationary measures.
What else needs to be done? Certainly we need to focus on the
continued access to capital that small businesses need. We need to
continue to focus on providing small businesses with the necessary
skills and manpower which they need in order to continue to
compete.
In order for small businesses to compete globally we need to
assist them with the tools to export. We need to get small business
into the export market in a much bigger way. This country does not
have as many small businesses exporting as it should have. We will
work to ensure that the small business sector has the tools which
are required to penetrate those markets. We are doing some of that
by using the team Canada approach. There is also information
which we need to provide to the small business sector. We need to
identify global markets for the small business sector. We have to do
more of that at the micro level.
Those are a couple of things we need to do in support of the
macro approach. We also need to take micro approaches for the
small business sector.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon.
member.
The previous Liberal government tried to control inflation with
24 per cent interest rates. That now seems to have been the wrong
approach. Has the Prime Minister drastically changed his
definition of what is right and what is wrong?
I heard this morning that our gross domestic product has only
increased by 1.1 per cent in the last year. With the low interest
rates, how can he make the comment that the government is on the
right track? To me it seems that the gross domestic product has to
increase by more than 1.1 per cent.
Mr. Valeri: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member fails to
understand is that the approach we have taken and the reason
interest rates and inflation rates are low today is that we looked at
government structure, we looked at government spending, we went
through the program review, we went through the restructuring of
government and we reduced spending in government. We have said
that we cannot be all things to all people. We have taken a targeted
approach with respect to what government can do and does best. In
doing so we have put in place the structural changes which have
brought the lower interest rates and the lower inflation rates.
When this approach was being taken by the government a
number of years ago, members opposite cried out and said that it
would never work, that we needed to cut, slash and burn. That is
their approach: Do it tomorrow; do it soon. They said that if we
continued on the same track we would hit the wall.
We did not hit the wall. Interest rates are low. Inflation is low.
We are being heralded around the world as one country which has
taken the direct approach and ensured that our economic
fundamentals are in place. We will continue to prosper.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with the member for Kootenay East.
I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on the speech from the
throne, even though it has been nine months since the throne
speech was first read. Instead of calling it the speech from the
throne, maybe we should call it the old speech. We are here today
talking about an old speech, with an old vision and old tired ideas
that have not worked in the past and certainly will not work in the
future. Ideas such as distinct society for Quebec. That was clearly
and decisively rejected by Canadians across the country in the
Charlottetown accord.
(1255 )
In the throne speech the government mentioned changing the law
and making amendments to the Criminal Code. It seems that all we
really got was some tinkering and not the major changes people
talked about. All we got was some pretty thin soup. Canadians are
asking, in fact they are demanding that government get tough on
crime. For example, did we get from this government a victims bill
6249
of rights? No we did not. Not until my colleague from Fraser Valley
West introduced his private member's bill.
Our criminal justice system is in a state of disarray. It is out of
touch. It is insensitive to the victims and their families. It is
bureaucratic and moves slowly. We are all familiar with the phrase
``justice delayed is justice denied''. I have a fistful of examples
from right across the country of how inefficient and soft our
criminal justice system is on criminals.
I would like to zero in on one example from my riding of
Yellowhead of how our criminal justice system works. It is with
regard to the experiences of Judy and Don Thwaites who live in the
town of Whitecourt, Alberta. It is a story I would rather not tell but
it is very explicit of how our system works, or conversely, how our
system does not work; hence my relating this letter in the House.
Judy and Don had a couple of children, including daughter
Norma who on January 25, 1981 was 17 years old. On the
mentioned date Norma, who was doing post-secondary studies in
Edmonton, was home for a visit. On the night of January 25 Norma
was strangled to death. Then her lifeless body was raped by Larry
Read. Norma was left in a vehicle and her frozen body was
discovered by the RCMP the next morning. These are the basic
facts of the case. It is not necessary for me to describe in greater
detail the utterly despicable action against this young woman, a
17-year old teenager.
The letter from Mrs. Thwaites does not go into detail with
respect to the murder of her daughter but rather she describes the
system and her dealings with the system. Her letter is addressed to
me dated March 29, 1995, re Larry Gene Read: ``I am writing to
you about the above person, Larry Read, and his actions against my
daughter, Norma, on January 25, 1981. I would at this time like to
give you a point by point account of what happened after Read was
arrested for the murder of my daughter, Norma.
``Read was arrested within 24 hours of the murder of Norma in
the city of Grand Prairie, Alberta approximately 170 miles
northwest of Whitecourt or about 300 miles northwest of the city of
Edmonton''. A common thread in Judy's letter is that she has great
praise for the RCMP: ``We commend the RCMP for their prompt
arrest and for the concern and caring they showed to our family not
only at the time but in the years of agony and sorrow we suffered
from that day until the present time. We were always showed
consideration in every way through the arrest, preliminary hearing,
two trials over a four year period and the sentencing. I would like
the people concerned with the judicial system of Canada to know
that about the RCMP.
``My husband and I were present at the preliminary hearing held
in Whitecourt in May in 1981. It lasted approximately two and a
half weeks. We were never called by any member of the court
system to brief us on what would take place at this hearing''. My
colleague's private member's bill remedies this complete omission
of the victim.
(1300)
``We are never called by any member of the court system to brief
us on what would take place at this hearing. Once again, we were
told what they were able to let us know, legally, by the RCMP''.
Then she asks a question: ``How come there is no provision made
for the victims' families to enable them to handle this agonizing
and tortuous procedure? After the preliminary hearing it was
determined that the courts had enough evidence to proceed to trial.
The trial was held in Edmonton and started exactly one year to the
date that Norma was murdered''.
She goes on to say how despicable that was: ``I realize that the
courts are very full, but that is gross injustice to the family
members. Once again, we were never informed of what would take
place. Indeed, we were never informed about the trial date. This
information was provided by the RCMP investigations officer who
was our sole moral support through all of this affair''.
Then she asks another question: ``Why is there no provision by
the government to provide a person who would let the family know
what has taken place over the past year, while waiting for the trial,
and a run down on what to expect? I can appreciate that they cannot
take the time for every detail but they could surely write a letter to
let the date of the trial be known a few weeks ahead''. This is also a
provision in the private member's bill, which is supposed to be in
committee but I fear that is where it will rest for a long long time.
``During the trial we were never approached by anyone from the
crown prosecutor's office to inform us what tactic it would be using
to establish the guilt of the murderer. We did seek to speak to the
crown prosecutor and he did reluctantly divulge a little of what he
planned to use against the murderer. After the trial was over and the
judge addressed the jury to let it know what constituted first
degree, second degree and manslaughter he made a mistake in his
address to the jury which confused it and resulted in the charge
being reduced to second degree murder.
``Read was found guilty of second degree murder by the jury and
it recommended that he be given the maximum sentence of 15
years in prison with no chance of early parole. The judge reduced
this sentence to 13 years and we do not know why''. The Thwaites
do not know why.
``Because the judge confused the jury when he was explaining
what constituted what for the three classifications, Read was given
a hearing for a new trial and he won that. The second trial was held
four years after the first trial. It started in January of 1985 and once
again was a nightmare for us.
6250
``Some of the witnesses from the first trial could not be located.
It was, to say the least, a catastrophe for us. The witnesses could
no longer remember things that had happened five years before,
and who could fault them?
``Once again, we were informed by the RCMP that there was a
new trial. Not once were we written or phoned by any justice
system official to tell us that we had to go to hell and back again.
This lack of consideration by the so-called system is about as cruel
as it can get''.
She asks another question: ``When are they going to quit
mollycoddling these murderers? My daughter suffered amounts
which I cannot bear to think about. Read has suffered nothing and
is indeed protected from any pain by being placed in protective
custody. When are they going to wake up to the fact that these
pyschopaths are of little value to society?
``After the second trial was over and the jury found Read guilty
of manslaughter, he was sentenced to seven years in prison with no
chance of parole. That was a very hard blow to us, as you can well
imagine. I was by this time in a terrible rage over the lack of justice
by our so-called system which I had, like all other Canadians,
believed in. I must admit I am a much wiser person now. There is
no justice system in our country and people are beginning to
conclude that what we have rather than a justice system in this
country is a legal industry.
``Six years after Norma was murdered and raped by Larry Read,
I finally found-my local doctor referred me because he could not
help me to handle the rage I felt over all of the injustices I had
suffered, and the terrible grief I felt over my girl not dying by an
accident or by sickness, but because a human being had
deliberately killed her for his own pleasure''.
(1305)
A Reform government would put the rights of the victim ahead
of the rights of the criminal.
Here is what she has to say about getting some assistance:
``There is no one in Canada who anyone knew about at the time
who had any training to help victims of this type of crime. I was
indeed fortunate that I was referred to a Dr. Watson in Edmonton
who was very knowledgeable about psychopaths. He told me that
he was familiar with my case from discussions with his colleagues
and by reading the newspaper accounts of the case. He was the first
person to tell me that Read was a psychopath and that there was no
cure whatsoever for these people.
``He also told me that he had never counselled anyone or had any
training in counselling anyone who had suffered having a person
murdered in their family. He did not know of anyone in Canada
who had ever received any training, either gone to the U.S.A. or
any place-''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I hesitate to interrupt the
hon. member but I have been trying to signal him. His time has
expired. I believe he is splitting his 20 minute segment with the
hon. member for Kootenay East.
Accordingly, there is now five minutes of questions or
comments.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, how did this lady respond to the help that she finally got
from this medical person? Could the hon. member fill us in on that,
please.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, there just was not
any help available. He could not help her.
The case does not end there. Read received a seven year
sentence. He was let out after six years and only a few years later,
after he was let out on early parole, which happens again and again
across this country, he again committed a heinous act that is tough
to describe in this House.
In British Columbia, where he ended up, he went into a house
where a 9-year old girl and a 12-year old girl were sitting. He beat
them up, dragged them into the basement and, with a knife, cut
their vaginas to their stomachs. He did not kill them but he
certainly inflicted something upon them that will follow them the
rest of their lives.
At the present time there is no provision of any kind in this
country to look after the victims of violence. Hence our colleague's
private member's bill to deal with that. It covers the things I have
related thus far.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
interesting as we are undertaking the continuation of this throne
speech to take a look at the number of things that have changed and
the number of things that have not changed.
Clearly the things that have not changed have been on the
Liberal side. One of the most interesting things last year, when
Canada came within 50,000 votes of no longer being Canada, was
the reaction of the Liberals to that situation.
There is an old saying that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but in this
case it is broken and we must fix it.
There are three heads on a very bad penny here, the Progressive
Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. None of them have any
new ideas. None of them are bringing any new information. None
of them are taking any role of leadership to do things differently.
My colleague mentioned that the Prime Minister, in the three
days before the vote, came up with the absolutely brilliant but
totally discredited idea of distinct society. He did that and then
brought it into the House of Commons. He forced it through the
House of Commons. He also wanted to have a veto for Quebec.
6251
(1310 )
Not being able to do that, we now have a veto for five regions
which fundamentally gives a total constriction of any ability to
ever change our country and the way we govern ourselves. That is
what the Prime Minister has done. One of his more imaginative
ministers, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Deputy Prime
Minister, wants to return to 1967 to rekindle the wonderful national
spirit we had. She has come out with the fly a flag program which
was originally, according to an official in her department, going to
be costing between $6 million and $7 million.
As was reported in the Globe and Mail, suddenly they have
turned around and said that it was going to be $23 million. We then
had the brilliant news the other day that it was going to be $8
million less than that. All we know is that we have over 600,000
flags being distributed willy-nilly all over the country.
As a matter of fact, there is an article in Le Devoir today that
indicates that 15 of these flags were sent to people who had no
interest in having the Canadian flag. The writer of the article says:
``Thank you very much, but I am going to put it in my bottom
drawer''. My office is being inundated by people who are either
indicating they have received flags, do not want them or have sent
them back. In fact, my office has been receiving these flags to
return to the minister.
This is the old vision. This is the cheerleader we have for a
heritage minister. What of a new vision, a new vision that the
Reform Party has? I quote the leader of the Reform Party:
For the past few decades, Canada has been governed by an ideology which holds
that an overpowering, overspending central government is the answer to every
problem, including that of national unity. The Reform Party is not afraid to
fundamentally rethink the way our government works. Through decentralization and
a greater emphasis on local responsibility, we believe we have a realistic plan that
will build a stronger, more united Canada. It will help us achieve our common
objective of keeping Quebec in the federation.
Let us take a look at what happened in the lead-up to the last
referendum. In 1995, of the people who were surveyed, this from
the
Globe and Mail dated October 30, 1995, 25 per cent of the
people in Quebec still believe they could elect federal members of
Parliament. Almost 30 per cent believed that they would be able to
keep economic ties such as they have right now and over half
believed they could keep their Canadian passports.
These things are not a given. They would have to be discussed
and agreed to by all the people of Canada. There was no discussion
about what was going to be happening should they determine that
they were going to be voting in favour of separating from Canada.
There was no discussion, no contingency plan and no explanation
to the people of Quebec when they voted in favour separation what
their vote would actually mean.
At that time, it must be noted, if we take a slice in time leading
up to the referendum, the Reform Party was being vilified by all the
old-line parties because this was a new way of thinking and they
could not really get their mind around a new way of thinking. We
were being vilified for saying: ``Just a second, why are we not
having an exposure to the people of Quebec as to what the facts
are? Why are we not letting the people of Quebec know that this is
not a free ride?''
We are being vilified because they think we are planning for
their separation. No. I and my party are committed federalists who
demand that this country stay together and we will do everything
we can to keep this country together. However, it will be kept
together by truth, by exposure of ideas and by straight, candid
discussions.
In a new Canada that the Reform Party would see, we would see
a reduction in the size of tax requirements of the federal
government. Right now in our nation, people through an
underground economy and all sorts of devious means are walking
away from their tax obligations because they believe taxes are too
high and they do not want to be a part of it.
(1315 )
Let me make it clear, particularly to anybody in the revenue
department, that I am in no way condoning the actions of people
who walk away from their tax obligations. I am simply reporting
that there is a tax fatigue within the country and people are doing
everything they can to get away from it. It is becoming a serious
problem in the way in which we relate to each other.
We would refocus the federal government's powers on 10 areas
of national importance. We would reform federal institutions to
make them more democratically accountable and sensitive to
regional interests. We would introduce a triple E Senate, one that
would give a counterbalance to the House of Commons, which is
after all at least something of a form of representation by
population. Ontario and Quebec have two-thirds of the seats
concentrated in this place. A triple E Senate, through its equal
representation, would give regional compensation to the power of
the House of Commons. We would decentralize other
governmental powers to give all provinces the freedom and
resources to develop as their citizens choose.
Quebec is not the only distinct society. When we look around the
country, Quebec has the distinctiveness of its language, but truly,
are the Acadians not as much a distinct society? Truly, are the
people who arrived in northern Alberta from Europe in the early
1900s not a distinct society? What we are talking about here is the
demand, and a very worthy demand on the part of people across
Canada to have more say and to get out from under the stultifying
6252
umbrella of the federal government. That is the positive side and
the direction in which we want to go.
On the other side of the coin we would also say that secession
negotiations must respect the principles of democratic legitimacy,
the rule of law and the interests of Canada. The right of Canadians
within a seceding province to remain part of Canada and to petition
Parliament for that purpose must be respected.
I quote a gentleman, Gilles St-Laurent from Quebec City,
Quebec: ``I believe the people of Quebec would like to have more
control over their own affairs and less influence from Ottawa. And
that is why I think that Reform's plan to give more powers to the
provinces is one of the most likely to keep Quebec in the
federation''.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. colleague for his remarks, but does he agree that the
recognition of Quebec as a distinct society was not requested by the
Bloc Quebecois nor by the Government of Quebec. This was a
promise made by the Prime Minister, who also promised to
entrench the concept of distinct society in the Constitution, but has
been unable to keep his promise.
Quebec is a people and a nation, not a province like any other.
This is the basis for any discussion and, as far as we can see, only a
referendum on sovereignty will provide the necessary basis for
future discussions from people to people.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I disagree on one point and I fully
agree on another.
When the member suggests that Quebec is a nation of people not
like any other province, with respect I disagree. The reason I
disagree is that undoubtedly there are a lot of people who come
from families in Quebec whose ancestry has been in Quebec for a
long time. Canada is made up of a society that to a greater or lesser
extent is like that but of the 29 million to 30 million people in
Canada about nine million people are recent immigrants. To
suggest that the province is a nation because of there being a
certain number of people who come from families who have been
in that province for a long time, I cannot agree with the member.
(1320)
However I do agree that neither the Bloc nor the Parti Quebecois
are asking for distinct society. It is very clear that what is going on
here is the Prime Minister is attempting to fulfil a promise that is
hollow and which has absolutely no value.
If we want to deal in reality, Quebec is a distinct society in many
of its characteristics, in many of the ways in which people relate to
each other and certainly in their joie de vivre, their joy of life. It is
that joy of life in Quebec which I think adds to Canada's culture in
a very wonderful way. Quebecers have a distinct society in that
reality.
Here is the problem. The minute that we turn commonly used
English words into law, those two words, distinct society, suddenly
can become a club, a tool that can be used in ways we could never
imagine. Because we put this into law in goodwill all of a sudden
we might find that we are constrained.
For example if the CBC wanted to make cutbacks in
programming, the CBC could be constrained. If distinct society
was in the Constitution and was recognized legally, all of a sudden
it could be argued that because the French programming was in
support of distinct society and because that was constitutionalized,
any cuts that were going to be made at the CBC could only be made
in English services but not in French services in Quebec. I just cite
that as one example.
The unintended consequences of the inclusion of the term
distinct society in law is completely unknown. As a consequence it
is a concept that should never ever be enshrined.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate and to outline
and expand on the speech from the throne.
The Liberal Party is proud of its record over the past three years
since it assumed its role as the government. Most of the
commitments outlined in both the red book and in the first throne
speech have been fulfilled or are in the process of being fulfilled.
The throne speech outlines our plan for action for the second half
of the mandate. Yet it is not as much a new direction for the
government to follow as it is an effort to build upon the
accomplishments which we have achieved to date. In the first
mandate the government laid the foundation for renewed
prosperity. The throne speech contains the blocks on which we
have continued to build. The speech from the throne concentrates
on three main areas: security for Canadians; modernizing the
federation; and jobs and growth. Without question each of these
areas is of vital importance.
Security for Canadians addresses concerns which we all have
about the future of our social programs. A secure safety net is of
great importance to all citizens. When we ask Canadians what
makes our country unique, they always point to the social safety
net. Today programs such as medicare are part of the Canadian
fabric and represent a fundamental value that Canadians cherish.
The Liberal Party understands the importance of the Canadian
place in the future of these programs. It understands that for good
reason it was the Liberal Party that brought these programs to life.
As we all know, times have changed since their inception. As the
throne speech rightly spells out, changes are necessary to ensure
the continuing health of our social safety net. However, in the end
6253
our reformed social programs must still protect those most in need
and we will make sure of that.
(1325)
The second major thrust of the throne speech deals with national
unity. The memory of last October's referendum remains strong in
the minds of all Canadians. Canada must never again be placed in
the position in which it found itself last October 30. However, the
referendum results reflected a clear message. It was a message for
change and this desire for change is shared in all parts of the
country. The federal government agrees that fresh approaches are
necessary and it will work with the provinces to ensure that the
federation is modernized.
The government proposes to work with all its partners to explore
new options. The Prime Minister has called on all Canadians to
demonstrate openness and to be a part of these changes. The federal
government has already made substantial changes over the past two
years. It will continue to do everything necessary to modernize the
Canadian federation further. In the end it is important to remember
that what unites us as Canadians is far greater than what divides us.
The values which we share are as relevant as ever.
While the referendum served to raise many eyebrows, the
current trend toward nationalism is not a feature unique in our
country. History has shown that many countries have successfully
dealt with similar circumstances. While the tide of nationalism was
high last October, the separatist threat will recede and the waters
will calm once again.
Jobs and growth was the final theme of the throne speech. It is
the area I would like to talk about in some detail.
Since the Liberal Party took office in November 1993, over
600,000 jobs have been created. The unemployment rate has
declined. I can speak for my own riding where the unemployment
rate was at 7 per cent or 8 per cent. Presently the riding which I
represent has an unemployment rate of 4.7 per cent. I know it is not
the same across the country but it shows that the trend is getting
better with the downward spiral of unemployment figures.
The government is not about to sit back and rest on its laurels.
More work needs to be done. That is why the speech from the
throne targeted three main areas: youth, science and technology,
and trade. Those are the key elements for the continued success of
jobs and growth in the future.
It does not take a genius to realize that youth unemployment is
far too high. While it has been said before, it simply cannot be
overstated: The skills of our young people are Canada's greatest
resource of the future. Young Canadians need more help to make
the transition into the working world and more help to get that
crucial first job.
To address this problem, the federal government will work in
conjunction with the provinces and the private sector to create new
jobs and new opportunities for youth. The throne speech outlined
plans to double the size of the federal programs aimed at creating
summer jobs in the past summer as it will in the future. The
government has also challenged the business community to create
jobs for youth.
In partnership with the provinces, the private sector and young
people themselves, we will work to create job opportunities for
young Canadians. By working together, the youth unemployment
problem can be tackled.
The second element of the jobs and growth theme outlined in the
throne speech is science and technology. Canada has the distinction
of being a leader in the field of innovative technology. In today's
global marketplace, that means more jobs, sustainable jobs and
quality jobs for Canadians. However, strong leadership is necessary
to ensure that Canada remains a leader in this field.
To ensure ongoing success in the growth area, the government
will continue to support development in aerospace technologies,
environmental technologies and enabling technologies, such as
biotechnology.
The government will honour its red book commitment to launch
a Canadian technology network to support technology diffusion.
Just recently the Minister of Industry made that announcement. We
will see these new high technology features being set up on the
information highway. They will reach into areas of Canada which
have never been able to access the information highway. The
government has worked to improve access to the information
highway in northern and rural areas. By providing support and
leadership in these areas Canada will continue to enjoy its
competitive edge in the world's technology marketplace.
(1330)
Another key element of the government's jobs and growth
agenda is trade. In the last two years Canada's exports have soared.
Month after month Statistics Canada has reported a substantial
increase in our exports, but these good news stories have become
commonplace in the business pages of our newspapers. If the
figures are added up they reveal a true economic phenomenon.
In 1995 Canada's merchandise exports grew by over 20 per cent
and its trade surplus by a dramatic 63 per cent over 1994. Adding to
the good news is the fact that this rapid growth is diversified and is
taking place in all major world markets. As a result of this robust
expansion trade has become the single most important factor in
creating jobs and growth in the past two years. We must now
capitalize on our accomplishments and build on these successes.
That is why the throne speech detailed a continuation of Team
6254
Canada missions which to date have brought home more than $20
billion in new deals and as recent as yesterday this figure is
continuing to climb in the billions.
As long as there are untapped markets Canada must be ever
vigilant to seek new buyers for their goods and services. The
government will also announce new measures to support export
development in financing.
Finally, the government will continue to work to expand the
NAFTA and work toward more world trade liberalization. More
markets mean more sales and that means more jobs for Canadians.
By taking a proactive role in creating markets for our goods,
assisting growth sectors in the science and technology field and
giving our youth the skills necessary to succeed we are ensuring the
continued prosperity of our nation. That is what the speech from
the throne is all about, continued prosperity. Each element of the
throne speech deals with prosperity, and the success of each hinges
on the others.
A modern and united Canada promotes stability. Stability
enhances our potential for more jobs and growth. This continued
prosperity allows Canadians to keep enjoying their cherished social
programs and Canada as the envy of the world. By providing sound
leadership and good government, as outlined in the throne speech,
the Liberal Party is charting the course toward prosperity as we
head into the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the speech given by my colleague. I can assure you I do
not fully share his satisfaction with the throne speech. If I may, I
would like to recap in my own words the points he made and show
the other side of the coin.
He spoke about safety, about modernizing the Constitution,
about employment. He talked about social security in Canada, but
he forgot to tell us whether social programs will remain unchanged
despite all the federal cuts in transfer payments to the provinces.
On the subject of modernizing the Constitution, he spoke about
national unity. He told us that, since the referendum, the
government understands the desire for change. Not only has the
government failed to table anything to meet Quebecers' demands,
but the Prime Minister refuses to talk about the Constitution. He
recently said he had done enough but, in our eyes, all he did was
table a meaningless motion on distinct society.
As for employment, the government's record is not much better.
They claim to have created 600,000 jobs, but the hon. member
forgot to tell us that 800,000 have since been lost. And the
unemployment rate proves it, averaging between 9.4 and 10 per
cent.
(1335)
The hon. member admits that many young people are
unemployed but that they will create summer jobs. In fact, summer
jobs simply enable young people to earn the money they need to
pursue their studies. It is mainly young graduates who are
unemployed. That is where the future starts for young people.
There is absolutely nothing for them in this.
We are told exports have gone up. Many of these exports are
natural resources. In fact, it is the value added to natural resources
that will create jobs for young people. The hon. member speaks
about prosperity but forgets to mention the debt. What is slowing
the economy down? Why is our unemployment rate so high?
Simply because of the debt. I would like the hon. member to talk
about the debt and how it could be reduced in the near future.
[English]
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a
number of points, but on two of them I would like to send him back
to a couple of classes for his addition and subtraction. Certainly
when one comes from double digits in unemployment down to
single digits there is a significant increase in employment in the
country.
One of the things that is causing the lack of direct input into
some sections of our country is the feeling of instability. The
destabilizing effect of referendums takes its toll on certain areas of
the country. I believe those who are part of that destabilizing effect
have to take some of the blame for that.
The member mentions some other features. When one looks at
our export markets and what we are exporting, take a very good
look and see how much of that really is value added. I think the
member will be very surprised to see how much of that component
is truly value added. In his own province in particular, some of the
things that have been going out of the province are valued added
products that are sold well on the foreign markets, such as the
aerospace industry, the making of engines for the aerospace
industry.
There are many good stories about Canada. It is a slow spin-out.
As recently as the past two weeks the Bank of Canada and other
major banks have had a surge of money coming into Canada to
invest and there is also the driving up of our dollar. These are all
good signs that the Canadian economy has turned the corner. It is
predicted that we will lead the G-7 in the next year in growth.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is so
interesting today, on November 7, to be discussing the throne
speech delivered on February 27, 1996. While we suspected that
what the government was announcing was mostly window
dressing, we are now certain of that.
6255
Let me briefly remind you that the throne speech delivered by
the governor general, on behalf of the government, had three major
themes: a strong economy, the security of Canadians, and a modern
and united country. One might say that it was wishful thinking on
the part of the Prime Minister.
(1340)
We were just told again how strong the economy is. A major
problem in this country, and not only in Quebec, is that a very large
number-in fact an increasing number-of citizens do not think
the recession is over, do not think Canada is the best country in the
world, because life for them has become harder and their hopes
have been diminishing.
What about the security of Canadians and Quebecers? This
government managed to reduce its deficit, but who paid, who is
paying and who will continue to pay? It is those who could least
afford to do so, and it will continue to be these people. We can
never say it enough: had it not made substantial cuts to
unemployment insurance and social transfers, the performance of
this government would not be the same, because this is where it
took most of the money used to reduce the deficit.
Let me also remind you that we had two successive UI reforms,
and that the government was elected by promising ``jobs, jobs,
jobs''. But what did the government actually do? Its main initiative
was to cut unemployment insurance and social transfers.
As for jobs, over 870,000 jobs would be needed to now have the
equivalent of the number of people employed in 1990. A drop in
the participation rate is a major reason for the lower unemployment
rate. This is nothing to be proud of, since it not only means there
are fewer people working, but there are also fewer people looking
for work. These people did not all go back to school.
The result of these successive cuts to unemployment insurance
is, and this bears pointing out, that in 2001 unemployment
insurance benefits will drop by $1.2 billion in Quebec alone. These
are official figures from Employment and Immigration, which has
now become Human Resources Development, and the way it
looked to me yesterday will become the Social Union Department.
This means that those who are unemployed, in regions where
unemployment is high, are helping to reduce the deficit. The
regions and the people least able are contributing the greatest share.
What about the Canada social transfer? I would remind viewers
that for years now we have been saying that we have seen fewer
concrete investments, fewer research and development investments
and less routine spending by the federal government in Quebec.
Since the Conservatives dared to give the CF-18 contract to
Canadair, the only other investment we have seen, accompanied by
much fanfare, was an $87 million loan, which our colleagues
beside us are still going on about.
(1345)
They say we are irritated because we have more than our share of
people on unemployment and welfare and what we want are
concrete investments. But they cannot even say that any more
because the more cuts we see to unemployment insurance and
welfare, the less so-called interregional subsidization there is. This
is true for Quebec and also for the Maritimes, and I have never
been afraid to say so. The Maritimes voted largely Liberal. The
first reaction was deep cuts, followed by more cuts.
If there are members here who think that people must not be
helped out of dependence, I am certainly not one of them. But if
dependency is going to be reduced, communities must have
something concrete.
The Canada health and social transfer is replacing what for years
had been a kind of redistribution among poor and rich provinces in
order to provide minimum living standards in all regions. It does
not give them all the same resources with regard to education,
health or welfare. Since their inception, these subsidies have been
steadily declining. However, since the 1995 announcement, they
have dropped substantially: seven billion dollars over two years. Of
this seven billion cut, Quebec is absorbing more than a quarter
because it has more than its share of people on welfare.
The worst part about this so-called social union is that from now
on whenever there is an increase in the number on the welfare roll,
which is bound to happen, there will be no increase in financial
assistance. The average citizen believes that the recession is not
over and that another one is lurking on the horizon. It might not
happen next year, but it will one day.
In spite of all the rosy forecasts that the Canadian economy is on
the upswing, our growth rate is only 1 per cent. A one per cent
growth rate is not very far from zero growth. We are bound to enter
another recessionary period, maybe in two years, and more people
will be on welfare again. Who will pay for the increased numbers
on the welfare roll? Quebec will, because it will receive no special
assistance, and the other poor provinces.
When we hear the federal government talk about social union
and preserving the social safety net, and in the same breath,
congratulating itself on the success of its deficit reduction program,
we cannot help but feel extremely angry. In fact, in the current
context, the cuts in the unemployment insurance and the Canada
health and social transfer make life harder for the unemployed,
who depend on government assistance. This is even more shocking
and frustrating as these cuts caused directly by the Canada health
and social transfer and indirectly by the cuts to unemployment
insurance must be made by the provinces.
(1350)
The cuts that are caused directly by the Canada health and social
transfer, and indirectly by cuts to unemployment insurance, must
be implemented by the Quebec government. Whether it is in the
6256
area of education, health or welfare, putting an end to these
subsidies will have serious effects.
The third part of the throne speech speaks about a modern and
united country, but since social conditions have seriously
deteriorated and nothing has been done for the recognition of the
people of Quebec, of the nation of Quebec, I feel the speech from
the throne is, at best, an exercise in fantasy.
I know that what I am saying might seem outrageous, but if some
members here think that the situation we have had to put up with in
Quebec is not extremely outrageous, they should think again. Since
January, since the Liberal caucus, instead of a government which
would make a place, a real place for Quebec and not merely
enshrine a phoney distinct society in the Constitution when it
cannot even be enshrined at present, a distinct society which we do
not want and which is irrelevant to us, what did we get? We had to
put up with a series of hidden, open, direct and indirect threats.
The only purpose of plan B, which we could say is called plan B
after the billy club or the baseball bat, is to frighten us, to try to
convince Quebecers they should not seek to become sovereign. The
intent is not to make them feel better, to make a place for them, to
give them some dignity in this country, but rather to frighten them.
We know that, throughout history, this tactic has never worked.
Recently, probably because there is in election coming, they
came up with plan A-``A'' as in ``attract''-a plan with little or no
substance really. What is it all about? About entrenching the
concept of distinct society in the Constitution and, to use the new
terminology, creating a Canadian social union.
The Minister of Human Resources Development spoke in
generous terms in his speech yesterday, but did not include Quebec
in any way. Like the initiative taken by Ontario at the Jasper
conference, this shows that Canadians, Quebecers excluded, want
to renew Canada. I think it is great that Canadians discuss between
themselves how their country could be run better and how social
policies are managed. But one thing is clear: there is nothing in
there for Quebec. Not only is there nothing for Quebec, but the two
movements that have been developing for years: a movement for
Canada's renewal by the provinces and a movement, which is
getting stronger and stronger, of Quebecers that recognize
themselves and want to be recognized as a people and a nation.
These two movements are going in opposite directions.
(1355)
But every basis for recognition is there. It is all there, except for
one thing: recognizing Quebec as a people and a nation, so that the
Canadian provinces looking to reorganize their country to their
liking-and this is both desirable and necessary-can do so
without Quebec getting in the way, while Quebec gets reorganized
on its own terms, with full powers, without Canada getting in the
way, and that both countries can share the same economic space as
well as other aspects, if they so agree.
Therein lies the real future, beyond the speeches made here. The
truth, even when hard to take, must help us understand each other.
It must prevail and allow us to create conditions whereby all of us
will work at what is essential and urgent, at what our young people
want, whether in Canada or in Quebec.
We will soon no doubt hear another speech from the throne. How
soon? I do not know. Certainly before the next election. One thing
is certain though: we will keep a close eye, as you know, on what
the government does about the needs of Quebecers. We will
continue to say, not only for the good of Quebec but also, and we
are convinced of that, for the good of Canada, that there is only one
way to finally build a future that will allow us, in Canada and in
Quebec, to respect and to help each other, and that is through
Quebec's sovereignty.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, as it is almost 2 p.m., the House
will now proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
6256
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is National 4-H Week. As a former 4-H club member
and leader, I want to again remind Canadians that our young people
are one of this country's most important assets. Today's youth are
tomorrow's farmers, business people, scientists and political
leaders. But they can only reach their great potential if they have
the opportunity to learn the skills they need as adults.
More than 42,000 young women and men are learning those
essential skills by participating in 4-H clubs in rural communities
across the country. As we celebrate National 4-H Week from
November 4 to 10, we salute not only those young people but the
12,000 adult volunteers who are the backbone of 4-H.
``Learn to do by doing'' has been the 4-H model for more than 80
years. Through 4-H activities, our rural youth are building skills
such as leadership, independence, co-operation and responsibility.
As a member of the Canadian 4-H Council, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada is contributing to this effort. It will provide
$300,000 over three years in support of national and provincial 4-H
activities so our youth will get the chance to try new things, learn
new skills and make lifelong friends.
6257
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister and Liberal members keep saying that an end must be put
to the political uncertainty created by separatist threats.
The reality is that they are entirely responsible for the political
uncertainty, with their federalist threats, such as changing the rules
of democracy to suit them, preventing Quebecers from deciding on
their own future and encouraging the partition of Quebec in the
event of sovereignty. Furthermore, political uncertainty exists only
in the discourse of hard-core federalists.
For proof, we have this morning's announcement in the
newspapers that Astra, a pharmaceutical company, has selected
Montreal as the site for its first research centre outside Sweden.
This project represents an investment of over $300 million over ten
years.
(1400)
Fortunately, foreign investors do not allow themselves to be
influenced by the dire warnings of federalists. They know good
places to invest and both Quebec and Montreal are excellent
choices. They have our thanks.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, like
school yard bullies, the government likes to start fights with those
it knows it can threaten and beat.
First it was the gun owners, ordinary citizens who will now have
to pay to register their firearms or face criminal conviction for
non-compliance.
Then the government, intent on its own version of crime control,
turned its attention to grain farmers. A Manitoba farmer was sent to
jail and about 150 others face charges for selling their grain in the
United States.
Is it illegal for farmers to sell their crops? The courts said it was
okay, but the agriculture minister, intent on protecting the wheat
board's monopoly, secured an order in council to make it illegal.
This Liberal government will leave no stone unturned to stop
farmers from getting a better price for their grain. Customs
inspectors and RCMP officers have strict orders to apprehend these
people. Meanwhile, the flow of contraband continues north and
south across the 49th parallel.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as many members are aware, November is national
diabetes month. We are all familiar with this disease and the impact
it has on Canadians and their families. What many people are not
aware of, though, is the alarming prevalence of diabetes in First
Nations' communities.
A recent study of the Sioux Lookout zone population in my
riding showed that the incidence of diabetes among aboriginal
Canadians is far higher than the general population. Even more
alarming is that over the five-year period there was a 45 per cent
increase in diagnosed cases and that aboriginal people are affected
at a much younger age than the general population.
Current efforts are proving inefficient to deal with the problem
and the potential human and health care costs are staggering. In the
light of this, I urge the Minister of Health and the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development to step up their efforts to
combat diabetes in the aboriginal population.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the past I have made statements in the House pertaining to the
gasoline and banking industries. Today again I wish to speak on the
gasoline gouging that is presently going on at the pumps.
Many people are calling to express their disgust and dismay
toward the gasoline companies and their unjustified and
unacceptable increases.
Every time we confront the gasoline companies their rebuttal is:
``Well, it is competition''. I thought competition meant pricing the
product downward to stay competitive. It would seem that with the
gouging that is going on, the gasoline companies are indeed
competing: competing to see which company can jack up the prices
more.
I say get with it. Come into line with what is happening out there.
Listen to what the people have to say for a change. The government
has worked hard to bring interest rates down and have succeeded.
They should do their share and bring the prices at the gas pumps
down. The public is asking for it. The economy needs it. Just do it.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each
year on November 11 when the veterans march past the memorials
across the country, it becomes more apparent that the events they
6258
have experienced by serving Canada are receding more and more
into the past.
Our veterans are getting older and each year fewer are able to
participate. Our veterans have much to teach the younger
generation about the values that went into building this country and
preserving democracy. We must encourage our veterans to tell their
stories and to give our young people the occasion to listen.
As a step in the right direction, the Prime Minister has declared
November 3 to 11 as veterans' week. I invite all Canadians, but
especially the younger generation, to take time to listen to the
stories of Canada's veterans of the first and second world wars and
the Korean war. I hope that all Canadians will make an effort to
record these stories on paper, video, audio tape and now the
Internet so that they may not be lost to future generations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the genocide
that took place in Rwanda two years ago was one of the most tragic
chapters in modern history. The International Court of Justice of
The Hague is now putting together a multidisciplinary team whose
mandate will be to hold an investigation and submit evidence
against those responsible for the slaughter of thousands of
Rwandans.
A team of 21 special investigators is set to depart shortly for
Rwanda for a period of six months. Nine officers from the
Montreal Urban Community police force have been selected for the
team, including Denis Bergeron, a resident of Saint-Césaire in the
beautiful riding of Shefford.
(1405)
If there is to be lasting peace in this area of the world, justice
must be done. I am therefore pleased to wish Mr. Bergeron and his
colleagues all the best and good luck.
Such a tragedy must never happpen again.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, recent
announcements that Canadian Airlines is having financial trouble
should be of concern to all of us.
At a time when the Liberal job creation strategy has failed and
unemployment is hovering close to the 10 per cent mark, we
certainly do not want to see 16,000 airline jobs disappear.
Certain steps now need to be taken by Canadian Airlines. It is
acting very responsibly in taking those steps. Once the steps have
been taken we can then look at what other action is required.
A government bailout does not appear to be a viable solution. It
has been done before and obviously did not provide a real remedy.
What is needed this time is an effective plan that will work over the
longer term.
The Reform Party is meeting with officials from Canadian, Air
Canada and American Airlines to discuss possible solutions and to
work toward protecting Canadian jobs, Canadian investment and
the Canadian travelling public.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if we listen
carefully we can hear thousands of voices, primarily from western
Canada, telling the federal government that it is now their turn.
We just heard that Canadian Airlines is in a very serious
financial situation and 16,400 jobs are immediately at stake and
thousands of related jobs are at risk. Many western and northern
communities depend to a large extent on maintaining their
connection with Canadian Airlines.
The National Transportation Act provides an opportunity for the
Minister of Transport, giving him extraordinary powers to
intervene to resolve the situation. Two or three suggestions would
be to provide bridge financing for Canadian to allow it to
restructure properly, involving all of those who are stakeholders in
the airline.
May I suggest that with $87 million going to help Bombardier, it
is now time for $70 million of bridge financing to help this western
based airline.
* * *
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this coming
Monday at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month,
Canadians across the country will pause to remember the sacrifice
of Canada's soldiers, sailors, airmen and merchant mariners who
died for them in the cause of world peace.
While the deaths of our friends and family members are very real
and personal to those of us who have experienced them first hand,
to most Canadians alive today this is simply a matter of history.
I want to remind all Canadians, especially the young who are our
future, of the sacrifices made on their behalf so that they might
6259
enjoy the freedom that was a gift to them from Canadian patriots.
We must all work to ensure that their gift to us is not forgotten. We
must and we will remember them.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Remembrance Day is a solemn occasion when we recall the
sacrifices of the many Canadians who fought for the cause of
freedom.
This month Legion magazine pays special tribute to the
contribution of Canada's servicewomen of World War II. In all
three forces, nurses faced the same risks, hardships, burdens of
command and front line service as other personnel. But in all three
forces women also served in a variety of functions, both in Canada
and overseas as enlisted personnel, NCOs and commissioned
officers.
It was the Royal Canadian Air Force, however, that provided a
stellar example of allowing both men and women to contribute
fully to the war effort. Although women did not serve in combat,
they fulfilled duties in over half of the 102 RCAF trades.
From 1942 until the end of the war more than 17,000 women
served in the women's division of the RCAF, including some 600
officers.
During veterans week and on November 11, let us remember the
significant contribution of the thousands of Canadian men and
women who toiled and sacrificed in the name of freedom for all
Canadians and humanity.
* * *
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Margaret Langille, a life-long resident of River John, Nova Scotia
and a constituent of my riding of Central Nova, has been chosen to
be this year's 1996 silver (memorial) cross mother by the
Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion.
As this year's silver cross mother, Mrs. Langille is privileged to
represent all the mothers across Canada who have sacrificed their
beloved sons in the war for our peace and freedom.
Mrs. Langille lost her only son Lawrence in World War II when
he died during an assault in Falaise, France on August 16, 1944.
(1410 )
At 95 years of age, Mrs. Langille will make her first ever trip to
Ottawa where she will take part in the national Remembrance Day
ceremony.
I ask this hon. House to join with me in extending
congratulations to Mrs. Langille for being chosen as this year's
silver cross mother and a special thanks to our veterans for their
sacrifices which have secured for us our current freedoms.
May God bless Mrs. Langille and all the mothers who have lost
their sons in war.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow,
November 8, will mark the beginning of La Semaine interculturelle
nationale in Quebec, around the theme ``Gens d'ici, Québec 96: un
avenir commun''. This week will demonstrate the solidarity
between Quebecers of all origins, and will foster understanding,
dialogue and rapprochement.
The focus of this week will be what unifies all of the people of
Quebec, what makes the people of Quebec open, democratic and
respectful of the rights of everyone.
Hundreds of activities will be organized throughout Quebec,
with a view to a greater understanding of cultural diversity, as they
were last year.
Because this week contributes to strengthening the solidarity
within our community, the Bloc Quebecois members wish this
event focussing on rapprochement unqualified success.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to honour the Canadians who
made the ultimate sacrifice serving our country.
Last year I was proud to attend the 50th anniversary of the end of
the second world war in the Netherlands. I accompanied the
veterans of the second world war. We experienced the tremendous
affection of the Dutch people who were grateful for the efforts of
our troops. They will never forget.
In contrast, members of the Canadian Armed Forces who served
in Somali operated in a nightmare of violence, heat, disease and
conflict. They secured and supported all relief operations,
organized local police, rebuilt schools and medical clinics and
negotiated ceasefires.
We urge the Liberal government to recognize the Canadian
Armed Forces personnel who served in Somalia by announcing the
awarding of the Somalia medal during veterans week.
6260
The government has already said it would issue a medal for
Somalia. Canadians want the medal awarded now, lest the Liberals
forget.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-66 tabled by the Minister of Labour guarantees the
impartiality of federal labour legislation governing
union-management relations, in order to ensure that they favour
neither union nor management, but rather the process of collective
bargaining.
Henceforth, in areas coming under federal jurisdiction, people
working off the work site may take part in collective bargaining if
they so desire. The employer will, moreover, not be allowed to use
replacement workers in order to get rid of a union.
Thanks to the proposed amendments, any deadlock in
negotiations will not have repercussions on the public to such an
extent as to make them withdraw support of the collective
bargaining process. As well, union and management representation
on the Canadian Industrial Relations Board will increase the
credibility and legitimacy of that board's decisions.
It is to the advantage of all Canadians to increase the efficiency
of the collective bargaining process, not just for today, but for the
coming century. This is the reason we have acted, and this is what
the outcome of the amendments presented will be.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Monday, Jacques
Parizeau indicated that his government had built a $19 billion
reserve to prepare for a victory of the yes side in the October 1995
referendum.
Why would the Quebec government set up an emergency fund
that is equivalent to the Bank of Canada reserve if, as the Parti
Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois have been claiming,
sovereignty is not a source of concern for the financial markets?
Why did separatists choose not to tell Quebecers that they were
ready to play Russian roulette with their savings?
How can Lucien Bouchard claim that he was not informed of the
building of this reserve since he was the one designated by Jacques
Parizeau to prepare the negotiations with Canada in the event of a
victory of the yes side?
All these questions deserve an answer, and I address them
directly to the BQ member for Roberval.
* * *
(1415 )
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Canadian air force team from Canadian Forces Base
Cold Lake, Alberta participated in a William Tell air to air combat
competition in Florida with Captains Steve Nierlich, Ross Granley,
Brian Murray and Dave Mercer as the air crew competitors.
Competing against the best from NATO and the United States
our team emerged with Captain Steve Nierlich winning top gun
honours.
Canada has done well in William Tell in the past but this is the
first time in the history of the 42-year-old competition that a
Canadian has been the top gun and the Canadian team has placed
first overall.
Aeroplanes do not fly well nor do weapons hit their targets
without excellent maintenance by the support crews. This win for
Canada is a true example of a dedicated team effort. I am sure that
all members of this House join me in congratulating these fine
representatives of Canada on a job well done. You have brought
great honour to Canada and we are proud of you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: My colleagues, we have in our gallery today, as
distinguished guests, the Canadian forces team which did us proud
at a prestigious international air to air combat competition.
[English]
Canadians beat out all other teams to win top honours in the
William Tell fighter pilot competition. Based in Cold Lake,
Alberta, Canada's fighter force is a symbol of excellence in our
armed forces, a reminder that Canadians can and will compete with
the best in the world, and win.
The 58 team members are with us today. My colleagues, please
welcome Canada's 58 top guns.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
6261
6261
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian is facing insurmountable difficulties and
calling, once again, for federal help.
In response, the Minister of Transport stated that the government
would not get involved for the time being. The Liberal member for
Vancouver Quadra now says the government must step in. The
pressures are growing and might even pay off.
My question is for the Prime Minister. The government's policy
has always been to let our air carriers play by market rules, which
means allowing free competition with all the risks it entails. My
question to the Prime Minister is this: Is government policy still the
same and is he still ruling out any injection of public funds into the
bottomless pit that is Canadian?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, but there is no
change in the government's position in this regard.
We do not believe that putting money into a company that has
not requested it, to deal with a problem that is essentially a
restructuring problem to deal with long term deficits would not
have any purpose whatsoever.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Transport ruled out any
regulatory changes that would allow American Airlines to acquire
a bigger share of Canadian.
Can the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Transport, assure us
that his government will not now or later change regulations so that
Canadian cannot be taken over by American?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no application was received from either Canadian
International or American Airlines to increase American's share of
Canadian.
(1420)
As no application was made, we did not review this matter and
there is no reason to make a decision.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the Minister of Transport not think that, in the final
analysis, there is only enough room for one national air carrier in
Canada, as the Bloc Quebecois has always maintained, and that the
government's policy of encouraging and supporting two carriers
can hardly work?
Should the government not revise its policy before injecting
taxpayers' money into the financial sinkhole that is Canadian?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's policy is to favour competition among
several airlines. It is not a matter of having only two airlines; there
are several others involved. We want a system that will help
increase the number of flights while reducing fares.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Prime Minister.
Canadian is about to come back and pass the hat for more
taxpayers' money to deal with its financial problems, but year after
year, the same company continues to pay a very expensive $150
million annually for its service contract with American Airlines,
and will do so for 20 years.
Before even considering the possibility of injecting one cent of
federal money into Canadian, could the minister give taxpayers the
assurance that he will make sure that Canadian's contracts with
American Airlines have been revised to make them much fairer to
Canadian?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's position is based on an erroneous
premise. There has been no request from Canadian International
for government funds, there has been no request for money from
the government. We are not going to force a company to take our
money. That will not happen.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there may be
no request, but in January something is going to happen. We know
that Canadian announced last week that the company will have a
liquidity problem starting next January.
Does the minister still intend to demand that Canadian continue
to pay back the remainder of its $120 million loan from the
government, as agreed, and will he refuse to delay the payback so
as not to give Canadian special treatment?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): First,
Mr. Speaker, the loan of $120 million was from three governments,
not one. Second, three-quarters of that loan has in fact already been
repaid.
With respect to the overall issue of the position of Canadian, we
believe it is really important for this restructuring to succeed. A
company which has a structural problem and consistently loses
money year after a year is not in a position to continue for many
years in operation. Therefore we want to make sure the
restructuring process succeeds.
6262
The issue of a loan or of changing ownership simply does not
enter into the fundamental question which is a restructuring of its
systems so that it becomes a profitable company and can continue
to employ 17,000 Canadians
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he holds his cabinet
ministers to a higher ethical standard. However, in the past three
years Canadians have seen little evidence of these higher standards.
Minister after minister in the Liberal government has broken the
code of conduct for even public office holders. Some are forced to
resign while others are staunchly defended by the Prime Minister.
Canadians deserve to know why this double standard.
Will the Prime Minister clear up this confusion by simply
releasing the secret ethical guideline he has for his cabinet
ministers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on June 16, 1996 we published the ``Conflict of Interest
and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders''. We have
issued the Lobbyists' Administration Act. We have other
provisions in legislation to guide everybody in public office.
(1425)
As far as communications by the Prime Minister to ministers,
they are communications within the privy council. I do not release
them but it is not very complicated.
I have said to ministers that they must adhere to the highest
standards of conflict of interest that they can find. I am very proud
to say that despite the member's innuendo there is only one
minister who has given me his resignation. The reason he resigned
was that he had written a letter to a tribunal to help a poor lady who
wanted her husband to come to Canada.
There was no other resignation, and the member cannot say what
she said because it is not the truth. There was only one, and
everyone in Canada knows why the former minister of defence
resigned.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has bragged repeatedly over the years that he has
ethical guidelines for cabinet ministers that go well beyond this
code of conduct for public office holders, and now he says they
have just mentioned it and had a chat about it.
Nobody seems to know what these guidelines are, where they are
or whether they exist at all. If the Prime Minister does have these
ethical guidelines that he talks about, there is no good reason why
they should not be made public.
Again, does the Prime Minister have a set of guidelines for his
cabinet ministers who have higher ethical standards than even the
code for public officers which he has talked about? And if so, why
in the world will he not release them to the public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat they are communications between me and my
ministers, and we have the result today.
In three years there was only one incident that has caused the
resignation of one minister. One of the complaints in letters I
received was that they were too strict for the former minister of
defence to resign.
Look at the conduct. For the last three years this government has
had no serious accusations of misconduct because the ministers
have accepted the highest standards seen for a long time in the
Canadian Parliament.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all the
bluster and bragging in the world will not solve the problem. Ethics
are a public matter and Canadians deserve to know what the Prime
Minister's so-called higher standards are.
In the last election the Liberals promised to restore integrity to
our parliamentary institutions and make government open and
transparent. I think I heard those words several times during the
campaign.
It is very difficult to see how secret ethical guidelines square
with the Prime Minister's red book promises. Will the Prime
Minister live up to his red book promise and release the guidelines
for these higher standards for Liberal cabinet ministers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no wonder they are losing a member a week. They have
nothing to contribute to this Parliament. They go on about this
problem, which we have already explained.
The secretary of state got up in the House and explained herself.
It is the tradition of the House of Commons that if a member does
not accept the word of a minister, they should make a charge, an
accusation.
They have nothing but innuendo. For example, yesterday one of
the members linked this operation that was done in good faith to
that of a bank robber. He did not apologize.
When I see political people operating at that level of innuendo I
do not want to spend too much time on them but I know they cannot
find anything to talk about. When they cannot talk about the real
problems of the nation we know they are politically bankrupt.
6263
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage is convinced that Polygram's
entry on the Canadian film distribution market will be detrimental
to the industry. Her colleague at the Department of Industry seems
to take an entirely different view of the matter and would be
inclined to let Polygram enter the Canadian market. However, the
decision on this issue is up to the Minister of Industry, who will
have to abide by the policies established by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. It is indeed very disturbing.
(1430)
How will the Minister of Canadian Heritage make her colleague
understand that, as shown in a recent study by Heritage Canada, it
is imperative for the film industry that no exception be made for
Polygram?
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 have listened to the hon. member's proposal. As soon as
the decision is, I will let him know. Right now, a request has been
made. According to law I am obliged to keep that information
confidential. And I have nothing to say to him about the Polygram
case.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the problem in this case is that the decision is up to a body with two
heads. The head of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, which wants
to protect the cultural industry, and the head of the Minister of
Industry, which wants to circumvent the cultural industry. Cabinet
will be meeting in two days time and Polygram may be on the
agenda at this meeting.
I would like to know, then, what guarantees can the Minister of
Canadian Heritage give us to show she is in a position to ensure
compliance with Canadian policies?
[English]
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, there is an application under the Investment Canada Act
under review.
The provisions of the law prevent us from discussing the
contents of that application and I will not do so.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
again for the Prime Minister regarding the ministerial use of
government credit cards.
Canadian taxpayers have the right to full disclosure and
therefore have the right to see complete copies of credit card
statements and supporting documents.
In the interest of openness and accountability, will the Prime
Minister direct that these documents be tabled in their entirety?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
The House or the members do not have access to personal
information of a confidential nature. This is a right of individuals
that is protected in our laws and that we will continue to protect.
So that members will know exactly the source, it is under section
19 of the Access to Information Act: ``A government institution
shall not disclose personal information''. That includes Parliament.
The Access to Information Act goes on to say: ``The definition
of personal information stated under the Privacy Act applies''.
Personal financial transactions are clearly included under personal
information.
The member should apply his time to other types of questions
rather than hitting a wall that protects the privacy of personal
information.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, clearly when a
minister puts personal expenses on a government card, that
individual has moved it from the private to the public domain. That
is the issue here.
What we want are the facts that are missing. In just the six
months for which we currently have some information, at least
$9,300 is unaccounted for. We have no documentation for the other
two and a half years. This could be cleared up very simply by the
tabling of complete, un-whited documents.
Will the Prime Minister direct this openness, that these
documents be tabled?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member is simply and clearly inviting me to break the law. I think
this is unethical behaviour.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
We know that the health minister is so anxious to table a bill
governing the use of tobacco that he has urged the public not to
6264
vote Liberal if the bill is not passed before the next election. But we
also know that there is another group within the Liberal caucus
vigorously opposed to tobacco control legislation.
(1435)
Can the Prime Minister, who has surely discussed this issue with
his minister at the special meeting of cabinet, tell us whether his
government will be going ahead with this bill?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is right about one thing
and that is the minister has made an unequivocal statement that
there will be legislation and that it will follow all the parameters
that he has indicated up to this point: the Supreme Court decision,
the priority of the health of Canadians, and all the consultations
that have followed as a result of the blueprint document.
As to everything else, because we live in a democratic society,
people are welcome to present their views, but there is no deviation
from the issue that the minister has put forward. The legislation
will come and it will be definitive.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while I
am all for tobacco control legislation, the major problem of
sponsorship of sports and cultural events has yet to be resolved.
Is the Prime Minister aware of this problem and will he
undertake to find a solution before the next election?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): But the solution is already there, madam.
Mr. Speaker, pardon me.
[English]
The solution is already there. The legislation will follow the
indications that I offered to the House a moment ago and it will in
no way inhibit any Canadian, whether they be individual or
corporate, from making decisions about how they will contribute to
and fund any cultural, sporting or recreational activities that
contribute to the common good. There will be no indication that
anyone will be impeded from so doing.
I ask the member and all members of the House to be patient and
wait until the legislation comes forward. Then she and others will
see the details.
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Canada has been one of the main proponents in establishing the
World Trade Organization and the rules based dispute settlement
that goes along with it. This last year the Liberal government could
have taken the dispute with the United States on softwood lumber
to the World Trade Organization. Instead it has caved in to the
Americans and accepted export quotas.
Thousands of jobs in the forest industry will be lost because of
this government's misguided, bureaucratic and unworkable quota
system. What is the minister going to do about it?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we went the route of an agreement with the
United States because that is what the industry wanted in all
provinces. That is what the provincial governments wanted as well.
They knew that, in fact, our chances of success at the WTO were
very iffy and that we would have years and years of legal
wrangling. They wanted stability and certainty.
On top of that, in terms of the formula as to how the allocations
were made, it was the industry that brought forward the suggestions
on which the allocations were made with the concurrence of the
provinces.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems
ironic that after only six days of this quota system we are getting a
flood of mail from mills that are going to be out of business. If all
the stakeholders put together such a good deal, why are all these
companies going to be put out of business? What went wrong?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the price of lumber went up substantially in the
United States and, seeing a good business proposition, these
companies decided to rush the border with lots of lumber, knowing
full well that the quota was going to be based on their past
experience. They put themselves in the position they are in. They
created their own misfortune and put their employees in jeopardy
with that kind of action.
Notwithstanding that, we have established a quota bank to give
the lumber companies that have used up all their quota an
opportunity to draw on it in terms of next year's allocations so they
can continue to do business and provide jobs in the lumber
industry.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Solicitor General.
Although the Minister of Justice stated in this House last
October 7 that some real progress was being made in the battle
against the smuggling of illegal immigrants, we learned again this
morning that the Canadian borders seem to have become a real
6265
sieve, and that our country is being used as a means of transit for
illegal immigrants from Asia headed for the United States.
In light of the intensification of this problem, can the minister
tells us what additional efforts his government is bringing to bear
on controlling the Canadian borders more effectively?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thought the hon. member was going to get up to congratulate the
RCMP, the immigration department and the various other police
forces for their recent success in smashing a major international
ring which was smuggling immigrants.
This success is an indication of what the federal government is
doing, which is to work jointly with other federal departments and
police forces to break up the rings which smuggle people and
goods. We are working to deal with this serious situation in a way
that protects our traditional open borders which are important to
the vast majority of people in this country and in our neighbouring
countries.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have no
congratulations to offer to either the minister or the RCMP. In early
October, one woman died as a result of this smuggling.
In order to put an end to this unacceptable smuggling of people,
which may involve accomplices in high places in Hong Kong, can
the minister inform us of the steps that have been taken, and the
agreements there have been, if any, with authorities in the countries
of origin of these illegal immigrants?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can only repeat that the federal government treats this matter very
seriously. It has been intensifying its efforts through joint forces
activities involving our national police force, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, our immigration department, and police forces of
other countries.
I repeat that I think the hon. member has disappointed millions
of Canadians including his own constituents for not congratulating
the RCMP and their colleagues for their success in breaking up a
major immigrant smuggling ring.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Over the past few weeks the leader of the Conservative Party in
Prince Edward Island has promised that if elected, he would out of
the EI act obtain an interest free $75 million loan from the
Government of Canada to establish a venture capital fund. In my
view, this would be highly illegal under the act and Mr. Binns
knows better.
Could the minister clarify specifically, can funds be taken from
the employment insurance account and given to a provincial
government for such a purpose?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Employment Insurance Act
makes it absolutely clear that the employment insurance fund is not
a slush fund for the use of this government or any provincial
government in the land. The employment insurance fund is there to
help Canadians get back to work. It is there to finance active
measures such as wage subsidies, earning supplements,
self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships and skills
loans and grants.
Our government will be working with the Government of Prince
Edward Island. Right now we are working on a transitional job
fund of about $10 million. However it is not a solution to go to the
employment insurance account for such a thing.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has once again caved in to the American lumber lobby
and it is costing Canadians thousands of jobs in our lumber
industry.
I am a professional forester and I have spent 25 years in the
forestry industry. Never before have I witnessed such secrecy
surrounding the allocation of quotas to individual lumber mills;
quotas that are far below expected levels and are forcing mills to
severely downsize or shut down altogether. What I find most
disturbing is that producers have been instructed by the minister
not to divulge their individual quotas.
(1445)
My question is for the minister of trade. To clear this veil of
secrecy regarding quotas, will the minister table in the House a full
list of quota allocations showing all lumber producers in all
provinces?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, but if the individual companies want to
divulge their own quotas they can do so. If they have no problem
6266
with that in terms of competition and commercial confidentiality,
they are quite free to do that but certainly it is not my intention.
The hon. member may have been in the forestry industry for a
long period of time, but I do not think he ever got out of the woods
or he would soon know that in fact the industry wanted this deal.
We got the industry something that was unprecedented. We got
five years of trade peace with the United States in terms of lumber.
The problem is that a few of the companies thought this was such a
great deal that even though they knew there were quotas, and they
wanted quotas, they were still going to rush that border and make
as much money as they possibly could. Now of course they are
asking what happened. What has happened is there is no more
quota.
The companies knew that the quota was going to be based on
their traditional exports. They knew what the rules were because
their industry gave us their suggestions for the rules. By and large
we adopted them and with provincial government concurrence.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
the minister ran on a platform of jobs, he forgot to tell Canadians
that they were American jobs at the expense of Canadian jobs.
Many lumber mills, particularly the smaller ones, are laying off
staff or closing down altogether because their quotas did not
materialize or they came in far below the expectations. A number
of companies in B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec are desperate
for help.
This government ran on a platform of creating jobs yet in this
case thousands of jobs and livelihoods are being lost.
My question for the minister of trade is plain and direct. What is
the minister going to do for the families that he has now put out of
work?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): This government, Mr. Speaker, has put nobody out of work.
This government has bent over backward to try to make sure that
the system which the industry wanted-the industry wanted this
protection-is fair and balanced. We have talked with all 600 of
those companies that are getting lumber quotas to make sure that
we are in fact fair.
If some of them have gone overboard and have used their quota,
we are still providing a quota bank to help them in terms of
bridging over this period of time so that they can keep the jobs. We
also know they can go ahead at the existing prices and even pay
these fees which are staying in Canada. They can pay the $100 fee
and the $50 fee and still make some money on it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In the last supplementary estimates, we learned that the Canada
Information Office has a funding budget of $4.9 million, out of its
total $20 million budget.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage give us the criteria which
the Canada Information Office will use to allocate its funding?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for information on the
CIO, I would invite the hon. member across the way to start by
going to the World Wide Web site on the Internet, where she will
find everything there is available, not only on InfoCan, but also on
other components of the department, whose mandate it is to focus
on Canadian identity throughout the country.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since the Minister of Canadian Heritage is acknowledging
that the Information Canada Office does allocate funding, can she
explain to us why her department's reply to an access to
information request indicates that the ICO does not have such
programs?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that
if she wants to know everything that is going on at the Information
Canada Office, she has only to drop a line to InfoCan and she will
find that there are all manner of programs. The ICO, however, does
not give out grants.
* * *
(1450)
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture on an
issue impacting agriculture.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is a prime example of
the Liberals' infatuation with big government. The number of
bureaucrats in this empire in comparison to the number of
pesticides registered is astronomical. Apparently it takes 213
bureaucrats to register 19 new products. That 11:1 ratio beats the
proverbial light bulb jokes.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is inefficient,
bureaucratic and costly. The minister is receiving calls and letters
from all across the country complaining about it. Will the minister
take
6267
responsibility and act to correct the nightmare his government has
created?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, among the commitments we made
at the time of the 1993 election was a commitment to act upon the
recommendations of the pest management regulatory report which
was published under the previous government.
We have made considerable progress in implementing the
principle recommendations in that report, including the
establishment of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. That
agency brings together authorities that were previously in four
departments to streamline the process. It has two principal
objectives: to ensure the health and safety of Canadians and the
environment; and to be fully cognizant of the competitive
requirements of Canadian farmers to have a level playing field
nationally and internationally.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is working diligently
toward that direction. We are in the process of establishing a
stakeholders consultative committee to make sure that the agency
has the necessary input from the private sector.
I would point out for the hon. member's information that the
legal responsibility for the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is
in fact vested in the department of health, not the department of
agriculture.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the agriculture community is finding that the Minister
of Health is not listening.
I have to commend the hon. minister for living up to his
reputation recently described as having the conversational knack to
circle the earth without ever landing.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am going to ask the member to put his question
now.
Mr. Hermanson: Will the minister please come down to earth
and realize that his disregard for the bloated Pest Management
Regulatory Agency, one that pushes cost recovery rather than
reducing farmers' input costs, has ended up costing farmers a lot of
money and that his bureaucratic mess is making Canadian
agriculture less competitive? Will the minister admit that?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, speaking of landing, I would be
delighted to land splat on the hon. member in the next election
which I intend to do.
In terms of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, I think the
hon. member should know that the agency is in the process of
getting up and running. It is in the process of soliciting all the
necessary input from all of the relevant stakeholders. I am
confident the agency and the responsible minister will take all of
that into account.
It would appear that we have a series of new pests to deal with in
the Reform Party.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The seafood industry is concerned that the consolidation of food
inspection services into a single food inspection agency could lead
to a serious loss of expertise and advocacy for seafood at the
federal level.
Will the minister explain how the seafood industry will fit into
the new agency structure? Will there be a dedicated seafood
inspection branch staffed by former fisheries and oceans inspection
personnel?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that this
regulatory process does fall under the jurisdiction of the minister of
agriculture.
(1455 )
I am happy to assure my hon. friend and the seafood industry
that there will be no loss of expertise in the new Canadian food
inspection agency. The current Department of Fisheries and Oceans
inspection staff and all of their professional experience and
expertise will be transferred to the agency to ensure that there are
no gaps in service and no gaps in the quality of service.
The seafood industry will benefit from this process, from a
broader base of support to food inspection in general and by better
co-ordination of all of the government's inspection resources. We
will of course have new flexibilities under the legislation in terms
of financial and human resources to make the system better than it
is today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
It is now two years since I asked the two previous ministers of
Human Resources Development about the Singer case. A month
ago, I brought this case to the attention of the present minister. Last
week, the minister said he had taken note of the question and would
look into it.
Has the minister looked into this case and what does he have to
say today to retired Singer employees who are still waiting for
justice to be done?
6268
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, of course I looked into the
case. I know the hon. member is very concerned, because he asked
the same question last week.
We are looking into this case. I believe there is a problem due to
the fact that the pension fund belonged to the Singer company
which was transferred to the United States, it closed its doors here
and has declared bankruptcy in the U.S. As far as the Canadian
government is concerned, the circumstances make taking any kind
of action rather difficult.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In my riding and in the general suburban area of Vancouver,
street prostitution is a serious problem which the community wants
dealt with. We had hoped for some action in 1994 yet still we have
nothing from the government.
At some point the government must gather itself, find a moral
compass and act in a way that is right. The legal door for kids to get
hooked into street prostitution has been left wide open by the
justice minister.
Will the minister act now to make street level prostitution an
indictable offence or at least a hybrid offence? Will he act now on
this important change to protect our children? Will he himself take
action instead of continuing to blame his inaction on the provinces
or those pressure groups that represent prostitutes?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows
that the issue of street prostitution involves more than simply
changing the words in the Criminal Code of Canada. If we are
going to resolve the question of people working the streets and
selling their bodies for money, we are going to have to do more
than simply amend the Criminal Code of Canada.
There are some things that can be done effectively through the
criminal law. Through Bill C-27, which is now before a committee,
we have proposed tough mandatory minimum penitentiary terms
for people who would use violence to coerce children into
prostitution. That is going to be an effective measure.
Let me say to the hon. member that two years ago, governments
at all levels began looking at a short list of steps that could be taken
not only through the Criminal Code but through other strategies to
bring down the incidence of street prostitution and all the
difficulties it causes for neighbourhoods, for families and for
children.
Consultation documents have been circulated in all the
provinces. That process is almost finished. In fact, all but two of
the provinces have now returned with conclusions from the
consultation process. When that process is completed, and
Manitoba and Ontario have yet to complete it, we will look
carefully at the short list of possible steps that all levels of
government could take and we will decide on an appropriate course
of action.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport. He will know that a political fire
storm is developing in western Canada over the financial crisis
faced by an airline based in western Canada. The minister knows
that nearly 70,000 jobs are at risk and thousands more related jobs
are at risk. He said that he has not been asked to do anything.
Has the minister considered being proactive and providing
leadership in finding a solution to this problem by suggesting
actions that the federal government could take to help this troubled
airline?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
(1500)
The point I would like to make to him and to everybody in this
House is that we must keep our eye on the actual problem of
Canadian International Airlines.
Anyone who thinks some government bailout can be a substitute
for the restructuring plan of Canadian is simply dreaming. There is
no point in coming forward with financial assistance to handle the
losses of a period if there are no structural changes made that will
prevent those losses from reoccurring in the future.
That is why I can say to him-I appreciate his question-that we
strongly support the proposals for restructuring Canadian airlines
which have been put forward. I recognize this will be a very
difficult decision for the employees and I am extremely
sympathetic to them as they consider this plan.
Without a plan within the company which deals with the
structural chronic losses that it has had, we will not be able to have
that company providing employment in the future as we would
like.
* * *
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Co-operation.
Given the recent media reports and concerns raised about human
rights, can the minister explain whether Canada is contributing
money to the Government of Rwanda, yes or no?
6269
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House that, notwithstanding the
allegation made in the media last weekend, which was false, the
government is not making contributions to the Rwandan
government.
The funds are provided through Canadian NGOs, through
universities and so on. They are to help the victims of the genocide
in trying to repair the broken legal system and the broken society in
Rwanda.
One quarter of the funds are to assist in the area of human rights.
The rest is to provide for basic human needs, particularly to help
the poor, women, youth and mostly abandoned children.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I invite you to come to Room 216 to
meet Canada's top guns who were introduced to this House earlier.
They will be there from three until about four o'clock.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the government what will be on the
agenda in the days to come, and I am referring to tomorrow and ten
days from now, when the House resumes sitting.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it will be a pleasure to make a statement on the business of the
House.
[English]
If the address debate should finish before the end of this
afternoon, we will return to consideration of the child support bill,
Bill C-41. In any case, this will be our first item of business
tomorrow.
When the House returns on November 18 we will resume the list
if necessary with Bill C-41, followed by Bill C-66, the labour code
amendments presented by my distinguished colleague, the Minister
of Labour and deputy House leader. Then we will have Bill C-62,
the fisheries legislation; Bill C-59, the transport bill; Bill C-49, the
tribunals legislation; Bill C-34, the agricultural penalties bill; Bill
C-39 and Bill C-40, the flooding agreements legislation.
This should take us into the middle of the week in question. I
will have met with members opposite by that point to arrange
subsequent business.
The Speaker: Colleagues, as you know, a question of privilege
always takes precedence over a point of order. I would ask the hon.
member for Calgary Southeast if she would permit me to hear a
very short point of order so that she is not disturbed.
(1505 )
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask you to review the blues today relative to question period. In
terms of the first question that was asked by my hon. colleague
from Beaver River to the Prime Minister, in the Prime Minister's
remarks I thought I heard the Prime Minister say to my hon.
colleague that she did not tell the truth. I would like the Speaker to
review the blues. I do not have access to them right now, but I
would appreciate if you would do that. I am raising it at the first
possible moment.
The Speaker: I did not hear that statement, but I will review the
blues and if necessary I will come back to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): On the
same point of order, Mr. Speaker, if he actually said that, I would
like to know whether it would be judged unacceptable. This week,
we saw not only in the blues but also in Hansard that the Prime
Minister said the leader of the opposition had made false
statements. I want to know whether that is acceptable.
The Speaker: If a member is not directly accused of having used
the word ``lied'' or something like that. Usually, when someone
says that, according to a newspaper, a statement was made in which
someone said etc., in that case, it is not always necessary for me to
intervene.
I will go back and check the blues and check what was said. If
necessary, I will come back to the House to provide clarification.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a question of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 48(1). The
privilege in question is one that is both the least questioned and the
most fundamental right of any member of Parliament, freedom of
speech.
The breach of freedom of speech, as I will state, involves the
inability of me as a member of Parliament and others to participate
in debate on government legislation or to be an active member of
House committees.
I am aware that we as parliamentarians are bound by the rules
and orders of the House with respect to participation in debate.
However, as we have seen in the past, the status quo regarding
parliamentary reform has been challenged. It is my intention today
6270
to stand to challenge the status quo respecting the freedom of
speech of individual members of Parliament.
The question I raise asks for the Speaker to give additional
recognition to the members of Parliament who do not have party
status in matters of debate and committee representation. I would
like to point out that when I refer to members who are without party
status and currently sitting in the House, I am referring to those
members who are not officially recognized by the House of
Commons due in part to the 12 member party threshold to which
we as parliamentarians are currently bound through the 1963
statute that is embodied in the Parliament of Canada Act.
We are currently sitting in the 35th session of Parliament with a
high number of MPs without party status representing constituents
all across Canada. It is now time that the House recognize this as a
significant deficit in terms of opinion and representation in debate.
Without these voices the constituents in 15 ridings are quiet.
There have been a number of important debates in which those
members have been unable to participate, and Bill C-41 is one of
those in which many of us would very much like to participate.
Under current parliamentary rules and practice the opportunities
for members with non-party status are limited in committee work.
Political parties dominate the ever increasing role of the House and
it is extremely difficult for members who do not belong to a party
to have the same influence or to participate as fully as members
who are party members.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental parliamentary privilege.
Professor W.F. Dawson of the University of Alberta said in a 1959
article:
The privilege of freedom of speech is probably the most important and least
questioned of all privileges enjoyed by the House. In its most elementary form this
privilege was stated in the Bill of Rights which declared that `the freedom of speech
and debates of proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in
any court or place outside of Parliament'. Today, it is one of the privileges requested
by the Speaker at the beginning of every Parliament.
Freedom of speech means that the members have the right to
speak freely in the Chamber without fear of intimidation or
challenge. What they say is privileged, protected or immune from
being questioned outside of Parliament.
(1510 )
Joseph Maingot, former law clerk and parliamentary counsel of
the House of Commons, has said:
The privilege of freedom of speech, though of a personal nature, is not so much
intended to protect the members against prosecutions for their individual advantage
but to support the right of people by enabling their representatives to execute the
functions of their office without fear either of civil or criminal prosecution.
Freedom to speak freely is not the sole element of this privilege.
Members must also be free to speak. This means that they have to
have opportunities to participate in debate and to participate fully
in the proceedings of Parliament, including parliamentary
committees. Even if members are not inhibited in terms of what
they say in the House, they are still inhibited in not being given
opportunities to speak. The right to say whatever they want is
meaningless if there is no chance to speak in any case.
Freedom of speech does not mean that members have an
unlimited or unrestrained right to speak on every issue. The rules of
the House impose limits on the participation of members and it is
the duty of the Speaker to restrain those who abuse the rules.
It is clear that no member of the House can speak whenever he or
she wishes. It is the role of the Speaker to recognize members and
to preserve order and decorum. The democratic rights of an elected
member are diminished when they do not possess the same
opportunities as other members.
The rights of members and through them of their constituents
must be respected. I speak from my heart for Calgary Southeast.
The Speaker must be assured that the rights of all members of the
House are protected. This is an ongoing process and must be
reviewed afresh from time to time. The question must be asked
whether independent or non-affiliated party members are being
allowed to fully participate in the proceedings of the House and its
committees. The privileges of these members, their freedom of
speech and the fundamental tenants of parliamentary democracy
must be satisfied.
Mr. Speaker, if you find that I have a prima facie case of
privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion, seconded
by the member for Kamloops.
I appreciate the time to speak.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has made an eloquent case for a prima facie case
of privilege being established. I hope she will not take it as being
too negative if I bring some other considerations to the attention of
the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of which is to urge
you to reach the conclusion that there is no prima facie case of
privilege.
What the hon. member is complaining about has been the
accepted practice of the House for many years, for generations. I
would suggest that if the hon. member studies the opportunities
available to her as an independent private member, she will find
that the opportunities she is seeking do exist. She has the same
6271
opportunities as any other member to present petitions on behalf of
her constituents. She has the same opportunity as any other
member to file written questions or to file Notions of Motions for
the Production of Papers.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to speaking in debate it is you, sir,
who has the ultimate authority to decide who to recognize, who to
see. It is my impression, based on some years experience here, that
if a member wishes to speak in a debate, while they may not get the
floor at the exact time they would like to have it, if they make their
interest known to Chair they will be recognized to speak in that
debate.
Furthermore, with respect to committees our rules are clear. One
does not have to be a formal member of a committee to attend
committee meetings and to take part in discussions. It is true the
person will not have the right to vote in the committee, but in terms
of being heard the rules are clear. I repeat, one does not have to be a
member of a committee in order to attend the meetings and take
part in discussion.
The hon. member concedes that freedom of speech, being very
important, has to have some reasonable limit. I think the reasonable
limits which have been established both by our rules and by the
custom of the House are an effort to make sure that the limited time
available in any day for debate and discussion is distributed in a
reasonably equitable fashion among members. I think this is a
reasonable limitation on what she considers her freedom of speech.
Finally, I would say that the comments she has made regarding
freedom of speech refer to the right of someone once they have the
floor to speak freely without sanction outside the House. The right
of freedom of speech as I understand it does not mean that any
member can speak any time whenever they want, perhaps in a way
that is not equitable with respect to the equal rights of other
members, including those who work together as an organized party.
(1515)
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made an eloquent statement. I
understand her concerns but I would suggest that in consultation
with you, with the Clerk of the House, with members who perhaps
may have been here a little longer than she, she could well get
advice which would help her to participate more fully even as an
independent member than she has been able to do up to now.
That being the case, I respectfully submit that she has not made a
prima facie case to enable her to put a motion of privilege.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I fully agree with what was said by the government house
leader. We have discussed this question on several occasions, both
before 1993 and since then.
I know that the Bloc Quebecois raised the matter when we had
only eight members, and we had to live with the rules of the House.
So I think that was settled. There is only one remedy and that is to
take full advantage of other opportunities that may arise, in
questions and comments, in committees, presenting petitions, and
so forth.
I would say that the best way is to belong to a party that fields
candidates in elections and wins enough seats so its has even more
opportunities to express its views here in the House. That is how
the British parliamentary system works. Even with our own
sovereignist option, as far as we are concerned, we fully agree with
this kind of system. I would ask you to reject the question of
privilege.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the comments and I share some of the opinions that have
already been expressed here on behalf of the government.
I would like to tell the hon. member that I have signed a sheet,
along with the government whip and the whip of the official
opposition, to allow the member to be an associate member of the
committees of her choice. If there are other committees she would
like to be an associate member of, I would be willing and happy to
do that as well.
I encourage the member for Kamloops, who did get a question
today in question period, to realize that there is a rotation. Mr.
Speaker, I know you consider the independents to be under the
protection of the Chair and you want to ensure they have the
opportunity to get on the floor as much as possible.
At times I have substituted members of the NDP or other
independent members when our members had to catch a plane or
something. This allows them to get their speeches in if it had been
difficult for them to do so. But obviously I have to look after the
needs of my own party first. I will try to be accommodating. I do
not want to see the hon. member not being able to get her point of
view heard. If there are ways that can be dovetailed into the House
life, that should be done.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Calgary Southeast for
bringing up this point. She pinpointed that she was talking
specifically about freedom of speech. I am going to come to that
point in a second but before I do, I thank the hon. government
House leader for his intervention as well as the House leader for the
Bloc and the whip of the Reform Party.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast will remember that
early in this Parliament in 1994, possibly as early as May 1994, the
6272
hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona argued very eloquently that
independent members should be given more leeway in the
procedures of this House. At that time in my response I mentioned
to him that in the magnanimity of the House usually we could make
some adjustments so that members who wanted to be heard on a
particular issue could be heard.
(1520)
I would point out to the hon. member for Calgary Southeast that
now it is taken for granted that at least one and sometimes two
independent members will have statements prior to our question
period and we have tried as much as possible to get at least one
independent member on in every question period every day. We
have not always succeeded but to the extent that we have been able
to get them on, I would suggest that the House as a family has been
successful.
Many times members will come to me on a particular issue
where they have to ask a question on that specific date, for
example, if there is a catastrophe in the Saguenay or something like
that. That it is a topic just for that day and they have to get
information from the minister. I make every effort to see to it that
the member, whether an independent or belonging to another party,
would have a chance to get their question on.
I would tend to agree with the government House leader in this
respect about freedom of speech. I direct myself precisely to the
point that freedom of speech of course has to do with a member's
being able to say what he or she wants to say without any
impediments in this House after the member has the floor. As to the
member's being able to get the floor, to get the eye or the attention
of the Speaker, members as a House have generally decided that
this will probably be the make-up. But in the absence of any
suggestions from the different parties it is of course the
responsibility of the Chair to make the decision as to who will
speak and when.
I find at this point that there is not a prima facie case of privilege
with regard to the specific point to which the member alludes.
However, once again I appeal to the House in its magnanimity, and
I refer specifically to the whip of the Reform Party who said he has
made some allocations where it was possible for independent
members to take the place of some of the members of his party who
would have spoken had it not been for another occasion, for
example. These things I think we can work out together.
However, specifically to the member for Calgary Southeast, if
there is a burning issue, something on which the member must
absolutely speak, although this does not occur on all the issues, I
would ask the hon. member to address herself to the other whips if
she likes or come up to the floor and where that slot is put in there,
the Chair will give every consideration for those members who
make a direct appeal to the Chair at that time.
I thank all hon. members for their interventions at this time.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to
His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the
opening of the session.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with our deputy House leader.
Today we are discussing the Liberal speech from the throne
which was delivered on February 27 of this year, some nine months
ago. It was 13 pages long. We all tried to listen to it. Only once in
that 13 pages did the Liberal government even mention the word
family, and that was just in a passing reference.
Today I would like to take the government to task a bit about that
and also explain perhaps the priorities I think the family issue
should have been given in the speech from the throne and certainly
would be given by the Reform Party.
In an Angus Reid poll in 1994, 63 per cent of Canadians agreed
that the family is in crisis, not just in trouble, in crisis.
(1525 )
In our recent fresh start initiative we have addressed the
concerns that many Canadians have about their families being
under pressure, stressed out, overworked, underpaid and having no
time to spend with their families, on charity work or on community
work. They are feeling the stress and are not enjoying it.
In a seven page attack memo that was put out by the Liberals last
week in response to our fresh start campaign, they said Reformers
do not understand the complexities of the modern family. Just what
they are talking about I do not know. The modern family is not very
complicated. I can tell members right now that if one wants to call
it complicated, in the modern family most times both parents have
to work. Some also have to moonlight. If that is complex then I
think I understand it. The modern one income family has to pay
$7,000 more a year in taxes than the two income family making the
same amount when both parents work. This is the so-called
complex reality of the modern family.
I think it is really very simple. Parents to not have enough time,
enough disposable income and enough assets to spend as much
time and energy with their children because they have to work
harder for diminishing returns.
It is interesting that most of these people do not feel that they
have a choice about whether they are going to spend more time
with their family. They end up working split shifts, two shifts, two
6273
jobs and so on because they are forced to for economic reasons.
Many of them would prefer, especially when the children are
young, to be able to look after their children and have the assets to
do that.
On page 38 of the red book the Liberals said the following:
``Young families need a support system that enables parents to
participate fully in the economic life of the country. That is why the
availability of quality child care is an economic issue''.
The Liberals' concern for families is that they have to find ways
for them to participate fully in the economic life of the country. In
other words, it is Liberal doublespeak for ``get to work, people, you
do not have enough assets to stay home and look after your
children, so put them in day care''.
The Liberals do not seem to understand that there are other
options, that we can reduce taxes so that one parent can look after
the children. We can change the Criminal Code so that parents do
not feel worried about the safety of their families and their
children. We can change the taxation system so that it reflects an
equality for all people regardless of their choice for child care.
Before I get into our own fresh start alternative, it is interesting
that the Liberal answer seems to be to keep taxes high and force
both parents to participate in the economic life of the country so
that they can tax them both highly and then the government will run
a huge national program in order to pick up the slack. It is no
wonder 63 per cent of families feel that they are stressed out and
overstressed. They do not have an option. The options have been
taken away from them by this government. It does not seem to
understand that the simple answer, and not just the simple but the
correct answer, to what it would like to say is a very complex issue
is a very obvious set of guidelines and priorities that can change
and turn this whole problem on its head and give families the stress
relief they deserve.
This is what Reform's fresh start would emphasize if we were
giving the throne speech today. First, we would acknowledged the
problem which is that because of social and economic changes
many families are facing high debt, stress, bankruptcy and burnout.
A reform government will recognize the value of families as the
most important building block in our society so they can spend less
time under pressure and more time with those they care about the
most. That should have been the guiding principle, the
acknowledgement of the problem, so that we could get on with
solving problems that families feel need to be addressed and should
have been addressed in the throne speech.
This is our commitment to the Canadian family. A Reform
government would make families a priority and ensure that
government policies and regulations are family friendly.
(1530 )
Second, extend the $3,000 to $5,000 child care deduction to all
parents, including those who are there for their children at home.
Third, increase the spousal amount from $5,300 to $7,900 thus
levelling the playing field for parents who choose to stay at home
to look after young children and helping families meet the needs of
a more demanding economy. In other words, increasing the spousal
deduction will put more dollars in their pockets so they can look
after their families in whatever way they feel necessary.
Fourth, help provinces and local governments ensure that
deadbeat parents live up to their responsibilities to support their
children when families break down. Reform will ensure that
agreements concerning access to children are also respected and
enforced. When families break down, an unfortunate thing that
happens in society from time to time, Reform wants to make sure
that deadbeat parents fulfil their obligations to their children and do
not try to skirt around their obligations. It is not only a moral
obligation but Reform wants to make it a moral obligation to
support those kids.
Fifth, Reform would enact a zero tolerance policy on family
violence.
Sixth, crack down on child prostitution and child pornography.
Reform wants to make families a priority. It should have been a
priority in the throne speech, and it will certainly be a priority
under a Reform government.
Reform believes that the strongest social programs to be had are
policies to create and to build strong families. With a strong family
all the other problems, many of which are dealt with here by
legislation, go by the by. When there is a strong family that can
look after themselves, feed the children properly, educate them and
buy them school supplies, over the course of time those children
are better educated. They have a lower crime rate, are able to
concentrate better at school and have the confidence and the
security that comes from having a family that is not stressed out
completely. That is why families need and should have a higher
priority than the government has given them to date.
I would argue that time spent with your family is not a luxury
that should be enjoyed by a few or by a fluke of birth or whatever.
Family time is essential time whether you are talking economically
or psychologically or crime prevention or literacy rates. Families
that spend time together can address most societal problems within
their own family structure.
I would argue that parenting has real value and the government
should recognize this as well. It is often said that children are our
country's future. It is a phrase that is thrown out at every
opportunity but it is true. Policies and programs of governments
need to reflect the truth: we are concerned about parenting and we
6274
want to make sure that it is possible for families to have and
recognize the value of that parenting skill.
That is why Reform places such an emphasis on tax relief for
people raising children. People raising children have increased
expenses and increased needs. Why not allow the policies and
programs to reflect that? Why not increase the spousal allowance
so that people who are raising children do not have to send the
government money? They can keep that money to look after their
families.
Why should we not say that all people who have children,
whether they put them in a government run day care, whether
grandma is looking after the kids or whether they look after them in
their own home, deserve a pat on the back and encouragement.
Some of that should come from the tax man. In other words, they
deserve some tax relief that is targeted toward recognizing that
parenting has real value and that good parenting is the key to a
strong society in the 21st century.
That is why Reformers say the child care deduction of $3,000 to
$5,000 should be given to all people regardless of their choice of
child care, whether it is institutional care, at home, with a
neighbour, through a pooling of resources or with grandma. It does
not matter. When you are raising children you need resources.
Those resources should not just be made available to people who
are able to hire a nanny. Those resources should be made available
to them when they have children. That should be the criterion. It
should not be the criterion of a government program.
(1535)
We believe that if these resources are given to parents they will
be able to make better use of them than if those same resources
were shipped off to Ottawa and people hoped against hope the
program that was delivered in a neighbourhood might actually be
of some use to them.
There is an old saying that governments take the people's money,
deduct 50 per cent for handling and then give back services the
people never asked for nor wanted. That should stop. The services
that parents want to provide for their families, if the resources were
left in their hands, could be provided. They could provide for the
needs of their children better than the federal government.
There are some things we need to do to reassure families about
their future security. We have to have zero tolerance toward family
violence. As have many hon. members, I have had people in my
office telling me terrible stories about spousal abuse, family abuse,
child abuse and so on. Each story is sad and sickening. I have zero
tolerance for it and so should government policy.
That is why family assault should be made a separate and more
serious offence under the Criminal Code. Those who abuse the trust
of people need to be in a special category, a category which is more
severe. Those people have broken a trust and have destroyed,
perhaps forever, a child's security. It should not be tolerated. There
should be zero tolerance for that.
We also want to enforce and strengthen peace bonds and
restraining orders toward those who have shown a tendency for
violence or who have threatened family members.
Finally, we want to make effective counselling programs a part
of any sentence for family assault.
I mentioned earlier some of the other things that families
deserve.
Mr. Speaker, as you approach half a century on this earth, as you
get toward a very serious plateau in your own life, you will
recognize the need to place emphasis on the family. I will allow my
colleague to elaborate on that. As you head into your second half
century, I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will listen kindly to his
remarks.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we heard some very interesting comments from the hon.
member for Fraser Valley East.
I was wondering if he has some other statistics. I think I heard at
one time that some polling company came out with a statistic
which told us how many mums or dads would love to stay home to
look after their small children. If that was feasible financially, how
does he feel about that?
When I was in Winnipeg I had the privilege of attending a
meeting of the Standing Committee on Health. An RCMP officer
brought out a very interesting fact. He said that they had found it a
lot easier to build a good kid than to fix a broken adult.
When we spend billions and billions of dollars on the justice
system, would the hon. member not agree that this would be money
very well spent if it was directed toward the parenting of young
children?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, there are statistics to back up all of the
things I mentioned today, for example, that children who come
from a secure home have lower rates of crime, have higher levels of
literacy and education and have better health. The statistics go on
and on.
It is true that over 50 per cent of parents say that while their
children are young they would prefer, if financially possible, to
have one of the parents stay at home to be the chief provider for
those children. In other words, they would train them, teach them,
spend time with them, build security into their lives, pass on family
values, show them right from wrong and so on. They feel that is a
valuable asset and a valuable contribution.
6275
(1540)
That is why the tax proposals that Reform has come up with,
especially for low income families, will lower the tax burden by 89
per cent for families making less than $30,000 a year. Just think of
it. I am not going to spend any time worrying about those who can
hire a nanny. They have made their priority choices in life and I
guess they have a lot of money.
However, if those who are just on the cusp, just barely able to
make it, were told that the choices were a little more flexible
because if they are making $30,000 a year as a couple it maybe
means that one person is working at a minimum wage job and the
other is working part time, and I told them that their tax rate would
be lowered by 89 per cent, it would mean that they would be
virtually paying no taxes. If they are making $30,000 a year it is not
a lot of money. They need all that money to raise their family.
A family of four earning $30,000 a year is on the poverty line.
Imagine if they got their pay cheque and where today it says
deductions for income tax sent off to Ottawa, never to be seen again
it seems. Twenty per cent or 30 per cent is deducted for taxes.
Would it not be wonderful if they saw instead the column said zero
and all the money they earned, they got to take home to spend on
their families the way they saw fit? I think if Canadian families
were asked who knows better where the money should be spent,
most people would say they know the needs in their own homes.
They would be able to provide for their children. They have the
best interests of their children at heart and they know that given a
good shot at it, an ability to hang onto their funds they would be
able to do a better job than the bureaucrats in Ottawa.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, normally
when I start a speech I say how privileged I am to join in the debate.
But let us remember that this is, after all, November 1996 and we
are debating the throne speech that was tabled on February 27,
1996 approximately eight months ago. Throne speeches are when
the government lays out its mandate and desires, what it wants to
achieve on behalf of the nation. Unfortunately, over the years they
have become perfunctory statements that are bland, wide-ranging
and have very little meaning or substance.
The speech we are debating in November 1996 and was tabled in
February 27, 1996, is bland, wide-ranging, says nothing specific. I
cannot imagine why we are debating this seven months after the
fact rather than talking about specific legislation emanating from
the speech. The answer unfortunately is somewhat obvious. It is
because the government likes these bland, innocuous statements
rather than serious legislation to fix the problems that are facing
Canadians today.
Members have heard the Reform Party talk about the one in four
people in this country who either do not have a job, are looking for
a job, or are concerned about their job because they feel that their
jobs may be in jeopardy. We were talking about that in the House in
question period less than two hours ago. The finances of a major
employer in western Canada are in serious trouble and many jobs
are potentially on the line. The government says: ``It is not our
problem at this point, '' yet it ran on a policy of jobs, jobs, jobs. It
seems rather strange to me that it continues to spout the mantra
without delivering on any of the goods.
This is the lack of vision of the Liberal Party that the Reform
Party has railed against for the years that we have been in
existence. In the section ``Ensuring Opportunity: A Strong
Economy'' of the throne speech it is stated: ``The government will
work with the private sector and the provinces to make the
collective investments required to produce hope, growth and jobs''.
(1545)
We have not seen any tax reduction. The deficit continues to
cause the government to borrow more money. The total debt is
rising. It will soon be $600 billion. Yet, we have talked in this
House in the last few weeks and have been critical of the
government because it has given a company in Montreal,
Bombardier, $87 million interest free.
Surely, that must be what the Liberals were talking about when
they said they would work with the private sector and the provinces
in their collective investments to produce hope, growth and jobs. I
am concerned about the logic. It is the ordinary taxpayers, the
people who work hard every day and remember that one in four of
them are concerned about their jobs, who have to pay taxes to the
Government of Canada because the government had to borrow $87
million which the government lent to Bombardier interest free.
Bombardier is a large and successful company with an
international reputation. It has factories in production around the
world. We are proud of Bombardier. We are proud of a Canadian
success. But why do we have to be so proud of our Canadian
success that we have to go to the ordinary Canadian in the street
and say: ``Can you spare a little more in taxes to pay the interest on
the money we are going to borrow so Bombardier can have an
interest free loan of $87 million?'' That does not make sense. If
that is the only thing the government had in mind in this line in the
throne speech about collective investments with the private sector
and the provinces, surely we expected a lot better.
Remember that the government's line was jobs, jobs, jobs. Here
we are today, three years into the mandate and an election starting
to loom on the horizon. I can see the next election being on the
theme: ``We didn't do it last time but this time it is going to be job,
jobs, jobs. Trust us. We are going to deliver''. That line is wearing
thin. I doubt very much that Canadians will believe the Liberal
Party this time if it runs on a policy of jobs, jobs, jobs. It does not
wash.
6276
Under the section on trade: ``The government will continue
efforts to expand NAFTA and will work toward more world trade
liberalization. Where there are trade disputes, the government will
spare no effort to promote and defend legitimate trade rights and
interests''. Nice words. Remember that the Liberals in opposition
said: ``Scrap NAFTA. We do not want anything to do with it''. In
the last election, they said they were going to amend it to make sure
that it fit their philosophy.
As we can see, the Liberals have already moved a long way to
acquiescence. After they won the election, they just said: ``Where
do we sign? Show us the dotted line for NAFTA''. According to the
throne speech, they are continuing efforts to expand NAFTA and
work toward trade liberalization. My goodness, how they change
when they get into power.
Of course in the next line the Liberals talk about promoting and
defending legitimate Canadian trade rights. We had it right here
today. The softwood lumber disputes should have gone to the
World Trade Organization for a complete, satisfactory and final
resolution but the minister stood up and said: ``We got an
agreement for five years. Isn't this neat and wonderful?''
We open the newspaper and find out jobs have been lost in rural
Ontario. We find out jobs have been lost in rural Alberta. We find
out that jobs have been lost in British Columbia. We wonder what
the government really means when it talks about defending
legitimate Canadian trade rights and jobs, jobs, jobs. We could go
on all day.
How about the public pension plan. ``The public pension system
will be there to support people in their old age'', the Liberals said in
the throne speech. Within a few weeks thereafter, the Minister of
Finance stood up in this House and said that universality for seniors
is right out the window.
There will be no more old age security in 2001. There will be no
more guaranteed income supplement in the year 2001. The first
thousand dollars of pension income tax free is out the window. The
age exemption that every senior has enjoyed as a tax reduction on
their tax return is out the window.
(1550)
Instead anybody with any reasonable income of any kind is
going to have a 20 per cent additional surtax applied as a clawback
on top of normal taxation. If they are in the higher tax brackets
their total payment marginal rate to the government can get as high
as 75 per cent. And universality is out the window.
Did the Minister of Finance stand up and say that in this House?
No. He couched it in nice and wonderful language much like the
throne speech and said: ``Don't worry, be happy. If you can look
after yourself, good, because we cannot afford to do it for you. The
Canada pension plan is in trouble. We are going to soak the
working people. We are going to take it back from the retired
people. We are going to put the excess in our own jeans rather than
saving the Canada pension plan''.
That is what we found out in the throne speech. We are still
waiting for the legislation. Eight months later and we are still
talking about the throne speech. Surely Canadians deserve better.
They do deserve better and it is outlined in the fresh start program
of the Reform Party that we introduced a few weeks ago.
Rather than taxing seniors more, we are going to give a tax break
to every Canadian after the budget is balanced. After the budget is
balanced. Please note that we want that job done first and then we
will talk about tax breaks. We have laid these things out.
We are going to cut unemployment insurance for employers to
create jobs so that they pay the same rate as the employees, a 28 per
cent cut. It is going to take this huge surplus in the UI fund and put
it right back into the employers' hands because they are the people
who create jobs.
We are going to cut the capital gains rate for the entrepreneurs to
give them the incentive to create jobs.
We are going to talk about giving every family the opportunity
for a deduction for their children in lieu of saying only if their kids
are in day care can they claim a tax deduction and therefore they
have no choice if they want to reduce their taxes but to put their
kids in day care. We want to recognize that it is the parents who
choose how to bring up their children. It is not tax policy that
dictates how parents shall bring up their children.
These are the things we have introduced in our fresh start
program. This fresh start is a new vision of Canada compared to the
no vision, the bland statements that are still bland statements eight
months later. They were introduced on February 27, 1996 and
today in November 1996 they have not moved forward one single
inch.
Let that record speak for itself.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to say publicly that I congratulate you on your appointment to
the Chair.
I want to make a couple of observations pursuant to what the
hon. member has just said. I think all of us would agree that when
MPs come to Ottawa one of the most serious and one of the most
grave responsibilities they have is to maintain national unity. The
last thing we should do is to try to play one province off against
another or one region off against another.
Over and over again that is what the Reform Party does. They
shirk that responsibility. They love this game of playing one region
off against another. In the last few days they have raised the loan to
Bombardier and they somehow leave the impression that there is a
game of favouritism going on here and that Quebec or the city of
6277
Montreal is being favoured over some other city, some other
province, some other region. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
It is noted very well on this side of the House that those members
in the Reform Party never mention anything about what the federal
government has done to support Calgary's bid for the exposition in
2005. The federal government has done everything possible to
ensure that the exposition in 2005 comes to the city of Calgary. It
has nothing to do with the fact that Calgary is Calgary or that it is in
the province of Alberta or in the region called the west. It is a
Canadian city. It belongs to all of us, as does Montreal, as does
Winnipeg, as does Halifax. And this federal government has a
responsibility to support that bid.
(1555)
My city of Winnipeg, the capital of Manitoba is getting the
PanAm Games in 1999. The federal government is supporting that
project to the tune of about $40 million. Do we hear that from the
Reform Party? No. We do not hear that from the Reform Party. The
Reform Party would rather talk about a loan to Bombardier because
that somehow conjures up an image that Quebec is getting
something and the west is not.
I am from the west and I am sick and tired of that kind of game
which divides this country. It is a game that should stop.
Responsible members of the House of Commons would not indulge
in that kind of talk. It is injurious to this country. It is very injurious
and the sooner we stop it, the better.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I think that was feigned outrage by
the member who is from Winnipeg and from the west.
I do hope since he is from Winnipeg that he stood up and spoke
loudly and at length, that he shouted from the rooftops when the
CF-18 contract was taken from Winnipeg and given to another part
of the country. Everyone knows that Winnipeg was a better bid, a
cheaper bid, yet the people in Winnipeg, in his hometown, were
denied that contract.
I am glad he raised the issue of unity. There was a referendum in
the province of Quebec a year ago last week that we came within
half an inch of losing. Why? Because this government sat and did
nothing through the entire campaign. It sat on the sidelines and
watched the country almost disintegrate because it had no policy
whatsoever to deal with that situation.
While the member for Winnipeg St. James talks about the
Reform Party and its policies, I have heard nothing about his
defending the motion to create a distinct society for part of this
country which was introduced last December in this House. In
many parts of the country, including Alberta where I am from, that
type of issue would not even be contemplated. Yet it was
introduced in this House by his government to divide this country
because the west does not like that particular phrase.
The member has the gall to accuse the Reform Party of divisive
policies when we see the government he represents standing by
without any governance whatsoever and allowing this country to
fail both in unity and through the fact that we now have a $600
billion debt hanging around our necks, courtesy of that
government. That type of thing must stop and a fresh start Reform
policy will do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too will share my time
with a colleague. I would also like to congratulate you on your
appointment, Mr. Speaker.
I am also happy to participate in this debate, even though we are
speaking about the throne speech that was delivered on February
27, 1996.
The very fact that we are still discussing the throne speech eight
months later shows the importance of this document. I see the
throne speech as a kind of business plan for the government. The
fact that we are still debating this business plan shows how
important it is.
With your permission, I will not go over the whole plan but, as
my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public
Works, pointed out, I will address the part of the throne speech
dealing with national unity.
(1600)
Notwithstanding the actions we took in the weeks following the
referendum, there remains some confusion, especially in Quebec,
on the various measures our government took to try to settle the
basic issue of Canadian unity.
There are obstacles, but I listened with interest to the comments
made about the throne speech by members of the Bloc Quebecois
and the Reform Party, who, I must point out, were nowhere to be
seen during the referendum debate. Today, they claim to be
concerned about Canadian unity. That is not true. If they were
really concerned about Canadian unity, instead of criticizing our
government day in and day out and making no proposals to advance
the debate on Canadian unity, they would have expended their
energy on settling the matter and especially on trying to convince
our colleagues and fellow citizens in western Canada to make an
effort to understand a little better what Quebec has been seeking for
so long.
It was clearly specified in the throne speech.
6278
[English]
We were very clear in the speech from the throne what this
government wanted to do. The Reform Party member who spoke
prior to me stated that we have no vision of Canada, that we have
no plan for Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. I
question, based on his intervention, whether he even took the time
to read the speech from the throne.
As I said in French, the speech from the throne is a blueprint of
where our government wants to take this country. In the speech
from the throne we talk about modernizing the federation. More
important, we talk about the different areas of responsibilities that
our government is willing to withdraw from.
I want to quote from the speech from the throne concerning the
areas which have been a sore point for most provinces. The throne
speech states: ``The government will not use its spending power to
create new shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces,
and any new program will be designed so that non-participating
provinces will be compensated provided they establish similar
programs in their province''.
In the province of Quebec this has been a very sore point for
many years. Traditional past governments, in order to penetrate or
impede on some provincial jurisdiction, would through their
spending powers introduce their own programs and thereby bypass
the province totally.
Our government was clear. We wrote it down. We stated that we
will no longer do that. Why? We feel we have to work with the
provinces because they are our partners. We cannot always look at
the other levels of government as our enemies. If we are going to
get Canada back on track, as we have done over the past two or
three years, of which I am very proud, we are going to have to take
new initiatives and work with the provinces.
We also stated in the speech from the throne that the government
will work the provinces and Canadians to develop agreed upon
values and principles to underlie the social union and to explore
new approaches to decision making in social policies. That is very
clear.
The Reform Party says we do not want to do anything and that
we are not working with the provinces. The newly appointed
Minister of Human Resources Development has spent a
considerable amount of time, as did his predecessors, in
negotiating manpower training with the provinces. It is a long
process, but we made the ground rules and the blueprints in our
speech from the throne which lay out very clearly where we are
headed.
In essence, what we are saying is: ``Hey, provinces, we are
willing to work with you. Let us sit down and define which level of
government is best able to deliver the services''. After all, there is
only one taxpayer in this country. Whether it is a municipal
government, a provincial government, a federal government or
even a school board, there is still only one taxpayer. Quite often
these levels ignore that fact.
(1605 )
What we are saying is that we should look at the powers. We are
looking at the responsibilities. We said it again in the speech from
the throne. The government is prepared to withdraw totally from
some sectors.
The government is going to withdraw from manpower training.
That is well under way and in the province of Quebec it has been
accepted with open arms. The government is also willing to
withdraw from areas such as social housing, mining, sports and
recreation.
The government has worked with the provinces on these matters,
but there are probably some jurisdictions that it needs to retain,
such as the environment. Obviously, pollution does not stop at a
provincial border. The rivers which are polluted do not stop at a
provincial border. The federal government still has to be
responsible to a certain degree.
Tourism and food inspection are two others areas in which the
federal government is willing to work with the provinces.
What we said in the speech from the throne is that we are
prepared to renew the federation. It is incumbent-and the proof is
in the longevity of our beautiful country-on every generation to
look at Canada and to mould it for its needs and for the needs of
future generations. That is what our blueprint states.
I would like to touch on the different things that we have done to
respond to the commitments made by our Prime Minister in the
weeks preceding the referendum. Again, most people seem to have
forgotten them rather quickly.
During the referendum we promised that we would transfer
manpower training to the provinces. We have done that. We
delivered on that promise.
We promised to recognize regional vetoes. I recall very vividly
that debate. I was out west at that point in time. I remember that
British Columbians felt they were a separate area and that they
should be recognized as a region. Our government listened. Instead
of creating four regional vetoes, we went ahead and recognized five
regional vetoes. We gave all the regions a veto. Quebec, after all, is
the only province that had constitutional change imposed on it
against its will.
I have one minute left. I will take that very important minute to
appeal to my western colleagues to work with our government.
They can use whatever phrase they want. The Liberal Party chose
to use distinct society. Let us try to work together to recognize the
distinct reality of Quebec. One has to be blind not to recognize that
6279
Quebec has a different language and a different culture. Let us
work together to enshrine that in the Constitution.
Yes, we did make exceptions for provinces. British Columbia,
for example, in order to join Confederation, required that the
national railway be built. In 1892 that dream was realized. Where
would British Columbia be today if that dream had never been
fulfilled?
If there were only eight residents on Prince Edward Island, all
eight would either be senators or members of Parliament. We
recognize that even a small province can contribute to Canada.
I make an appeal to the premiers of the provinces to work with
our government. I make an appeal for all parties to work with our
government to solve the Canadian unity problem once and for all.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question or two for the hon. member for Vaudreuil, one of those
members who have frequently raised the fact that political
uncertainty was disastrous for Quebec in terms of attracting
investments in the province.
I should point out to him that, just today, an announcement was
made that a Swedish company will be investing $300 million in
pharmaceutical research in the Montreal area, probably in or
around my riding.
If political uncertainty has such a disastrous effect-and perhaps
he could address this in his response-it certainly is not political
uncertainty caused by separatists, as he puts it, that adversely
affects investment.
(1610)
I would say that the Liberal government's attitude is much more
detrimental. On November 5, Claude Piché wrote in La Presse that
it was strictly an irrational excuse on the part of the Liberals to
claim that investments were not coming in as they should in
Quebec because of the political uncertainty caused by the
separatists, when in fact it was just the opposite.
The problem is due to the fact that the federal government itself
would have everyone believe that the lack of investment is due to
political uncertainty and the sovereignist cause.
It is absolutely not true and I would like him to say so, because,
if he is serious about wanting to help the people he represents-I
think he speaks mainly for the people of Montreal and Quebec,
given that he was elected by the people of Quebec-perhaps he
should stop talking about political uncertainty and start creating an
atmosphere to counter such a perception by investors, because this
is strictly a matter of perception.
The perception does not match the reality. There is no survey
indicating that political uncertainty in Quebec adversely affects
investment. He should say do publicly-I sincerely hope he
will-if he is serious about wanting to help the people of Montreal.
That is my first point.
My second is the Bombardier investment issue, that the hon.
members from western Canada keep raising. The problem, really,
is the way the Liberals have announced it. The Prime Minister
himself came to Montreal to announce that he was lending $87
million to Bombardier.
In fact, it is a loan equivalent to about six or seven million
dollars per year, over a few years. As far as I know, never before
has a Prime Minister made a trip with his ministers to announce
with great pomp annual subsidies of $7 million to a major company
such as Bombardier, when the economic spin-offs will be much
greater than the $7 million in question.
The problem that westerners face has to do with the way the
Liberals came with great pomp to Montreal to announce what was
in fact a loan of $87 million. It is a loan and this is fine. I have
nothing against it.
The problem is the way it was announced. The government
misled people from the west by making them believe it was a huge
subsidy, but it is not the case. I would appreciate it if the hon.
member for Vaudreuil would explain it, to correct the false
impression created by the fact that the Prime Minister came with
great pomp and that the Minister of Industry said the government
was giving $87 million. The government is not giving $87 million:
it will give about $7 million per year, taking interest rates into
account, for a few years. The hon. member should set the record
straight.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member for Vaudreuil to
provide a brief response.
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I will not have time to deal with the
two questions in a brief response. I will discuss the issue of
political uncertainty and its effect on the economy of Montreal and
of the province as a whole.
The member for Longueuil only has to walk or drive through the
streets of Montreal to see the devastating effects that this region
has had to put up with for a long time. I am proud of the measures
recently announced by our government to help Montreal's
economy. It is sad and deplorable that the Quebec premier did not
invite the federal government to the socio-economic summit. If he
cared about Quebec's interests, he would at least have invited the
federal government. Yet, Bloc Quebecois members are asking us
why we do not do more for Montreal.
We are not the ones dreaming in technicolour, it is Bloc
Quebecois members and separatists. The facts speak for
themselves. Let us take a look at the unemployment rate. It is no
coincidence. After all, we have the same policies for Quebec as for
other provinces, and for Montreal as for other major cities. We do
not devise policies to punish Quebec.
6280
We must ask ourselves why the unemployment rate is two points
higher in the Montreal region. the Canadian average is around 9.6
per cent, while the rate for Quebec is 12.6 per cent.
Why is it that the uncertainty affects the Quebec and Canadian
economies indirectly and directly? It is not good for Quebec and it
is not good for Canada. I hope some day they understand that.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg St. James will
have the floor. It is my understanding that the hon. member will be
speaking for 10 minutes.
(1615)
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank my colleague from Vaudreuil for allowing me to
share his time in reply to the throne speech. I would like to pledge
my co-operation to my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil as he makes
every effort to strengthen Quebec's position and place in this
federation.
I have recognized in working in the national capital as a federal
member of Parliament that we are all family and we are all
Canadians. Quebecers are as much Canadians as Albertans or as
Manitobans. We are all family. We have our own peculiar problems
and our own unique concerns. All of us have a responsibility to
work together so we can tackle these problems wherever they
might be found, in Quebec, British Colombia or wherever.
We know that the economy of the province of Quebec is in
serious trouble, especially on the island of Montreal. We as good
Canadians should do everything possible to revive that economy.
The stronger the Quebec economy is, the stronger our national
economy is. That applies to every province and region in the
country.
The member from Vaudreuil mentioned that the 1996 throne
speech had a vision of renewing the federation, and that is very
true. Its main thrust was renewing the federation. Renewing the
federation comes in many manifestations. For example, getting our
fiscal house in order was and is part of that vision. Cleaning up the
fiscal mess in the national capital is part of that vision. Without
stabilizing the government and our national finances, everything
else is put into question, everything else is put at risk. As part of
that vision, as enunciated in the throne speech, it was so important
to talk about and to address this problem of our national fiscal
situation.
When this government came to office in the fall of 1993 the
deficit was in excess of $40 billion, maybe even in excess of $45
billion. That is a lot of money. Something had to be done because
without addressing that deficit, other things that this government
wanted to do would not be possible. So our finance minister went to
work aggressively and established a course that he has followed.
He has followed that course assiduously and without any deviation.
In that process and by not deviating he has established credibility.
When he sets out to do something, he means it.
He started with a target to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of the
gross domestic product, and he has done that. He has now reset his
target at 2 per cent, and it is not going to be long before it will be 1
per cent of the GDP. It will not be that long before there is no
deficit at all.
Not only is the deficit being brought down quite rapidly but in
the process the debt is being tackled. The finance minister
announced a few days ago that come fiscal year 1998 there will no
longer be a need for borrowing new money. That is success.
The debt is far too high, in the neighbourhood of $600 billion.
Our interest charges are neighbouring $50 billion and that is far too
much and has to be brought under control.
(1620 )
However, the finance minister has established credibility. He has
shown that he can get the job done, and Canadians believe him and
support him. I know it is going to be done. As a result of his doing a
good job interest rates have come down to the lowest we have seen
in almost 40 years. Our interest rates are lower than those in the
United States. With interest rates as low as they are it makes buying
a car a possibility, a probability. It means more and more
Canadians are able to buy new homes or repair their homes or get a
mortgage because of the low interest rates. We have had
considerable success on that financial front.
That was part of the vision as outlined in the 1996 throne speech.
However, there was far more to that vision than just cleaning up the
fiscal mess. The throne speech mentioned technology partnerships.
Nowadays it seems that wherever we turn we are confronted with
new technologies. It is part of globalization and part of the new
world order, technology and computers. For a lot of us who were
raised a good many years ago, a lot of this new technology is
perhaps beyond us. However, this government realizes that we are
in a new technological world and we had better observe the
necessities of the new technological age.
That is why the Minister of Industry has worked very
aggressively on working with technology firms. Through his good
work he has developed all kinds of technology partnerships. The
government has contributed about $250 million toward technology
partnerships. That will further technological innovation and it will
strengthen the economy. It means creating jobs, which is being
done already.
Notwithstanding the unacceptable unemployment rate in this
country, a lot of new jobs are being created, especially in
technology firms. This government has created over 600,000 jobs
and I
6281
expect better things to come. I expect those better things to come as
early next year, 1997.
Also part of the throne speech vision was youth services. The
government has found additional money for youth services. Right
now there are about 35,000 Canadian youths involved in
apprenticeship programs which is a real opportunity for young
people to move from secondary education, high school and other
educational institutions into the workplace. It is an ideal
opportunity for young people to make the transition from their
lives of education to the workplace. I believe our youth policy is
working.
Maintaining medicare is part of the vision of the throne speech.
Canadians believe very strongly in medicare and want this
government to maintain it. I can assure members that we are going
to maintain it and adhere to the five basic principles of the
medicare system. We are not going to let the medicare system slip
away.
It should be observed that in the last budget brought down by the
finance minister he put a so-called cash floor so that the support for
medicare would be maintained.
I could go on and on but I know I am out of time. However, I
think the throne speech of 1996 has a well rounded vision. It is
about renewing the federation. It is about strengthening the
government. It is about getting government right. It is about
serving Canadians much better than they have been in recent years.
(1625)
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been sitting here all afternoon listening to the
various statements and comments with regard to the throne speech
and I have a few comments of my own.
I was a teacher, before I came to this House, for almost 25. I have
been a parent for almost all that time. I have met people from
across the entire country since coming here and previously and a
lot of the remarks that I have today in response to all the speakers
who have been on this afternoon come from that.
There is one group of people in this country that I think is the key
to the future. Despite all the rhetoric we hear, the government gives
the impression that children come first but its policies and its
legislation contradict this. That group of people that I think we
must consider first and foremost in all the things we do is our
children.
Liberal crime bills are very often merely job creation programs
for lawyers. Liberal tax policies have forced both parents out of the
home in order to avoid poverty. Liberal social engineering
programs cause education, health, justice and social program costs
to escalate. But the most horrific aspect of the Liberal policies, and
the throne speech is an example of that, is they cause violent crime
to increase, and our kids will pay a terrible cost.
What is the best crime prevention strategy that we could
implement? It is simply to give children back their parents. This is
the basis of Reform's fresh start family issues policy.
Let us look at education. The first and best teacher a child could
ever have is a loving, caring parent. If we look at justice the best
strategy for preventing violent crime is one that encourages
bonding between a child and a parent. If we look at health care, the
best health care program is one that starts at home with proper
emotional development. If we look at social programs, the best
social program is one in which taxes are lowered to the point where
one job will provide for the needs of the family. It is common
sense. It is simple.
When voters examine our fresh start platform they will see that
Reform is the family friendly party. The party that puts kids first
will do more to make society safer, improve health and education
and reduce social program costs than all the big Liberal spending
programs.
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I found the hon. member's remarks
interesting. I wish I could believe everything he has been saying.
On the one hand he talks about the Reform Party being a family
friendly party. Yet day in and day out in this House what do
members of the Reform Party talk about? They talk about the
criminal justice system. They talk about the spectacular cases that
come up from time to time. They tell the government how we have
to get tough on the young people of today, that we have to throw
them into jail, that we have to lock the jail doors and throw the key
away.
What the Reform Party talks about is all we have to do when it
comes to youth crime is just write another law, add an amendment
to the Young Offenders Act. We do not have to strengthen families.
We do not have to help families that find themselves in a
dysfunctional way. Oh no, just write a law and strengthen the
justice system and maybe get rid of the Young Offenders Act. Not
only that, but maybe we can even start charging young kids of nine
and ten years of age with crimes.
That is what members of the Reform Party talk about.
(1630)
Reformers do that every day in this House, and now the member
for Yorkton-Melville comes along and says that his party is a
family friendly party. I have two words: get serious.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak to the address in reply to the throne speech, although I find it
a bit odd to do so now, since the speech was given on February 27,
1996 and it is now mid-November. I suppose the government,
which controls the program in this House, did not want us speaking
about the throne speech when it realized it had not met the
objectives it set for itself.
6282
I have been here for 12 years, and although I do not recall what
happened other years, it seems to me it has taken a while to get
to the throne speech. If we had spoken about it in March, April,
May perhaps, I would understand. But it is now November. My
birthday is November 15 and I did not think I would be speaking
about it so close to my birthday. I would have liked to speak about
it much earlier.
The throne speech dealt with research and development, science
and technology. The government said it would take steps to
improve promotion of science and technology, and research and
development in order to encourage job creation. It also said it
would pay particular attention to the political uncertainty hanging
over Quebec.
It also talked about improving free trade with the United States
and Mexico, and mentioned NAFTA and a climate favourable to
economic growth. These were the main points covered in the
throne speech. Unfortunately, this is not exactly what is being
done.
With respect to research and development, this morning I
listened to experts and representatives of certain departments and
Canadian institutions appearing before the industry committee.
They seemed quite discouraged by the fact that the government was
reducing research and development budgets. In my view and in the
view of a number of people who know a little bit about economy
and a country's economic performance, research and development
is vital. It is something that must not be neglected.
We must always keep a keen eye on a government's obligations
regarding education, training, research, and assistance to
businesses so that we can operate more economically and be more
productive. All this concerns the production environment in a
capitalist system like the one in which we live.
People need training in order to be more effective. They need to
be healthier, better educated. There must be more applied research
that is more closely related to business needs. The purpose of all
this is to provide a better standard of living for Quebec and for
Canada.
This is, however, not what is happening. Since the Liberals have
been in power, there is more unemployment, more people on
welfare, things are going from bad to worse. Every day we have to
motivate people, to give them faith in the future. At the present
time, there is a little glimmer of hope, a minimal rate of growth.
Great attention must be given to everything related to research
and development, educational levels, health, products, pure
science, so that we can keep up with the growing international
competition in the market place.
There are some who think that international competition is
somewhat vulgar, bad capitalism, but it is nonetheless a reality. The
reality is that we have decided to open up markets with the United
States first, and then with Mexico. Now we are trying to open up
markets with Israel, a small country, but still this demonstrates the
desire to open up markets.
(1635)
The countries of Asia and the Pacific have the same desire to
open up markets in order to communicate, to do business together.
This seems to me to be a good thing for humanity. The greatest
opportunities to meet and to dialogue are always available in trade
and in business.
I have seen this in the few trips to Africa I have had the
opportunity to take. Several of our experts told us that trade was the
route by which we will manage to get to know each other and to do
business together. Not in the crass capitalist sense of the word, but
rather in the sense of having trade exchanges in which the interests
of all partners are served. And when people's interests are served,
they make an effort to understand each other and get along better,
so that gradually, we are better able to live together in peace and
harmony. We might have fewer wars and fewer conflicts if we are
more open to the world.
Since we know there is an advantage to being open to the world,
for the reasons I just mentioned, the Canadian government must
co-operate with business, universities, unions and everybody else,
whether we are talking about human, scientific or other research, to
help us draw on the resources we need to develop our own potential
and help others do that as well, whether we are talking about trade,
productivity, health care, education, or other sectors. This is all
very important.
The government must also be fair. So far, I can tell you the
government has not been fair in the way it distributes spending on
research and development and science and technology among the
provinces.
In 1989, I chaired a committee when I was with the previous
government in power. It produced a report. At the time, we noticed
that when officials of Statistics Canada evaluated how federal
spending on research and development and science and technology
was distributed, they always excluded the National Capital Region,
which greatly distorts the results.
For instance, if we ask Statistics Canada: ``Are your own
employees distributed equitably among the provinces?'', Statistics
Canada answers: ``Yes, we do a good job of distributing our staff''.
So I asked them in a committee in 1989, and this was quite
sometime ago: ``How are Statistics Canada employees distributed
across Canada''? They told me: ``They are very well distributed,
we have about 150 in Quebec, 185 in Ontario, about 85 in the West
and 40 or so in the Maritimes''. I said: ``How many employees do
you have together?'' I was told: ``We have around 4,500 or 5,000
6283
employees''. I said: ``Where are the others, I counted only around
700 or 800''? They told me: ``The others are in Ottawa''.
So there were around 3,500 or 4,000 in Ottawa and furthermore,
Ontario had 185, and Ottawa is in Ontario.
This is just an example. So when Statistics Canada provides
statistics, they are completely distorted because they exclude the
National Capital Region, which is concentrated mostly or at least
80 per cent in Ontario.
Imagine what that represents. I did a calculation, and with
unanimous consent, I shall if I may table this document in the
House for information purposes.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member is asking for the unanimous
consent of the House. Does the hon. member have the consent of
the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
(1640)
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, this shows that the
Liberals do not want to know the reality and the truth. It is that
simple. In any case, this has already been made public, but I still
wanted to table this document and ask the government if it could
enlighten me about the direction of the changes reflected in this
document-for the Liberals' information, I will get back to this
document later-and whether these changes were going in the right
or the wrong direction.
In 1989, I commissioned and participated in a study on science
and technology. Including the national capital region in the
statistics is no simple matter. There are some 75 research and
development programs in science and technology, and about 20
departments are involved. So for each department and program, we
had to calculate what the federal government spent in the national
capital region. This is important. It had been done before, but I had
never seen the figures, and I wanted to find out for myself. This
exercise showed us there is no equity.
In 1989, Ontario, including the national capital region, received
$1.9 billion for science and technology, compared to $724 million
for Quebec. This means that Ontario received $1.2 billion more per
year than Quebec in federal spending. Even though 36 per cent of
the population then lived in Ontario, while Quebec's share was 26
per cent, the difference was enormous.
The point I was trying to make earlier, to tie in with research and
development, is that there was a $700 million discrepancy in that
area, for a total of almost $2 billion per year in science and
technology, and research and development.
What this means is that Ontario was getting $2 billion more
every year. I am not saying this only for Ontario, but for all the
other Canadian provinces that are disadvantaged by this. A large
percentage of the $2 billion invested each year on science and
technology-given how many jobs for scientists and experts there
are in that area-is spent on salaries.
Let us take a look at the economic spinoffs in Ontario. First,
there are taxes paid on the products, houses and other goods
purchased in the province. You can imagine the magnitude. I am
strictly speaking in terms of science and technology, and research
and development. Two billion dollars generate substantial
economic spinoffs in a province.
That is precisely why, a few years ago, I had suggested that the
national capital region be considered a province in that respect and
that the federal government keep the taxes collected in the region.
It would have been fairer. But the government will hear nothing of
it, because this benefits Ontario greatly. The fact that Ontario has
always been richer than most Canadian provinces explains the
presence of the federal government in the national capital region,
where it spends tremendous amounts of money.
This is all explained in the document I wish I could have tabled,
so that government members could take a look at it, but I will find
another way to get it to them.
This goes to show that, when, in the speech from the throne, the
government claims to want to be fair and equitable, to encourage
harmony, to anticipate political uncertainty, it should start by being
fair and equitable to the provinces, including Quebec, until it
becomes sovereign.
My other point also concerns research and development, as I said
earlier. By the way, our leader is welcome to come and visit the
Tokamak facilities in Varennes next week. It is a nuclear fusion
research centre. The nuclear industry is a clean industry that can be
established within city limits; it really is tomorrow's source of
energy. The federal government has decided to withdraw from this
project.
(1645)
I invite you to visit the Tokamak project, in Varennes. It is an
extraordinarily modern facility that is the result of a partnership
involving Europe, Japan and the United States, and where research
is conducted on nuclear fusion, a form of energy for the future.
Electricity is produced with turbines, and power will come from
the fusion that generates the heat. It is thousands of times more
efficient than uranium and other sources of energy. This is not an
imaginary thing. It is said that this form of energy will be available
in 10 to 15 years.
6284
The materials created and developed through this research allow
companies from the Montreal region and elsewhere to build high
performance products that they would not otherwise be able to
make.
The chief executive officer of the company says that a large
number of products sold are the result of the research conducted at
Tokamak. This means that financial spin-offs for the federal
government are greater than the $7 million it is currently investing
in this program, but does not intend to reinvest next year.
I do not know how the federal government does its evaluations
but, by ending this annual investment of $7 million, it not only
jeopardizes the very important development of nuclear fusion, it
also loses potential revenues for itself. This is really a bad
calculation.
It is true that the $7 million invested in nuclear fusion research at
Tokamak came from the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. AECL
was competing against Ontario's oil and uranium industries. The
Minister of Natural Resources said the project was not one of her
priorities. I realize it is not one of her priorities because she must
first protect the oil and uranium industries, not this new form of
energy called nuclear energy.
The Minister of Industry should subsidize Tokamak, since he
does not have to protect other forms of energy. He is neutral in this
respect. The Minister of Industry should subsidize Tokamak. I am
making this request in all honesty; I am not playing politics. I
believe the federal government is making a fundamental mistake
by ceasing to invest a mere $7 million per year in the Tokamak
project. This is very important.
I would also like to talk about the whole issue of drugs. I
remember all our efforts to attract medical research investors. We
worked very hard. That was the first time I saw scientists travel to
Ottawa to demonstrate against the opposition. There was a
delegation of close to 200 scientists and researchers, primarily
from the Montreal area, who came to demonstrate in favour of the
government and against the opposition, which wanted to block
passage of Bill C-22 concerning drug research.
The Liberals were then in opposition and they vigorously
opposed the bill. We were calling for the protection of patents. We
wanted to give some protection to those doing drug research and
development so that they could justify their investments.
Mr. Trudeau had allowed drugs to be copied after five years.
Companies doing drug research were forced to go out of business.
Office buildings and research centres, particularly in the Montreal
area, had to close their doors.
(1650)
Hundreds of jobs were lost. Hundreds of millions of dollars left
the country, and the Conservatives of the time wanted to get them
back. Hundreds of millions of dollars came back into the country
to be invested once again in the Montreal area, because there are
many very competent people doing drug research there.
As recently as this morning, we learned that the Swedish
company Astra is going to invest in the Montreal area. This will be
the first time that this Swedish company has invested abroad, $300
million over a ten year period, for drug research.
Lately, we have learned to be very wary of the government. I
have met people who lobby in Ottawa. They are in favour of Bill
C-22 and C-91. They have doubts about the present Liberal
government, which intends to reduce the number of years during
which drugs are protected.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to join in the debate this afternoon on the
speech from the throne. The throne speech outlined many
initiatives which the government would carry forward this year and
into the future.
It reflected what has been said in the House on many occasions,
in statements by the Prime Minister and many ministers in the
House and elsewhere that the number one priority of the
government was, is and continues to be economic growth and jobs
for Canadians.
One of the most important initiatives in the speech from the
throne was to get government right, to continue to bring order to
our financial house and to meet or exceed our deficit reduction
targets, targets that the government has met or exceeded to date and
will continue for the balance of this year and for 1997 and 1998,
reaching a reduced deficit target of $9 billion in fiscal year
1998-99. This has resulted in the lowest interest rates we have seen
in the country for decades and at the same time a low rate of
inflation.
It has prompted an increase in small business and industry in
Canada which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of new jobs
being created. Getting the deficit on a downward trend toward a
balanced budget and our financial house in order is also the best
protection for our cherished social programs such as the national
medicare system and the protection of pensions for those
Canadians depending on this important made in Canada program.
Let me talk a bit about economic growth and the enthusiasm for
business, industry and the associated jobs with the same in my
constituency of Carleton-Charlotte.
(1655 )
Earlier this summer I had the pleasure of attending the official
opening of the new, expanded Sabian cymbal plant in the small
community of Meductic, New Brunswick. This new, enlarged and
modern facility means an additional 12 to 15 new jobs
immediately. As a result of these wonderful cymbal producers who
export throughout the world and are marketing what is proclaimed
to be
6285
the best or one of the best cymbal products known throughout the
world is something to take a lot of pride in.
Also earlier this past early summer McCain Foods in
Florenceville, New Brunswick announced the expansion of its data
processing centre to double its size, meaning another new 30 to 50
jobs. That is confidence when we see this happening.
In Centreville, New Brunswick, another small community in my
Carleton-Charlotte constituency, Canusa Foods announced and
began construction of a new potato processing plant, meaning
another 25 to 30 new jobs that were not there before.
In Woodstock, New Brunswick, Penn Papers is expanding its
processing manufacturing plant which certainly means many new
jobs.
Last week in the village of McAdam, New Brunswick I had the
opportunity to participate in the announcement that the former
railway station would be turned over to the community by the
Southern New Brunswick Railway Company and by the Irving
family. This is a very picturesque railway station and something of
which we can be proud as part of our Canadian heritage.
What does it mean to the village of McAdam and surrounding
area? It means that it is the focal point for the tourism industry, and
I might say year round tourism industry, the focal point for the
lakes, the beautiful eco-tourism industry of that whole surrounding
area.
Imagine, in a small community, over 800 people came out for the
official announcement. They had waited years for this to happen.
This did not just start yesterday. It started many years ago. I
certainly was delighted to be part of it. What does it mean? It
means new and additional jobs for that whole region.
Briggs and Little in York Mills, New Brunswick is a yarn
company which is famous across Canada. It will be opening its new
plant this month which produces woollen yarns that are used in
products across this country. It will see an additional 25, perhaps 30
jobs as a result of this opening. It is a new modern plant, with
modern machinery and modern technology to meet today's
demands.
(1700 )
Earlier this week, this very week, I had the opportunity to
participate in the official opening of Apocan Inc., an antimony
mine in the Lake George area of New Brunswick. Some 75 new
direct jobs have been created. The mushrooming effect of this
antimony mine will produce additional jobs in trucking and other
services throughout the community.
What is antimony? In the very early days it was used in the
mixture of medicines. Later it was used as a component in the
production of alloys. While it is still used to a small extent in those
areas today, one of its major purposes now is as a fire retardant. It is
used in many of our homes in such things as draperies, carpeting,
even in our clothing because of its fire resistant qualities.
The projections are that the use of this product will increase at a
rate of 8 per cent a year for each year in the foreseeable future.
Therefore I am optimistic that those 75 jobs announced this very
week will continue to expand to become 100, 150 or 200 jobs in
future years. They in turn will have the spin-off effect of creating
jobs in service industries to support them.
In St. Stephen the famous Ganong Brothers chocolate plant is
working at full capacity at the present time. It is working on its
Christmas production of those famous chocolates that are in
demand not only in Canada but in many parts of the world.
Connors Brothers which operates fish processing and packing
plants in Blacks Harbour, Back Bay and Seal Cove has certainly
seen increased production this year and the important jobs
associated with that.
Agriculture, the traditional fishery, aquaculture, forestry,
literally hundreds of small businesses and industries of all sizes are
working hard across Carleton-Charlotte, and indeed across New
Brunswick, in order to profit, expand and provide hundreds of new
jobs.
There are challenges with the new technologies and the changing
requirements of today. There is no question that much work still
has to be done, but these new technological requirements are being
met today and will continue to be met into the future. There are a
few examples which were just announced this week by Industry
Canada.
There is support for the community access sites. I can refer to
those in my constituency and others may want to talk about those in
their constituencies because this is good stuff. These are great
opportunities for our communities and our youngsters. New
technology, new opportunities to connect with the world
marketplace are at our doorstep.
Announcements were made for new community access sites in
St. Stephen, St. George, Fredericton Junction, Florenceville and
Hartland, New Brunswick. These announcements on this three year
program are in addition to the ones that were made last year for
community access opportunities in Juniper, Bath, Woodstock,
Harvey, Lawrence Station, Deer Island, Campobello Island and St.
Andrews.
(1705)
The program provides all of those communities and indeed all of
those rural areas with the tools to reach out to the markets and to
the information that is available around the world. That is what the
throne speech was about: equal access for all Canadians.
Regardless of whether they live on Prince Edward Island, in New
Brunswick, in the wonderful province of Quebec, on the west coast,
6286
in central Canada or in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, there
will be equal access and equal opportunity for all Canadians.
That is why leading economists and even the OECD have
projected that in 1997 Canada will lead all G-7 nations in economic
growth. Canada will lead all of the industrialized countries of the
world in economic growth. What does that mean for Canadians? It
means jobs. That is why we are excited about it. It will mean jobs
for all Canadians.
I see my colleague across the way from St. John's,
Newfoundland. She is excited because there will be an opportunity
for her constituents to get jobs. Jobs are needed in Atlantic Canada,
there is no question about it.
Yes, we have challenges and we will continue to have
challenges. But we will meet tomorrow's challenges as we have in
the past. We did not say it was going to be easy and that the
solutions would simply fall at our feet. It has been tough work.
On arriving here we faced a $42 billion deficit. The debt was
over $500 billion. There was a $6 billion deficit in the
unemployment insurance fund. It went on and on. When we opened
the books it was scary. Yes, there is still a way to go. There is no
question about it. But is it not great to see our deficit on a
downward trend? We can look forward to a balanced budget. That
is exciting stuff.
What is being said about Canadian exports? We know that team
Canada is planning another trip. Business and industry leaders, the
Prime Minister and the premiers will get together to travel overseas
to create more opportunities for Canadian business and industry.
That is being planned for early 1997. What does that mean to us as
Canadians? We are told that every $1 billion of export trade that is
garnered means 11,000 jobs for Canadians, either in new jobs or
existing jobs which will be protected. That is important.
Almost every day in the newspapers the leading economists
write that Canada will lead in economic growth in 1997. That is the
result of getting government right. That is the result of bringing
down the deficit. That is the result of having an acceptable inflation
rate. That is the result of good administration and hard work. It will
continue from this time onward until the next throne speech and
thereafter.
(1710)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte on his
speech. It is a very fine Liberal speech. He has listed for us the
things that are going well in his riding, and the things that are going
a bit better in Canada with respect to putting our finances in order
and reducing the deficit.
What struck me at the beginning of his speech was his reference
to three objectives in the throne speech: getting government right,
bringing order to our financial house, and reducing the deficit.
I wish to address the first point. I think he perhaps did not speak
much on it: getting government right. There is much talk of this, in
the newspapers, in books, in magazine articles. They all say the
state must change, must be defined differently.
Our Reform colleagues often tell us that we need less and less
government, that the state has no role in certain economic or social
areas. On the other hand, it ought to play a heavy role in
suppressing crime, and other such things.
The question I would like to ask my colleague is not a loaded
one. I would just like to know how much it can be claimed that the
Canadian government has re-examined the role of the state since
the Governor General's reading of the Throne Speech? Does this
mean less involvement in the economy, less involvement in social
measures? Does it mean government involvement in job creation?
Reference is often made to job creation, and sometimes the
impression is given that the government is boasting of having
created jobs. There is talk of 600,000 jobs, yet certain ministers
sometimes tell us that the government is no longer the one creating
jobs, it is business.
Having made these few comments, I wish to ask the following
question: How has the federal government met the objective it set
for itself in the throne speech to get government right? How has it
re-examined the role of government, and what are the differences
today between the federal government's concept of government
before the throne speech, and now, five or six months later?
[English]
Mr. Culbert: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from
the Bloc for his many questions. There were a number of them and
I will try to answer them in the order that he put them forward.
The member talked about rethinking government. As all
government members are well aware, since arriving in this place
we certainly have been rethinking government. We have been
looking at the size of all departments.
The first thing I recall being done upon arriving here was
reducing the number of staff members in ministers' offices. Many
offices in the junior portfolios had 50 to 60 staff members and the
senior portfolios had from 100 to 120 staff members. Those offices
are now working with 15 to 20 staff members. We are rethinking,
taking the challenge first.
6287
The hon. member will know that the budget of every member
of Parliament was frozen. Government members and opposition
members alike, we all shared in it because it was a burden and
we had to overcome it.
(1715 )
There have been a number of those initiatives to build a smaller
and more active oriented government that can provide services to
people.
This was done in balanced fashion. We protected those social
programs that I spoke about earlier and a number of others that we
and our constituents across Canada cherish in this country. We did
not cut and slash and say they would be gone tomorrow, as others
have suggested we do. We looked at their value and tried to make
the difficult changes in a very balanced fashion that would be
respected by all Canadians.
Industry, business and job growth were mentioned. I think all
members see that it is our responsibility to develop and take the
initiatives that will build the climate in which business and industry
in this country can expand and develop, thus creating the jobs that
are needed for Canadians, creating jobs in the new technologies
that we know are developing right here in the city of Ottawa. It is
happening right under our noses. We heard one of our colleagues
speak about it this morning.
It is also happening elsewhere in Canada in many small
communities. I spoke earlier about the importance of community
access so that rural communities would be on the same level as our
urban areas. Those are the important things.
I would like to give a quick example. Some of it has been tabled
in the House and some of it will be coming. We know in agriculture
and fisheries how important our inspections are to ensure that we
have the best product to export around the world. Whether it is in
agriculture, fisheries or whatever product we are producing it
seemed to put them under one umbrella, a new agency that will
have the expertise and the most modern technology to ensure that
our product is the number one quality in the world. Those are the
types of things that will help us to continue our growth in the export
trade and continue making Canada number one in the world.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I think seeing the member for Carleton-Charlotte sitting
there with his hon. colleague from Malpeque I would have to ask
one simple question about the Canadian Wheat Board.
Hearing the member talk about all the expertise in
communications that we have today, I am wondering why the
Canadian Wheat Board sold less grain than in the previous year.
Why, when there was a tremendous need in the U.S, did we sell half
a million tonnes less into that market? Now we have a record
carry-over in durum and also some feed grains.
It was very interesting to read in the papers recently what the
priorities of this Liberal government are. When a motion or a
resolution was brought forward to its policy convention supporting
the Canadian Wheat Board it was side tracked by a motion to
legalize the production of hemp. One of the reporters said:
``Instead of supporting the wheat board we can now legally smoke
a rope''. I am wondering if that is supposed to soothe the nerves of
western farmers, with Liberal philosophy of that sort, so that we
can sit quietly at the end of the field and more or less smoke a
couple of ropes and not realize that our grain is still in the bins
instead of being sold. I wonder how the hon. member would
respond to that.
Mr. Culbert: Madam Speaker, I will try to be as brief as
possible. I thank my hon. colleague from the Reform Party for his
question.
I recall in all the east coast literature I have read over many years
and all of the programs I have seen on television that people around
the world have exclaimed time and time again what a wonderful
organization the Canadian Wheat Board must be because it
continues to bring revenue for western farmers in Canada.
(1720)
It has, time and time again, shown that it could bring more
revenue than those selling on an independent basis in many other
countries, many other wheat producers around the world.
Yes, there are problems. The hon. minister, time and time again,
has alluded to those problems and is looking at ways to make it
better. It has a wonderful history. I am glad to see it is going to
continue to expand and prosper for all farmers in western Canada in
the future.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to join the debate today. I am a little surprised that we are
continuing only on the fifth day of debate on the speech from the
throne, considering it is nine months since the speech was given.
Perhaps it speaks volumes about the worth of the words in the
speech from the throne and the integrity of the government in
implementing some of those ideas.
I listened with considerable amusement to the former speaker
because it was such a typical Liberal speech. The Liberals, in the
last three years since I have been here, truly have been masters of
governing by illusion and creating an illusion of doing great things
when the facts do not bear those things out.
Truly, what could we expect from a party whose leader has an
imaginary friend he talks to on the street corner and has imaginary
ethical guidelines that his ministers go by? It would only stand to
reason that we would have an imaginary report card on the
performance of this government giving it an honours score when,
in reality, the facts do not bear it out in any way.
6288
I would like to go through some of the facts and statistics that
would paint a somewhat different picture than what I have heard
coming from the members of the Liberal Party.
The speech from the throne, as a previous speaker indicated,
kind of took a three pronged approach in its direction. Its objective
was ``to provide security for Canadians, to provide unity for
Canadians and to provide jobs for Canadians''. I believe that was
the expression we heard.
When we look at the facts, in spite of the rose coloured glasses
that some members wear, they do not bear that out. When we look
at the security for Canadians, this government over the last three
years has cut social spending transfers to the provinces by some $7
billion. It has cut funding for health care, for education and has
enforced the closure of hospitals. There are many things people do
not hear it talk about.
It has cut substantially the benefits to seniors since coming to
office in spite of the rhetoric we hear about protecting seniors'
benefits and all the rest of it. There has been one segment, however,
that it has provided substantial security for to show where its
priorities are. Of course, that is in the security of the MP pension
plan, looking after its members' own security on retirement. I do
not hear a lot of them bragging about that when they are proposing
to cut security for other seniors in this country.
When we look at the promise to create unity for Canadians, the
statistics do not bear out that there has been much progress on this
front as well. Only a year ago we came within half a percentage
point of losing the referendum and having this country split apart.
I did not see much progress being made up to that point and
certainly not much since. The only reaction before going back to
sleep on the whole issue was the proposal to drag up the distinct
society clause for Quebec which even the party representing
Quebec in this House and most Canadians rejected soundly in the
Charlottetown accord many years ago. I do not see that there has
been substantial progress on that.
(1725)
The third prong of the speech from the throne was dealing with
jobs for Canadians. Perhaps this is one of the most dismal areas in
spite of the illusion that the previous speaker tried to create of this
wealth of jobs being created for Canadians.
The fact remains that personal and business bankruptcies are at
an all time record high in this country. In spite of presumably
coming out of the recession that the North American economy was
in and having some of the lowest interest rates since the 1960s, our
unemployment rate still hovers on one side or the other of 10 per
cent, in spite of the fact that across the border to the south
unemployment rates are only half the rate they are in Canada. I do
not see a lot to brag about when we talk about job creation.
Looking a little further at what has been going on in Canada over
the last 30 years it is hardly any wonder that conditions in Canada
led to the creation of the Reform Party and some of the ideas the
Reform brought to this House and promotes in Canada. In spite of
all the bragging and illusion created Canadians today, after three
years of Liberal government, are unquestionably worse off than
they were three years ago. There is no arguing that.
The income of an average family of four has dropped by $3,000
since 1993. People are working harder and harder just to try to
maintain a standard of living. Two out of three two-parent families
have two or more jobs; 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed and
continue to be unemployed; 2 million to 3 million Canadians are
underemployed and one in four Canadians are worried sick about
losing their jobs and not being able to provide for their families.
Canadians truly have taken a national pay cut. For a family of
four the pay cut has been some $3,000 over the last three years. The
Liberals at the end of their mandate will be collecting some $26
billion more in taxes than they were when they came to office in
1993. This government, which says everything is so wonderful and
rosy, the economy is booming, jobs are being created, has added
$111 billion more to the national debt, forcing it up to the $600
billion mark; truly not a very good track record.
Looking at the last 25 or 30 years in this country, in 1972 when
Pierre Trudeau came to power only 553,000 Canadians were
unemployed. When his government was defeated in 1984, 1.45
million Canadians were unemployed.
Then the Tories took over and were going to turn things around.
They talked about a job for every Canadian who wants to work. By
the time they left in 1993, 1.65 million Canadians were out of
work. Certainly in 1993, in spite of the red book promise of jobs,
jobs, jobs, there remains in Canada today 1.5 million Canadians out
of work.
The Prime Minister is trying to tell Canadians that somewhere
around that level of unemployment is acceptable, that it cannot be
brought down lower. We know what happened to former Prime
Minister Kim Campbell when she made that remark.
Certainly we have heard a lot of bragging today about balanced
budgets. A number of previous speakers talked about achieving a
balanced budget somewhere in the year 1998-99, getting the deficit
down to $9 billion and then assuming at that point that the budget
was balanced. I submit that only in a place like this would anyone
presume that a $9 billion or $10 billion deficit is in fact a balanced
6289
budget. Certainly in the real world I do not think that could be
considered a reality.
(1730)
Between 1972 and 1984 the Liberals increased the national debt
from $17.2 billion to $199 billion, a staggering 1,057 per cent
increase. In 1984 the Tories promised to put a stop to the increase
in the debt. Instead they increased it from $199 billion to $508.2
billion in only nine years.
Then of course the current government has added another $111.5
billion, bringing the debt to the $600 billion mark. It is not a record
about which most governments would have the audacity to brag, I
am sure.
The illusion is not one that most Canadians will long believe. I
firmly believe that Canadians are demanding an end to this
political rhetoric, this campaign platform that makes all kinds of
promises that the government has no intention of living up to.
Canadians are demanding some integrity in government, some
honesty in election platforms and they are demanding a fresh
approach to government, a basic restructuring of government, a
basic downsizing of government.
I spent last week travelling in western and central Canada with
the natural resources standing committee which is holding hearings
on rural economic renewal. In spite of real prompting from the
members of the Liberal Party on the committee to try to initiate
some response in favour of another infrastructure program or
subsidies to provide incentives to small business, witness after
witness said: ``We don't need more hockey rinks and canoe
museums and the like. What we need is government to get off our
backs, get out of our pockets, give us a chance to make a dollar,
succeed in our businesses and be successful''.
That is a story we heard over and over again. I very much look
forward to the day when we write the report on the committee and
put into print what supposedly we heard on the tour.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Could the hon.
member please indicate to me if he is sharing his time with another
colleague?
Mr. Chatters: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with
my colleague from Surrey North.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That should
have been indicated at the beginning of your speech. You are two
minutes over your time. I will give you 30 seconds to wind up your
speech.
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, I did not realize that the time
had expired. I apologize for that.
The government has maintained the degree of popularity that it
has over the last number of years through illusion and political
rhetoric that really is very shallow. I am sure that Canadians, come
the next election, will see through the rhetoric and the illusion and
take a dim view of the record of the government.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I just have a couple of comments to make.
The hon. member of the Reform Party was talking about jobs. He
was criticizing the government for not creating enough jobs. I think
the member's credibility is lacking very seriously.
Reform Party members have been in Parliament now for three
years. For almost three years the word jobs never crossed their lips,
never crossed their minds. Did we hear a word about jobs from the
Reform Party in 1994? Not a word. Did we hear about jobs from the
Reform Party in 1995? Not a word. It was not until this past
summer that Reformers discovered the word jobs in the Reform
Party vocabulary. Somebody put it there. I suspect what happened
was that they read a survey or two or a poll and they discovered that
Canadians are actually preoccupied with the issue of jobs. This is
the party that talks about its members speaking to its constituents.
(1735)
It took Reformers three years to discover the word jobs in their
vocabulary. Where have they been for three years? Talk about a
fresh start. That is the kind of fresh start we get from the Reform
Party. It discovers that Canadians are actually concerned about
jobs.
While they were somewhere in the wilderness, somewhere in the
bush, not realizing that Canadians do have a concern about jobs, the
government has been doing something. Since the government came
to office, well over 600,000 jobs have been created.
One more thing. Now that Reformers have discovered that
Canadians have a concern about jobs, what does the Reform Party
propose as a response to that? It proposes a tax cut, right across the
board. Do Reformers ever learn anything?
What did Ronald Reagan do in the United States when he came
to power in the beginning of the 1980s? Across the board tax cuts.
What happened? The deficit went right through the roof. The
United States went from being the greatest creditor nation in 1980
to being the greatest debtor nation in the world in 1988. That is
what Ronald Reagan did. The Americans suddenly realized that
this trickle down theory of economics does not work.
But here is the Reform Party, true to its dinosaur heritage: ``Yep,
that's what we're proposing, across the board tax cuts''. It did not
work in the States and it will not work here in this country.
Canadians do not believe in it and it will never work. That is why
this member and all the members of the Reform Party have
absolutely no credibility.
6290
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, I can only assume that what
I am hearing from across the floor is political rhetoric. I assume
the member opposite is an intelligent individual and can certainly
read our fresh start platform and our platform of the last four or
five years. Job creation has been an integral part of that platform
from day one.
I do not expect him to believe or to support our platform, which
is perfectly reasonable. Since he is a Liberal and I am a Reformer
we take quite a different strategy in dealing with job creation. We
believe that jobs can be created by the private sector, by getting
government out of Canadians' pockets and off their backs, by
giving Canadians back some of the 60 per cent of their wages that
governments take away from them with the view that it is smarter
than the individual and that it can spend it more wisely.
I heard the comment awhile back that they believed the primary
purpose of government was the redistribution of wealth. I am only
assuming that is rhetoric and positioning. I think the member
knows better.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate today on the throne
speech. I will direct my remarks to the family.
The throne speech was in February. I wondered if the
government was going to take the opportunity, as is traditional, to
utilize the throne speech to tell us what it intended to do to meet the
needs and wants of Canadians. I am glad to see we are now
debating it again so we can pursue that.
(1740 )
One of the areas in which Canadians want change is in the area
of families and how governments treat families. Of course, work
and the resulting income is an essential component for the
establishment of a healthy family unit, yet the government and
those which preceded it over the last 20 or so years have
implemented social and economic policies and continue to enhance
those policies which result in undermining the security of Canadian
families. That contributes to the levels of stress, burnout and
financial hardships which many Canadians face today. The policies
of the last 20 odd years have created the situation in which we find
ourselves today.
For example, one in four Canadians are worried about losing
their job. Another two million to three million Canadians are
underemployed. They are unable to find work in the area for which
they trained. There are approximately 1.4 million Canadians who
are on the unemployed list. That was the number in 1993 I believe.
That number has not changed.
Not much of an inroad has been made into job creation. If
inroads have been made, then other jobs have disappeared, because
the figures are still hovering around 1.4 million. We all know that
puts extra strain on people's lives and on their families. If we do
not have a sense of job security we are left in limbo. We begin to
wonder what kind of a future we will have.
Canadians are worried about making ends meet. Often two
incomes are necessary. Often, despite the two incomes, we do not
get enough time to spend with our families and raise our children.
About 25 years ago one income seemed to cover the bills and there
was some room to spare. Now, for many families, it takes two
incomes to run the family.
When we consider that the tax freedom day falls in June, it is
easy to see where that second income has to go. One income goes
to the household and the other goes to government in some form or
another, be it in taxes, user fees or a licence for this or that. It seems
that the government wants both parents to have to work. It wants
families to need two incomes to survive.
In a recent letter the Minister of Finance said he is opposed to
changes in the day care tax deduction because levelling the playing
field would be a disincentive for both parents to work. The day care
tax deduction should not apply to those parents who work, it should
be directed toward the children. It is a day care service for children,
so it really should not matter if the parents work. If they have
children, they should be entitled to it.
The priority of members of the Reform Party is the family. The
best words to illustrate that goal are the words of the leader of our
caucus, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, who said:
``Because of social and economic changes, many families are
facing high debt, stress, bankruptcy and burnout. A Reform
government will recognize the value of families as the most
important building block in our society, so you can spend less time
under pressure and more time with those that you care about
most''.
We are committed to Canadians and to the family. We want to
make the family a priority and ensure that government regulations
and policies are definitely family friendly.
Where do you start? One place to start is to extend the $3,000 to
$5,000 child care deduction to all parents, not just to those who are
working.
We could also increase the spousal deduction from $5,380 to
$7,900, levelling the field for parents who choose to stay at home
to look after their young children. Of course, that would help
families to meet the needs of the more demanding economy.
(1745 )
Family time or family life is not a luxury. If families are to
preserve health and happiness in a home it is not a luxury, it is a
necessity. They need the time to spend building that core structure.
It is time to make families a priority once again in our Canadian
lifestyle.
6291
The Reform Party believes that parenting has real value and if
there is anything this whole House can agree on it is that children
are the key to the future of countries around the world.
We must give parents greater freedom to spend time parenting
and to succeed economically while they shape the lives of their
children. Some ways we feel that can be done is to increase the
child deduction to parents to $5,000 for every preschool child;
$3,000 for every child age 7 to 12 years old. All this is in the fresh
start program. We have to start somewhere and these are some of
the targets we are looking at which will definitely assist the family
situation.
To make it as fair as possible to all families with regard to
income level, we will turn the deduction into a tax credit. That
method will allow everyone to save.
My critic area is in aboriginal affairs. Consequently, I have spent
a fair amount of time looking at that aspect of our country. One
thing that comes forward there is family violence. It is not just in
that group. It does not matter who we talk to in the country, it
seems to be at all levels of society. It does not matter if it is in the
north or in the south. I certainly believe that family violence,
spousal and child abuse, has to addressed and there have to be some
guidelines put out there. We have to identify the playing field.
This is one thing Reform would like to do. Instead of looking
solely at the intent of the action, we would like to focus on the
action itself. Assault is not something Canadians choose to have in
society. We want to get more firm with people who assault, assault
of any kind. However, this predominantly occurs in family circles,
which we are not able to address because there tends to be a
reluctance to identify the situation. Therefore many people live in
these abusive situations who do not wish to come forward. We
should create a situation that would encourage them to come
forward.
Another thing is that when there actually is a situation of abuse
and someone has been charged, in looking at the counselling
aspect, the aboriginal community is trying to tell us that there is
more than one way of getting to the bottom line. I really feel we
should be looking at different methods and address the one which is
most suitable to achieving the bottom line.
If a person wishes to read and understand the English language
as written in Reform's fresh start, from the family point of view
which I am addressing today our main concern is to leave more
money in the hands of parents to allow them to build that home and
the structure in which to raise their children, cloth, feed and
educate them, and give them the choice as to how they wish to
pursue that.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciated the remarks of the member for Surrey North
with respect to wanting to improve the lives of families in
Canadian society, possibly by tax means and other instruments.
I would like to point out to her this is a sentiment that is shared
broadly in the House. Two nights ago there was a motion presented
to the House by the member for Mississauga South, a government
member, which proposed that the government introduce a caregiver
tax, particularly for families with young children and families of
the disabled. That motion was supported on all sides of the House.
(1750 )
I think I can assure the member for Surrey North that the desire
to give better opportunities to the traditional nuclear family is a
concept that is shared by all members of this House, not just the
Reform Party. I think we can look forward in the coming year to
some significant steps on the part of the government in that regard.
I think certainly most members on the government benches would
support it in every way.
I would like to take the member just briefly down another road if
she would not mind. One of the points made in the speech from the
throne was there would be a modernization of the federal labour
code which applies to federally regulated industries.
Just this past week a bill was presented to the House containing
the proposals of the labour minister in this regard. I would like to
draw the attention of the member for Surrey North to a couple of
provisions in the proposals put forward by the government in this
new legislation. One of the provisions pertains to replacement
workers.
In Quebec there has been a ban on replacement workers during
labour stoppages since I think 1977. In Ontario legislation was
brought forward by the New Democratic Party banning
replacement workers in 1993. This legislation was since overturned
by the current Conservative government. We find this Liberal
government bringing down legislation that is in between these two
extremes. What it proposes basically is that replacement workers
continue to be an option of a company facing a strike or a work
stoppage but that company is not allowed to use those replacement
workers to break the union. I think this addresses the problem that
exists with several very nasty strikes that exist in Quebec. It seems
to me that this is a very positive compromise on the part of the
Government of Canada.
I also point out that the labour code proposals also suggest that
following work stoppage, those who have been out of work and
faced with replacement workers are entitled to return to their jobs.
Again the government in its wisdom has made provisions for
workers who have legitimately sought to pressure a company by
the means of a legal strike but not to be unfairly penalized at the
conclusion of that work stoppage.
6292
I hope the member for Surrey North can reply to these three
initiatives. The third and final point, which I thought was very
progressive on the part of the government in introducing these
amendments to the labour code, is that it is proposed that when
it comes to the grain handling industry, only those unions that
actually handle the grain should continue to have the right to stop
the shipment of grain. In other words, peripheral unions will no
longer be permitted to hold the country at ransom by the stoppage
of shipments of grain.
These are three very positive initiatives that spin directly out of
the speech from the throne. I could find the page in the speech from
the throne for the member. I think these are very fine initiatives and
I would like to hear the member comment on these three initiatives.
Does she support them or reject them?
Ms. Bridgman: Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that when I
address my remarks to family how it suddenly got into silos and
grain, but here we are.
I think at the heart of what I want to say here is that the policies
of this government and preceding governments over the last 30
years miss the point. We tried them but they are not working. It
does not matter what we are looking at, replacement workers or
whatever.
Basically what we are doing here is taking a policy and
band-aiding it. My background is health and I feel we are
addressing a symptom. We are not actually looking at the cause and
treating the cause to resolve the problem or the disease.
The negotiating process where we have the type of thing that is
being suggested by the government of bringing in these workers
when a strike is threatening was not the original intent of the
negotiating process.
(1755)
The negotiating process initially was to give the employee, when
things were perceived to be wrong by the employee, some clout to
negotiate and bargain to get them right.
We have let that go to the nth degree. It is not working-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We are now
resuming debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to speak today in the debate on the Throne speech.
[English]
The speech from the throne was delivered on February 27, 1996,
approximately two years and four months into the government's
mandate. It was an opportunity for the government to confirm its
priorities, namely jobs and growth, and to continue on that agenda.
At that point over half a million net jobs had been created. Now we
are at over 620,000 net jobs created.
The speech from the throne went on to deal with three priority
themes: the jobs and growth agenda, the security for Canadians,
and the modernization of the federation to ensure national unity.
The area where I would like to concentrate my remarks is national
unity.
When we speak of national unity, invariably we end up speaking
of the Quebec situation. Canadians are aware that national unity is
a much broader question than simply the wants and desires of the
province of Quebec.
We end up concentrating a lot of our effort and time dealing with
the Quebec question because the separatist governments in that
province have twice called referendums under provincial
legislation dealing with the question of the separation of Quebec
from the Canadian federation.
Going back prior to the speech from the throne and the time just
before the last referendum, Canadians will recall that in the week
before the referendum the Prime Minister became very active in
the campaign.
Until then the Prime Minister had been a member of the no
committee, constituted under the Quebec legislation. There were
other members of the committee, federal ministers, the leader of
the federal Conservative Party, the leader of the Liberal opposition
in Quebec, et cetera.
The strategy that was arrived at was that the Prime Minister
would make certain timely interventions in the campaign. As the
campaign wore on it became evident from the polling that there
was difficulty, that the result was going to be much closer than
polls indicated earlier.
The Prime Minister became much more involved. He made
certain commitments to the people of Quebec dealing mainly with
the recognition of Quebec's distinctness, the question of regional
vetoes and the issue of job training. It had been a traditional
Quebec demand that job training be turned over to the provinces so
that they would have more jurisdiction in that field. The Prime
Minister made those commitments.
In December 1995 the House of Commons passed the motion on
distinct society, passed the bill dealing with regional vetoes and in
the course of its employment insurance reforms it has been dealing
with the job training issue.
As far as the federal government and the Prime Minister's being
able to honour those commitments without the participation of the
provinces, they have done so.
6293
(1800 )
The government has also indicated and continues to indicate its
willingness to entrench the recognition of Quebec's differences in
the Constitution as well as the regional vetoes. Of course, that
cannot be done unilaterally by the federal government and requires
the participation of the provinces in accordance with the amending
formula of the Constitution which requires seven provinces
representing at least 50 per cent of the population.
The speech from the throne sets out what the government's plan
on national unity is. Basically it is a plan of reconciliation, to
reconcile all of the concerns of all of the provinces and all of the
regions of Canada and to modernize the federation to take those
concerns into account.
Much progress has been made with respect to the modernization
of the federation. At the first ministers conference in June, steps
were initiated and negotiations were undertaken. At the premiers
conference in August, there was a resolution passed and agreement
arrived at by the premiers that they would work with the federal
government in its efforts to try to make arrangements so that the
jurisdictions between the provinces and the federal government
could be worked out to the satisfaction of all parties.
The federal government has acknowledged that there are certain
areas where definitely there should be more provincial
involvement. I have made reference already to the job training
areas. Another area is the administration of social housing. There
are also the forestry and mining sectors. Measures have been taken
in the Fisheries Act to allow for the delegation to the interested
provinces of responsibilities for management of freshwater
fisheries habitats.
Later this month there will be more meetings in the field of the
environment. The provincial ministers of the environment will be
meeting with the federal Minister of the Environment to try to
negotiate the terms of subagreements on environmental assessment
to eliminate duplication and the mixed jurisdictions in those areas.
As well, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the
Minister of Health are negotiating with their provincial colleagues.
They are trying to come to arrangements where perhaps the
provinces would have more say in certain areas of jurisdiction and
maybe certain other areas of jurisdiction would be turned over to
the federal government or their role would be heightened in the
appropriate cases.
On the question of future referendums the speech from the
throne also indicated the following: ``As long as the prospect of
another Quebec referendum exists, the government will exercise its
responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the
facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the
consequences are clear and that Canadians, no matter where they
live, will have their say in the future of their country''.
That commitment is in the speech from the throne. The
government has acted upon it with the intervention in the Bertrand
case when the Quebec provincial government was saying that the
rule of law had nothing to do with the right to self-determination,
and also with the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Inevitably, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, we end
up speaking of Quebec when we speak about national unity, even
though many of the other provinces share many of the same
concerns that Quebec has with the operation of the federation and
the need for its modernization.
Canada today is not the same place it was in 1867. Much has
changed and obviously there is a need to modernize the workings
of the various levels of government. We come back to the Prime
Minister's commitment on the question of recognizing Quebec's
distinctiveness.
(1805 )
In today's debate I heard one of the members from the Reform
Party mention Charlottetown and that the concept of a distinct
society was rejected when Charlottetown was rejected and that the
people had their say. There were so many things in the
Charlottetown accord. No one can say with any degree of certainty
which of the components of the accord people were voting against
when they voted no. If they were voting yes, they had to agree with
every component. It was a flawed process and I think we have
learned our lesson.
The Prime Minister has indicated on several occasions in this
House that his strategy is to deal with these issues separately one at
a time so we will know exactly what the acceptance of a particular
concept is. It is not correct to say that the people of Canada rejected
the distinct society because it was one of the components of the
Charlottetown accord.
The polls tell us that 60 to 65 per cent of Quebecers feel an
attachment toward Canada and want to see the difficulties that are
being expressed by many of the provinces and not just Quebec
resolved within the Canadian context. We need to determine why
then did we have a referendum result with 49 per cent voting yes?
Was the question reasonable and fair? Did the people understand it
precisely?
I think it was more than that. There has to be some other
explanation as to why, if only 30 to 35 per cent of people are
committed to separating, as high as 49 per cent would vote yes. We
need to look at that and determine the reason for that and for those
of us who want to see the country stay together, what we can do to
deal with that.
6294
That is where we come back to the question of the recognition
of Quebec, its difference by reason of its French language, its
French culture and its French institutions. Those are the facts.
Quebec is the only province in Canada that has a predominantly
French speaking population, a predominantly French culture. It
has le droit civil. It is one of two jurisdictions in North America
that has le droit civil legal system as opposed to the common law
system. There is an indisputable difference I would submit and
we need to deal with that. A recognition of that difference needs
to be entrenched in the Constitution.
People may have noticed that I am not using the term distinct
society. When that concept is discussed there is a fear in the
provinces other than Quebec that it means there is going to be some
advantage, right, power or privilege given to Quebec that the other
provinces will not enjoy. That certainly is not what is being
proposed by this government. This government is simply
proposing a recognition of Quebec's difference by reason of its
French language, culture and institutions without granting to it any
further rights, powers or privileges.
That begs the question: Of what value is it? Is it simply
symbolic? It is not going to fill the bill. It is not going to address
the concerns of the Quebec people who are looking for some reason
to remain in Canada. I submit it is more than symbolic because it
would entrench in the Constitution the existing constitutional
convention.
Mr. Justice Brian Dickson, the retired chief justice of the
Supreme Court of Canada, recently published an article in the
Globe and Mail. It indicated that presently the Supreme Court of
Canada in interpreting grey areas of the Constitution takes into
account Quebec's difference by reason of its French language,
culture and institutions.
(1810 )
We would be guaranteeing what is existing now. On the one hand
we would have something substantial which Quebecers could feel
secure about. On the other hand we would not be granting any
rights, powers or privileges that the other provinces do not now
enjoy. In other words, there would be no preference given.
There is certainly room for that type of discussion, not by our
friends in the Bloc Quebecois and members of the PQ government
in Quebec because they want a separate country. Offering them any
form of guarantee or recognition in the way the Constitution is
interpreted today will not be of any benefit to them because it will
not lead to separation.
We have to address the other 60 to 65 per cent of Quebecers who
are looking for that. It is also a way for Canadians outside Quebec
to express to their fellow Canadians in Quebec that they are
prepared to assist in the preservation of the French language,
culture and institutions which are prevalent in Quebec. It is a way
to support them and to alleviate their insecurity.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has said that if
Quebec is the only predominantly French speaking province or
jurisdiction in Canada and in North America, it creates a natural
insecurity and a legitimate concern with respect to the preservation
of the French language, culture and institutions. If we Canadians
outside Quebec can show that we are prepared to support them in
that preservation, it would have an influence on their desire to
remain a part of this country.
As part of my duties for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs I have travelled to different regions of Canada. I was in
three of the four maritime provinces this past summer. I have been
to British Columbia and Alberta. I have spoken with people who
have formed Canadian unity groups, Canadian citizens who are
concerned about Canadian unity. They have expressed frustration
at not being able to do anything about the preservation of unity in
Canada. They have come together in an effort to become involved
in the process.
When I speak to them in the terms I have just outlined, I get very
little opposition to the concept of recognizing Quebec's differences
by reason of its French language, culture and institutions when it is
presented to them in a way that gives them some assurance that it
will not lead to any additional rights, powers or privileges. Once
the term distinct society is put into the equation however, then there
is all of the baggage that comes from the constitutional wrangling
of the previous government with the Meech Lake and
Charlottetown accords.
There is a way to develop that support and to act on it. The
government is on the right track. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs has spoken to most of his provincial
counterparts. In certain provinces he gets a warmer reception than
in others. However, we must continue to work on it.
(1815 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I noted
that the member focused on unity or disunity or the lack of unity or
the concern about unity but very little on how to build unity in the
country.
I was particularly intrigued by one comment. I am talking about
the courts of this land for which we have respect and high regard
for their impartiality and the quality of the judgments they render
based on the law. The law of this land is important and it is the
responsibility of the courts to uphold the law as Parliament sets it
out in the statutes for them to apply. Of course, there is a great deal
of independence between this House and the courts to ensure that
they are totally impartial and unbiased and not influenced by the
House or by anyone else for that matter.
6295
The member made reference to the fact that the courts seem
to take into consideration the political perceptions of the different
culture in Quebec, the language and so on, compared to the rest
of the country.
I wonder if he was suggesting that the courts are becoming
politically aware, if I can use that phrase. I hope not, but I thought
that is what he was alluding to.
I happen to have a little quote here, a supreme court ruling in the
province of Alberta, where I am from. It was a rather eloquent
judgment that went on for some considerable length by Mr. Justice
John McClung in a ruling in 1996 in the Alberta Court of Appeal in
the case of Vriend et al v. Alberta.
He said: ``None of our precious and historic legislative
safeguards are in play when judges choose to privateer in
parliamentary sea lanes''. I thought that was a wonderful quote that
says that the courts are apart, separate and must protect their own
integrity and impartiality. If they want to privateer in the sea lanes
of politics, we should all be serious concerned.
Would the hon. member please confirm to me and to the
members of the House that he was not suggesting that the courts
would take politics into consideration or anything into
consideration other than the law which they are asked to interpret.
Or did I misinterpret what he was trying to say?
Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I agree with the proposition
that the hon. member has put forth that the courts should not
become involved in politics. We need to maintain the separation
between the judiciary and the political procedures in the country.
I was quoting an article by Mr. Justice Brian Dickson, retired
chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He was not talking
about politics. He was talking about when the Supreme Court of
Canada is called on to interpret grey areas of the Constitution; in
other words, areas where the jurisdictions are not clearly aligned.
The convention now is that the Supreme Court of Canada in
those grey areas takes into account the fact, not a political policy,
that Quebec is the only jurisdiction in Canada which has a
predominantly French speaking population. There are French
speaking people in all other regions but they are not the majority.
Therefore in Quebec they are different by reason of the first
language of use, by reason of their culture because they are of
French origin and have a different culture than the multiplicity of
cultures we have in Canada and because their legal system is the
Napoleonic code, le droit civil, which is an entirely different legal
system which therefore leads to different institutions in that
province.
He is not playing politics. He is saying that the Supreme Court of
Canada takes those actual facts into consideration when it needs to
interpret areas that are not black and white in the Canadian
Constitution.
(1820 )
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Simcoe North for his remarks
which I appreciated very much.
I would like his response to a point about distinct society. There
are about 600,000 Francophones who live in Ontario plus many
thousands who live in New Brunswick and other parts of the
country. My thoughts with respect to affirming that Quebec has
distinct society status are that it would not only protect the cultural
traditions of Quebec but it would also be a guarantee to
Francophones elsewhere in the country that this national
government will defend their interests, their language and their
culture.
Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, that is the case with the
government's policies on official bilingualism and that is being
done by the government at the present time. The French speaking
minorities in the other provinces are protected where the demand is
sufficient and they can obtain the services they need in the French
language.
However, that is a different issue from recognizing that Quebec
as a province has a majority of French speaking people; whereas in
the other regions the member referred to, the French speaking
people are the minority or perhaps in the case of New Brunswick it
is almost a 50-50 split. In the other provinces, save New
Brunswick, French speaking people are in the minority.
It is the recognition that Quebec is predominantly French
speaking, although it has many other people from various
backgrounds, that we are talking about. It is about recognizing that
fact and the consequences of its culture and its institutions as well.
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I am still intrigued by the
question I asked. I am not sure I got a satisfactory answer. The hon.
member quoted a retired chief justice, an eminent person.
I am still trying to get clear in my mind these facts he kept
referring to. The courts are to apply the law and the law is quite
specific. It is written down quite clearly. The law is the basis on
which judgments are rendered by the courts. I get this uneasy
feeling that he is suggesting the courts take facts, whatever facts
may be or however one interprets facts, into consideration in
rendering their judgments. Could he make it crystal clear?
I am not aware of any law on our books today that says one
province is different from another. Yet the law of the land is what
the courts are supposed to apply. Could he be crystal clear and tell
me on what basis extraneous facts can be introduced by courts in
rendering their decisions?
Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I guess we are going to beat this
horse to death. It is simple. There are grey areas in the Constitution.
The member says the law is clear. Well, it is not. There are many
areas. The Constitution does not cover every possibility. There are
6296
unclear areas which the court has to interpret. I am not saying it.
Mr. Justice Dickson is saying the court takes into account the
difference that Quebec has by reason of its French language,
culture and institutions. That is what we are trying to get to make
that a law. It is not a law now. It is a constitutional convention. We
are saying let us entrench it into the Constitution. It should be of
some comfort to some Quebecers and it is not taking anything away
from the other provinces because it is what is happening now.
(1825)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I will now
recognize the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.
The hon. member may start on the first five minutes of his speech.
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Just the truth, just the truth.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): You will hear the truth now.
[Translation]
First of all, I would like to say that I only have three or four
minutes left until the end of this sitting. I will resume speaking on
the next day of debate on the Throne speech. I do not have time to
get into the main part of my speech, which was supposed to be
about the government's record on dealing with the disabled, but I
will get back to this later on.
For the time being, I will merely refer to some statements by my
colleague from Simcoe North who, I think, is a reasonable man
who is usually able to make a fairly correct assessment of a
political situation, but when he talks about the situation in Quebec,
I should remind him of certain facts, just to fine tune the facts he
already has. He said, if I am not mistaken, that about 65 per cent
want a new and improved Canadian federation, that is,
improvements within the Canadian system.
I do not know to which poll he is referring but, depending on the
questions asked, you can get the results you want. It is like the
Prime Minister, who at his convention about two weeks ago gave
himself a score of 78 per cent when referring to his government's
achievements. If we dig a little further, we get far different results.
I just want to take one poll as an example, since my colleague
from Simcoe North was referring to polls to support his own figure
of 65 per cent. A poll published today in the daily papers found that
the level of satisfaction with the Prime Minister and the
government has been dropping since the beginning of the summer.
It now seems that 35 per cent of Canadians support the leader of the
government, the Prime Minister, while in April this was 39 per cent
and a few months ago it was 44 per cent.
We see there has been a major drop in the level of satisfaction,
which is a strong indication, before an election, of the kind of
support a government would get if there was an election tomorrow
morning.
So figures can be made to say what we want them to say. The fact
is that if we want to get involved in a constitutional debate, we are
looking at something that is impossible within the Canadian
federation. Federalists with the federal government or in the
provinces who, over the past thirty years, have tried to change the
system in response to the legitimate demands of Quebec and also of
the other provinces, have always come up against a dead end. We
were always faced with an impossible situation following
negotiations, and the hon. member was referring to Charlottetown,
when the people spoke for the first time.
But apart from this exercise, we always came up against the
situation where Quebec was isolated, having come away
disappointed from discussions. And I think it important to repeat
this. I have said it I know not how many times in this House, and I
will say it again. This was after discussions between federalists, not
discussions between federalists on the one hand and separatists on
the other, as my colleague for Simcoe North mentioned just now,
when he said that it would never be possible to satisfy the wishes of
the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois.
I know that the period provided for debate has expired, so I will
close by saying that, if political partisanship were put aside, and the
proposal made by sovereignists and almost approved by a majority
of Quebecers read carefully, it would be understood that
sovereignists in this House and in Quebec basically want two
things: first, recognition of the people of Quebec, the means we
have and the means that go with this recognition in order to be able
to affirm ourselves; and second, a partnership agreement with our
preferred partner, Canada.
That is what we want and that will be the key in the future to
resolving our present problems. I will continue these thoughts
another time.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.)