CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 19, 1997
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9210
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9214
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9215
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9215
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9215
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9215
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9216
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9216
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9216
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9217
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9217
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9218
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9219
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9219
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9221
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 9221
Bill C-390. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 9225
Bill C-391. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 9225
Motion to adopt the 60th report 9225
Motion for concurrence in third report 9225
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9227
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 19; Nays, 151 9230
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 91; Nays, 20 9231
Consideration resumed of budget motion and amendment 9232
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 34; Nays, 127 9233
Bill C-300. Report stage 9233
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9234
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 9235
Consideration resumed of motion and of amendment 9235
Division on motion deferred 9240
9209
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 19, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: Every Wednesday we sing our national anthem
and today we will be led by the hon. member for Beaver River.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to my constituent
John Pahapill. Mr. Pahapill recently returned from a mission
overseas with the Canadian executives service organization.Mr. Pahapill was in Estonia advising the government's ministry of
justice on developing an efficient work program to rehabilitate
prisoners.
CESO volunteers are professional men and women, usually
retired, who share their wealth of knowledge and experience to aid
businesses and organizations in developing countries, emerging
market economies and Canadian aboriginal communities.
CESO is supported by CIDA, the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development and hundreds of Canadian corporations
and individuals.
We applaud the volunteer work that Mr. Pahapill and the CESO
organization are doing in eastern Europe to help those economies
make the transition from the old Soviet state run system to a freer
market system. Bravo, John.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 1997
marks the 150th anniversary of the Great Famine in Ireland.
Thousands of Irish men and women fled their country only to be
decimated by cholera and typhus epidemics at the Grosse-Île
quarantine station, which is located in the riding of
Bellechasse-Etchemins-Montmagny-L'Islet.
Grosse-Île will be the site of a number of major events this year
to commemorate the sad fate of those men and women. The
Corporation de la Grosse-Île, inspired by its chairman, Dr.
Jean-Marie Dionne, has been working for more than 15 years to
remind the general public that the people of the South Shore
responded with hospitality, and a spirit of brotherhood, to the
struggling new arrivals who had fled the famine in their homeland.
I invite the people of Canada, and elsewhere, to put Grosse-Île at
the top of their list of places to visit during 1997, and in the years to
come.
This summer, special commemorations will also be held in the
city of Montmagny, and the parishes of Saint-Jean-Port-Joli,
L'Islet, Berthier-sur-Mer and Saint-Édouard-de-Frampton.
Come one, come all, the welcome mat is out for you.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of Mary Mercier and 16,000 other Canadians, I
am protesting the use of the FAMEX survey by Statistics Canada.
The intrusive content and threatening manner of the survey is
objectionable to Canadians and violates our fundamental sense of
fairness of what governments should do.
This survey certainly is unaccountable bureaucracy gone wrong.
Such detailed information about one's personal income tax form,
how much they spend on toilet paper in a whole year or how much
interest they accumulate on their credit cards per year is of no
business to a government collector.
Governments should not be threatening people with legal
penalties for non co-operation to fill out a three hour long survey
when the private sector can collect for itself what it needs from
volunteers and then pay them for it.
Criminal legal sanctions of government should not be used to
enable private market economy work.
9210
I call on the minister responsible, if indeed there is one at this
point, to ensure that Statistics Canada stop this objectionable
survey which violates mainstream Canadian values.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of immigration recently announced changes to Canada's
immigration policies, but unfortunately the Liberals have left
untouched those policies most in need of change.
They have left a head tax on immigrants in place, a regressive
tax that penalizes immigrants with no regard to their financial
resources, inflicting needless hardship on new Canadians and their
families.
The Liberals have also left in place refugee policies that require
some legitimate refugees to return to countries from which they are
fleeing in order to obtain documents. These policies have
threatened the lives of refugees from such countries as Iran, which
has an atrocious record on human rights.
Many new Canadians and those concerned about the plight of
refugees and immigrants are feeling betrayed by the immigration
policies of this Liberal government.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue of section 745, the faint hope clause, should be
dealt with without trying to capitalize politically on the misfortune
of the families of victims. Section 745 needs constructive
discussion.
In my opinion section 745 should be eliminated and discretion
returned to the sentencing judges. This would eliminate injustices
and would allow judges leeway in sentencing. A judge could rule
that an Olson or a Bernardo would never be paroled and they would
never darken the door of the parole board, not even after 25 years.
Someone who has committed murder under extenuating
circumstances could be ordered eligible for parole in a much
shorter time.
Let us eliminate section 745, return discretion to our judges and
return to making good laws, rather than politically capitalizing on
the misfortunes of victims' families.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of national literacy action day. In doing so I wish to honour
two outstanding teachers who live in Winnipeg South and who are
recipients of the Prime Minister's award for teaching excellence in
science, technology and mathematics.
Emanuel Sylvester, a teacher at Jameswood school, is dedicated
to preparing his students for the future. He provides extra help for
his students through a homework club and is constantly looking for
new techniques for teaching science.
Judith Lawrence teaches math at Phoenix school in Headingly,
Manitoba. She took on the challenge of not only introducing the
province's new math curriculum but conducted special math nights
for family members.
A lack of basic literacy and numeracy is a problem which holds
back thousands and thousands of Canadians. Our colleague,
Senator Joyce Fairbairn, Minister with special responsibility for
Literacy, is working closely with provincial, corporate and
community partners to address this serious problem.
With teachers like Emanuel Sylvester and Judith Lawrence it is a
battle we can win. Today I salute the outstanding contributions of
these individuals and their commitment to teaching excellence.
* * *
[
Translation]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate the Canada Council for its excellent work over the
years.
Today, we are celebrating its 40th anniversary and the
contribution Canadian artists, publishers and artistic organizations
have made to the culture of Canada.
(1405)
Artists express the essence of our society, its very soul. Their
artistic expressions are rooted in their imagination, their emotions,
their ideas. They tell us who we are, and show us what we can
become. It is important to recognize the true value of their
contribution to our society.
Over its forty-year history, the Canada Council has been a
remarkable source of support to the production and dissemination
of culture in Canada. The founders of the Council, including Father
Lévesque who is with us here today, probably had no idea how
much their new organization would accomplish.
We hope that the Council-
The Speaker: I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon. member.
The hon. member for Québec has the floor.
* * *
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Fondation Jamais Plus invites the men and women of Quebec to
take a stand against domestic violence by going out on Friday and
purchasing a pin in the form of a purple cross, which is the symbol
of the struggle against family violence.
9211
Through the sales of this pin, the Fondation hopes to collect
$100,000, which it will invest in research projects, particularly
with respect to children who have witnessed family violence. The
federation includes 32 shelters in Quebec. We all wonder what we
can do in response to the tragedies of this world that we see
depicted on the television news night after night. The Fondation
Jamais Plus is offering one positive and practical way.
The Bloc Quebecois encourages Quebecers to act on Friday and
buy a purple cross and help build a society free of domestic
violence.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to warn the Liberals against
allowing the United Nations Codex commission to outlaw, restrict
and control the sale of herbs and vitamins to Canadian consumers.
Consumers of these products do not want the Liberals to increase
the price, cut the selection and force them to get prescriptions for
these products.
The Liberals are once again killing jobs, jobs, jobs. They are
turning the control of this industry over to an international body.
The reclassification and the imposition of a restricted list for
these products will put small manufacturers out of business. Large
pharmaceutical firms will take over as health food stores across
Canada shut down.
A Reform government would encourage Canadians to use
vitamins, herbs and other health supplements in order to improve
their overall health. The Reform Party is offering Canadians a fresh
start so that consumers come first and have the right to safe, low
cost health products.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Lib. Dem.): Mr. Speaker, for more than three years it has been
evident to Canadians across the country that they have not had a
strong and effective voice representing them in the official
opposition benches of this House.
Canadians realize that the official opposition is nothing more
than a single province party, committed to breaking up and
destroying our great country.
It is time for the opposition members in this House to consider a
parliamentary coalition of political forces to replace the separatist
party from the official opposition benches. To this end, I offer my
consent and support to the formation of a political coalition for the
purpose of recognition of a group of 51 or more members as the
official opposition. I invite my colleagues from the opposition side
to join this coalition for the sake of keeping our country together.
Canadians need a strong and effective voice in the official
opposition to challenge the Prime Minister and his government on
their dismal record.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Murray Fraser
was a lawyer, a law teacher, law reformer, law school founder, law
dean, university administrator and university president.
He was a husband, a father, a grandfather, a son, a brother, a
friend, a colleague and a mentor. He was a diplomat, a wit, an
intellectual and a scholar. He was a comforter, a consolidator, a
builder and an inspiration.
He could calm a class of hysterical law students, play a wicked
game of charades and charm an auditorium full of people, all
effortlessly and with true warmth. He was a stellar member of his
profession in every aspect of that profession.
With his wife Anne he formed a team that made the places where
they lived and worked in Canada, Halifax, Ottawa, Victoria and
Calgary, immeasurably better and they did it with much grace.
We lost Murray Fraser last week, far too young, far too soon.
(1410 )
To his wife Anne, his three sons, all his family and to the larger
community that mourns him across our nation, we send our
sympathy and our tribute to a truly wonderful man. We loved him.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Friday, March 21 marks the international day for the elimination of
racial discrimination, an important time for all of us to reflect on
and rejoice in the values inherent in living with respect and
understanding for the diversity of our people in both official
languages.
Our charter speaks to non-discrimination as a goal yet to be
reached in our evolving history of growth and development. There
have been many breaches in the contract of fairness, equality and
tolerance that must be challenged and overcome.
Today, on the 10th anniversary of the Deschenes commission
report, I met with private investigator Steve Rambam on the issue
of Nazi war criminals fraudulently making a home in our country.
While 12 such cases are presently being reviewed, other criminals
must also be pursued, for he presented a very disturbing portrait of
9212
the RCMP's lack of serious pursuit and investigative tactics against
these perpetrators of horrific crimes.
It was a damning criticism of our respect for the value of our
own humanity, our own citizenship, and this is a matter of
international justice and human rights, not revenge.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to honour one of our great Canadian
traditions, the game of hockey, and a fine young team from my
riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.
Today I salute our league champions, the Gravenhurst Cubs
junior C hockey team from my home town, which won the
mid-Ontario junior C championship series and is in the midst of the
all-Ontario playdowns, a best of seven series.
So many of our young people take up the game of hockey and so
many are inspired by our hockey greats, those who have gone on to
become national heroes: Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and from
my home riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, Bobby Orr.
It takes a lot of hard work and even more commitment and skill
to play hockey well. It takes teamwork and tremendous personal
drive. It takes the dedication of parents, volunteers and coaches. It
takes the loyalty and enthusiasm of the countless fans.
I join with those fans in wishing our Gravenhurst Cubs the best
of luck as they skate, shoot and score their way to the
championships.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the president of the Quebec treasury board tabled the 1997-98
estimates. Next year, the province's health, education and social
assistance expenditures will be cut by $1.6 billion.
For the same year, federal cash transfers to Quebec in these areas
will be reduced by exactly the same amount as in 1996. The painful
cuts now facing the Government of Quebec are, make no mistake,
the sad result of decisions by Canada's finance minister and this
Liberal government.
In making such cuts in the social transfers to the provinces, the
federal Liberals are condemning them to paying the political price
of improving federal public finances, all the while unfairly
claiming credit for managing the country well.
The next election will provide an opportunity to remind
Quebecers that the Liberal government must bear most of the
blame for the closure of hospitals and cuts to education in Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, oh what a
tangled web we weave has never been more true than the heritage
minister's attempt to cobble together an updated copyright law.
On Monday in this House Liberal backbenchers, like cloned
sheep, rose and offended such organizations as the Canadian
Alliance of Students Association, the Association of Colleges and
Universities, the Canadian Restaurant and Foods Association,
Canada's radio and television broadcasters, church organizations,
charities that depend on telethons, consumer groups, genealogists,
archivists, and the list goes on and on.
Canada's hardworking private broadcasters should pay particular
attention to the vote of their local members of Parliament.
Certainly Canadian students and university associations have noted
that the Liberal government, while talking the talk of supporting
them financially, has walked the walk of ripping off each student an
average of $1,600 by the Liberal ill conceived shutdown of easy
access to used study texts.
The precedent set by this minister's tangled web of copyright
revisions phase II is a pattern which will be carried into phase III.
Confusion, concern, consternation, what a cop out.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state for regional development in
Quebec has just announced an investment of up to $30 million to
establish a centre of excellence in the rehabilitation of
contaminated sites in Montreal.
The centre's concept is both simple and promising. During an
initial five year period, researchers at the NRC's Biotechnology
Research Institute will work in co-operation with authorities in
Montreal to develop a technological platform for the rehabilitation
of contaminated sites.
They will develop an expertise that will lead to the effective and
economic rehabilitation of contaminated sites and the transfer of
9213
technology to the private sector. Many firms have already indicated
considerable interest in the project.
This is another of our government's achievements for Montreal
and Quebec.
_____________________________________________
9213
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, in response to pressure from Quebec's Minister
of Public Security, Quebec City area mayors, police forces and
official opposition members, the Minister of Justice finally
realized that urgent action was required with respect to the biker
war. The minister agreed to meet with stakeholders from the
Quebec City area who are grappling with the war between the Rock
Machine and the Hell's Angels.
In his meeting in Quebec City tomorrow with area mayors and
the provincial Minister of Public Security, what concrete proposals
does the minister intend to put forward?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the
Government of Canada has expressed its views and shown an
interest in this situation.
We have already met with police forces from Montreal and
elsewhere to discuss possible amendments to the Criminal Code in
order to resolve this matter.
But, as I said yesterday, I intend to meet with Mr. Perreault and
others tomorrow to discuss all the possibilities and strategies open
to the Government of Canada in order to work with the
Government of Quebec, with municipal governments and with
police forces in order to deal with this difficult situation.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, of course there is interest, I would hope so, but interest is
not enough. I do not imagine the minister is going to Quebec City
to put on a show for the media. He is going there to intervene, at
least I would hope so.
I ask him if, when he is in Quebec City tomorrow, he intends to
propose exceptional measures to resolve this exceptional situation,
as area mayors and the Quebec Minister of Public Security are
requesting him to do.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because of the wording of the hon.
member's question, I must repeat that we have already taken action
as a government and passed concrete and effective measures to
improve the Criminal Code as it relates to organized crime. For
example, in Bill C-17 we proposed and are now adopting valid
measures in this regard.
Once again, as I said, at the meeting we will be holding withMr. Perreault in Quebec City tomorrow morning I intend to discuss
and examine with him and other individuals involved all the
approaches open.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the means decided on to date, the amendments made so
far, are not enough. The police do not have all the tools they need to
go after biker gangs.
Quebec City area mayors and the Quebec Minister of Public
Security have certainly pointed out to him that more substantial
amendments to the Criminal Code are required. What does the
Minister of Justice intend to reply to Mr. Perreault, who is calling
for urgent amendments to the Criminal Code to deal with the Hell's
Angels and the Rock Machine?
(1420)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Perreault also said there was
no magic or simple solution, such as an anti-gang law.
We must work together, in good faith, setting aside partisan
politics. We must work together constructively in the search for
solutions. Of course, police forces want tools to help them in their
work.
But as I said, we have already taken action, and if it is possible to
identify other approaches, I am prepared to take action again.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think the minister understands the reality and the
great urgency involved, and particularly the fact that there are
major faults in his system.
Need we remind the minister that we again had proof of this
yesterday, when a certain Daniel Nault, a Hell's Angels
sympathizer, was acquitted, thanks to the Criminal Code the
minister refuses to amend, although he had been arrested with a
working bomb in the trunk of his car.
I am asking the Minister of Justice whether he does not
acknowledge that this is striking proof that the Criminal Code as it
stands is not strong enough to stop the motorcycle gang wars?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I express my disappointment
at the tone and the approach taken by the Bloc Quebecois in
relation to a matter which should engage our serious and
non-partisan attention.
There are people in communities in Quebec, in Ontario and
across the country who are worried about their personal safety by
reason of organized crime, motorcycle gangs and bombs exploding
in the streets. In that atmosphere the answer is not to exchange
partisan barbs in some political exchange. Rather the approach
9214
should be to work constructively to see what can be done to
improve the situation, and that is what I intend to do tomorrow
morning in Quebec City.
The fact that these crimes are being committed may have
something to do with the need for improvements in the criminal
law. It also has something to do with the ability of the police to
work in a co-ordinated fashion with the municipal and provincial
governments, using powers within their jurisdictions, with the
allocations of resources by municipal and provincial governments.
The member should not pretend that this difficult situation will
be resolved simply by changing words in the federal statute.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder what tone I am supposed to take in addressing
this House. Since yesterday, because no action was taken, there
have been two more deaths in a bomb explosion in Quebec. I think
the minister needs to wake up and smell the coffee, and do
something as soon as possible.
He also needs to keep in mind that there are at least 15 biker
clubhouses in Quebec, 15 fortresses, and the gangs continue to
wreak havoc.
The Minister is going to Quebec City, and not to see the sights.
The mayors are waiting for an answer to their questions. In order to
settle the problem of these fortified biker clubhouses once and for
all, and to do away with all the nasty business they are involved in,
is the minister prepared-and this is a serious matter-to announce
tomorrow to Minister Perreault and all the mayors who are waiting
for some action, that, as soon as possible, he will propose to the
Canadian Parliament legislation that will ban motorcycle gangs
once and for all?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has no monopoly
on concern. The members on this side of the House, the members
of the government caucus, are just as concerned about the safety of
communities in the country as are the hon. member and his
colleagues.
If the hon. member thinks that the bombings taking place are
going to be stopped because we change words in the Criminal Code
of Canada, he is sadly deluded. What will make the difference is
good, solid, co-ordinated police work with sufficient resources and
municipal, provincial and federal governments working together
constructively to do the job.
That is not achieved with narrow partisan political speeches.
That is not achieved by pointing fingers and becoming flushed.
That is achieved with good, solid, hard work, and that is exactly
what the government is going to do.
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last two federal elections the leader of the federal
party that ended up forming the government campaigned on the
promise of jobs, jobs, jobs.
When Mr. Mulroney left office, the total number of unemployed
was 1.5 million and the four years this government has been in
office there are still 1.5 million unemployed.
My question for the Prime Minister is this. Why is his
government's job creation record no better than Brian Mulroney's?
Why has the Prime Minister, like Mulroney, failed to deliver on
jobs, jobs, jobs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last four years of the Mulroney administration about
150,000 new jobs were created. In less than four years 725,000 new
jobs have been created in the economy. That is because we have
managed the situation.
I know that the member is a former voter for Mulroney before he
had the Reform Party obviously, unless he voted Liberal. That
would be a big surprise but I am waiting for that judgment.
We have restored the finances of the nation. The low interest
rates of today are the best in 35 years. People are using them
because the housing market is increasing very quickly. People are
buying cars and so on. However, we had to cure the mess that had
been created by the Conservatives in the previous nine years first.
Now the country is in much better shape and more than 725,000
jobs have been created.
As everybody knows, we will continue working because we are
always preoccupied that whenever somebody wants to work we
want to make sure that they can find a job. It is not easy but our
record is much better than that of the Conservative Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): The bottom
line is, Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million unemployed when Mulroney left
office, 1.5 million unemployed today.
The Prime Minister just does not get it. Taxes, taxes, taxes are
what are killing jobs, jobs, jobs. Seventy-one tax increases by the
federal Tories, 37 tax increases by this government. The
government now collects more taxes than any other government in
Canadian history, including wartime. And there is a connection
between those high levels of taxation and the record of
unemployment, the worst record of unemployment since the
depression.
Instead of trying to justify high unemployment, exactly like
Brian Mulroney used to stand in this House and do, why does the
9215
Prime Minister not actually do something for the 1.5 million
unemployed and start by lowering taxes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have done a lot to create jobs. Look at the record,
725,000 jobs have been created.
More than that, 825,000 jobs have been created but both the
federal and the provincial public sectors had to reduce the number
of jobs by 100,000 to put the finances of the federal government
and the provinces in good order.
We are doing better than any other nation of the G-7 at this
moment. We have created more jobs than Germany, France, Italy
and Great Britain together. However, it is not enough. We will be
working on that.
I do not think the recipe proposed by the Reform Party is being
taken very seriously because we have to finish the job of reducing
the deficit and not try to buy votes with tax cuts for the rich like the
Conservative Party and the Reform Party want to do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Brian Mulroney always had an explanation for his dismal
job record. Our interest rate was lower than Liechtenstein's, our
growth rate is better than Antarctica, we have a better job record
than somebody in the G-7.
What do we hear from this Prime Minister? Exactly the same
thing. Our job record is better than somebody in the G-7. But there
are still 1.5 million unemployed, two or three million under
employed and one out of four workers afraid of losing their jobs.
(1430 )
Instead of trying to justify high unemployment records exactly
like Mulroney, why will the Prime Minister not do something
different and start by addressing the high tax levels in the country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have not increased taxes.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We have had growth and
therefore we have more revenue. He does not know the difference
between the level of taxation and the level of revenue. We have not
increased taxes at all. Oh yes, I am sorry, we have taxed the banks
by $200 million more.
We have plugged loopholes for some people who were not
paying their fair share in the insurance business because they were
abusing the system. But we have not increased taxes. We have a
good, solid administration. Revenues have increased substantially.
Because we had good growth and low inflation, 725,000 new
taxpayers are now working who were not working when we formed
the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government is getting ready to break another of its
election promises: to renew copyright legislation.
With the election deadline, the government is ensuring that Bill
C-32 will die on the Order Paper by unduly delaying its legislative
progress, and this will end up hurting authors, composers and
performers.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Since the
minister has said that the difficulties between herself and her
colleague in industry were resolved, could she explain why she is
running the risk of aborting Bill C-32 by postponing its third
reading?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows
full well what he is saying is false.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
remind the Minister of Canadian Heritage that, if the bill is not
passed before the election is called, her government will have to
bear the responsibility of depriving creators and performers of their
rights.
Will the minister ensure Bill C-32 gets to third reading before
the Easter break?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am shocked and
surprised that the member would try to misrepresent the position of
the government. The member was in the House last Thursday when
we agreed collectively to extend the hours of the House so that we
could complete report stage in one day, a report stage which I might
add was supported by every single member of the government.
[Translation]
I can assure the member on behalf of the entire government that
third reading will take place in a few days.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
page 50 of the budget plan the finance ministers says the only way
you can judge the impact of taxes is to measure them relative to the
economy. Let us do that. I think that is a good idea.
Since the government came to office personal income taxes have
gone up 15 per cent relative to the size of the economy. That
contradicts what the Prime Minister just said. That means more
money out of the pockets of every single man, woman and child in
9216
the country to feed a government who spends that money on things
life golf carts, sock factories and of course the Hotel D'
Shawinigan. We are talking billions of dollars.
Why will the finance minister not admit that he is socking it to
Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the government took office, revenues as a percentage of the
economy were substantially higher than they are now. The
conclusion of that is very clear, our take as a percentage of the
economy has come down.
There are areas where we have absolutely changed the tax act.
Tariffs are down substantially. Close to $600 million is being put
back into the hands of Canadians. On the other hand, and again if I
could quote the Prime Minister: ``Yes, there are areas where we
have increased taxes,'' areas where the hon. member has objected
to increasing taxes.
(1435 )
We have eliminated the tax advantages for family trusts. Reform
opposed it. We took measures to combat the underground economy.
Reform opposed it. We eliminated the preferential rate for large
corporations. Reform opposed it. We increased the capital tax on
financial institutions. Reform opposed it.
I could go on for a long time, but let me tell you those
loopholes-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it looks
like I struck a nerve. You will notice that the finance minister did
not try to answer my assertion directly. I said that according to the
government's own statistics, personal income taxes have gone up
as a percentage of the economy by 15 per cent.
Does the Minister of Finance deny that the government has
raised personal income taxes so they have gone up 15 per cent
relative to the size of the economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
only stands to reason that if 750,000 more people are working, it is
quite possible that more people are paying taxes.
It only stands to reason that when loopholes are closed, and the
$100,000 capital gains tax exemption is eliminated, more people
are paying taxes.
One really is entitled to a higher level of debate from an
opposition party. Its members fail to understand that an economy
that is growing will give the government more revenues. That is a
good thing, not a bad thing.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for several months now, the Minister of Finance has
stubbornly refused to compensate Quebec for harmonizing the
GST, although according to the calculations done by Quebec's
Minister of Finance Quebec is entitled to $2 billion in
compensation for having harmonized its sales tax. This estimate, it
goes without saying, is very different from the one arrived at by the
Minister of Finance, and that is why it is becoming increasingly
clear that the solution to this problem will be political rather than
bureaucratic in nature.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that his compensation
formula, the McKenna formula, that compensates a province if,
and only if, it is losing more than 5 per cent of its revenues, is an
arbitrary formula and that Quebec is actually entitled to demand
compensation similar to that received by the three maritime
provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member must know that the formula by which only those
provinces having lost more than 5 per cent of their revenues are
compensated is perfectly normal. Five per cent includes normal
fluctuations in a province's revenue from a tax source, in this case
the sales tax.
The reality is that Quebec has not lost more than 5 per cent.
Furthermore, if we look at the figures for the years since 1990,
Quebec has made money by harmonizing and there is no
compensation for a province that has not lost money. Nor is there
any compensation for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since the minister wants to talk about reality, here it is:
there was a 20 per cent drop in QST revenues following
harmonization in Quebec. Because of harmonization, we have had
to compensate by hiking the income tax rate of SMBs by 66 per
cent and payroll taxes by 23 per cent. That is reality.
It is so real that the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta and
Ontario are demanding that the federal government give in to
Quebec's arguments and pay $2 billion in compensation for the
Government of Quebec's losses. If that is not a consensus, we
would like to know what the Minister of Finance is waiting for.
These three provinces represent 85 per cent of the population.
(1440)
I put my question to him. What is he waiting for to give Quebec
what it is owed in all fairness for harmonizing the GST, because
equity and only equity is what this is all about?
9217
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, it is very clear that Quebec is not entitled to
compensation because Quebec has not lost any money.
I must point out that Quebec's former Minister of Finance
himself, Mr. Bourbeau, indicated very clearly that Quebec did not
deserve to be paid in this case because it had not lost any money.
That having been said, Mr. Bourbeau also pointed out that in
other areas, such as technology and partnership for example,
Quebec has received more than 60 to 70 per cent of all money, that
Quebec, with 25 per cent of the population, receives 31 per cent of
transfer payments, and more than 45 per cent of equalization
payments.
It must be said that, when it comes to federal transfer payments
to the provinces, Quebec is receiving its fair share.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt
the government's role in manipulating nicotine levels in cigarettes
is plain. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada funds the scientists and
the tobacco companies tell them what to do.
Did the health minister know this was going on and why did he
not stop it?
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise the
hon. member has brought forward is totally false.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is in harmony with Health
Canada in our reduction of nicotine in tobacco products. There is
no question we have funded a tremendous amount of money to help
farmers leave the industry. The majority of our spending goes to
give farmers an exit from the tobacco industry.
When we look at it, we have done what we can to make sure the
industry is treated reasonably well, but we do not spend money
enhancing nicotine. That is false.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, they are treating
the industry reasonably well, indeed. On March 13, 1996 the chair
of a meeting between government officials, researchers and the
industry said the following:
Lines crossed with U.S. and Canadian varieties will continue with emphasis on
improving nicotine and grade quality.
Did the health minister know this was going on and why did he
not stop it?
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe it is
very important to realize that nicotine quantities in tobacco
products are controlled internationally and that the industry itself
has standards. The standard for nicotine in a tobacco plant is 2.5
per cent to 3 per cent. All products sold commercially in this
country have to abide by between 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada only monitors the tobacco
plants to make certain that the industry standard is maintained and
tobacco plants are within the standard accepted worldwide.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In Quebec, to defray the cost of harmonizing the QST, as my
colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot pointed out, the tax rate
on the profits of small and medium size businesses increased by66 per cent, and the contribution to the health services funds and
the capital tax have both increased by 23 per cent. In the maritimes,
however, there is no need for an increase, because of the $1 billion
that Ottawa paid out. Quebec therefore is being deprived unfairly
of its sole tax advantage compared with these three provinces and
is being penalized for its earlier tax choices, which are not those of
the maritimes.
Will the Minister of Finance put a stop to the unfair competition
from maritime businesses by giving Quebec the $2 billion that
would have cost a maritime-style harmonization?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the members of the Bloc can keep asking the same question; the
answer will not change. I have heard all I can stand.
Quebec has lost no money. It has lost no more than the five per
cent. With the other programs, the transfers of technology and
partnerships, the equalization payments, the transfers to help the
aeronautical and pharmaceutical industries in Montreal, Quebec
has received a lot from the federal government.
(1445)
If Quebec deserved money for harmonizing the GST, it would
have been given some. Unfortunately, for Quebec, it did not lose
any money.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the premiers of the three maritime provinces are
advertising in Les Affaires and the Globe and Mail the advantages
of harmonizing the GST, which are greater for these provinces than
for Quebec, simply because they have not had to pay the costs of
harmonization. No wonder.
How long will the Minister of Finance continue to finance this
unfair competition with Quebec and this shameless raiding of
9218
Quebec businesses with part of the taxes of Quebecers? When will
he redress this injustice and pay the $2 billion he owes Quebecers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Speaker, I speak now as a Quebecer. I think it is very dangerous
for a member of the Bloc to complain when another region of the
country is given help, because Canada's strength lies in the fact that
regions help each other and that the federal government is always
there when it is needed.
When the time came to help the Montreal aeronautics industry,
the federal government was there. When the time came to help
Quebec after the flooding in the Saguenay, the federal government
was there. When the time came to make equalization payments, the
federal government was there.
What I think the Bloc member should know is that Canada's
strength lies in its regions' helping one another. We are a country,
and he should stop trying to divide us.
Mr. McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I would like to obtain the
co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ontario.
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Justice.
On this the 10th anniversary of the release of the Deschenes
commission report on war criminals in Canada, will the minister
inform the House about the status of his department's efforts to
bring to justice suspected Nazi war criminals who have sought to
avoid persecution for their acts and who obviously believe that
Canada is a safe haven?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am among those who believe that
after the second world war too many governments did too little for
too long to deal with the presence of alleged war criminals in
Canada. What I can do today is provide an accounting of the efforts
made by the government since it took office in late 1993.
Immediately after taking office we intensified efforts to prepare
for prosecution those cases we felt were appropriate for criminal
proceedings. In 1994 a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in the
case of Finta made criminal prosecution a very remote prospect and
very difficult practically.
As a result, in January 1995 the then Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and I announced that we would commence 12 cases
within the following three years, civil proceedings asking the court
to denaturalize and deport those against whom we would allege that
there was a lack of candour when they applied for entry into this
country and those against whom we would allege there was
evidence of complicity in war crimes during the second world war.
We will do better than the 12 over three years. By the end of this
month we will have commenced all 12 of those cases. That is not to
say we have done enough because we have not. We will continue to
work on other cases where there is evidence to justify proceedings.
The government will continue to work because there is no statute
of limitations on the moral imperative to act where there is
evidence that there are such people among us.
One last thing, if I may, there are those in this country with
information to assist us. I urge them to go to the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police and provide that evidence so we can act on it.
(1450)
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Jewish Congress has
accused the RCMP of not taking action or even taking seriously
information that was given to it on Nazi war criminals living in
Canada.
Over the past 50 years successive Liberal and Tory governments
have ignored the existence of Nazi criminals living in Canada.
Why?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will deal with those aspects of the
question other than the RCMP. I can answer for the Department of
Justice.
In the period since we took office the Department of Justice has
proceeded with cases where there is evidence to justify initiating
proceedings. As I have just told the hon. member for Scarborough,
we will continue in those efforts. The government believes as a
matter of moral imperative that we must act where there is
evidence to justify it.
As I also said very hurriedly a few moments ago, if there are
those, whomever they may be, who have evidence that is relevant
to this matter I urge them to turn that evidence over to the RCMP so
that it can be evaluated and acted upon.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I understand there are over 1,000 names of
suspected Nazi war criminals living in Canada. I also understand
that the Canadian Jewish Congress has provided over 220 names to
the RCMP and it has not responded. The department of
immigration also has a list of over 200 suspected modern day war
criminals.
What action will the government take beyond the 12 it is taking
through civil proceedings to ensure that more war criminals are
deported? One Nazi war criminal in the past 50 years has been
9219
deported. What will the government to do ensure that not only
Nazi war criminals but modern day war criminals-
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I was saying to the hon. member
for Ontario earlier this afternoon, the government is acting or there
is evidence to justify action.
Before the hon. member becomes misled by claims of thousands
of cases where action should be taken, I want her to bear in mind
that the Deschenes commission, the 10th anniversary of which we
are marking today as the member for Ontario said, identified far
fewer cases. It identified about 29 or 30 priority cases where there
was urgent evidence that action should be taken immediately.
It is from that list of cases that we have taken the ones on which
we have acted immediately. We are not stopping at 12. There is no
magic in that number. We will continue to prepare and proceed in
cases where we believe there is evidence to justify it.
We do not have all the evidence from those who claim to have it
in hand. I urge anybody who has evidence to give it to the RCMP so
it can be evaluated and where appropriate acted upon.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday, the Government of Israel authorized the start of
construction for a new Jewish colony in East Jerusalem, despite
strong Palestinian opposition. Yet a UN resolution has condemned
this act, which may jeopardize the Middle East peace process.
Can the minister tell us whether he has contacted the Israeli
ambassador, or plans to do so, in order to inform him of Canada's
strong disapproval of the plan to set up a Jewish colony in East
Jerusalem, an Israeli-occupied territory since 1967?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows well that the traditional and
longstanding policy of the government is to oppose the expansion
of settlement in those territories.
Our real interest is in trying to find ways of bringing about a
peaceful process in the Middle East. We think the Oslo process that
was set up is the best way of following that and therefore our stance
has been very clear.
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell us clearly what the Canadian position is with respect
to Israel's announced intention of surrendering only 9 per cent of
the West Bank, rather than the 30 per cent the Palestinians were
initially expecting?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the Oslo process has clearly indicated the
formulas for reconciliation between the two parties. We support the
development of an agreement of understanding between the two
parties in order to actively pursue the development of an agreement
on the transfer of territories in this region.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
November 1993 my colleague from Calgary Northeast and I met
with the justice minister to encourage him to make significant
changes to the Young Offenders Act.
Since then he has tinkered here, has tinkered there and has
virtually accomplished nothing that reflects the wishes of
Canadians, like lowering the age or publishing names.
Will he admit today that the latest dog and pony show costing
several hundreds of thousands of dollars is a sham and that there
will be no changes to the Young Offenders Act before the next
election?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remember clearly the very
pleasant meeting I had with the hon. member and his colleague. I
have a vivid recollection of the force with which he expressed his
position.
Among other things he urged the government to change the
Young Offenders Act to deal more effectively with violent
criminals, particularly those aged 16 and 17. He urged the
government to introduce stronger penalties for the most serious
crimes of violence. He urged us to do something about safety in
schools.
In June 1994, following my meeting with the hon. member, I
introduced Bill C-37 which was subsequently adopted and
proclaimed in force. Among other things that legislation doubled
the maximum for first degree murder in youth court; provided for
the transfer of 16 and 17 year olds charged with the most serious
crimes of violence, except where they could satisfy the onus; and
provided for the free sharing of information between police and
school officials for safety's sake.
The hon. member and his colleagues in the Reform Party voted
against that legislation. Mr. Speaker, you could imagine my
9220
surprise. Perhaps the hon. member would explain to his
constituents why he did not support us when we acted.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the sad
part about it was that when the legislation was brought forward we
were here to support justice. This social engineer does not know the
meaning of the word. He has not figured it out yet. That is his
problem.
Could the champion of social engineering explain to the House
today why after 10 or 12 years of Liberal law regarding young
offenders it is 400 per cent worse than it was in the beginning?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have always preferred
engineering to demolition. What we are really talking about here is
more in the nature of architecture, building a better Young
Offenders Act. We have been doing that.
Quite apart from the work we did with Bill C-37 which did not
meet with the favour of the hon. member, we also had the justice
committee spend the last 18 months travelling the country speaking
to police, parents, school principals and young people themselves,
and preparing architecture that will improve the Young Offenders
Act into the next century.
One of the hard working and contributing members of that
committee is the colleague of the hon. member, the member for
Crowfoot. The member for Crowfoot would have hurt feelings to
hear what the hon. member says about the work of that committee.
The fact is that it is working hard. It is preparing a report. When we
get that report we will give it the attention it deserves.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fight to
stop the spread of HIV-AIDS is of great concern to all Canadians.
The HIV trials network is an important and innovative part of the
federal government's national AIDS strategy and keeps Canadian
scientists and doctors at the forefront of research and treatment. Yet
we hear concerns about the funding of this vital program extending
beyond 1998.
(1500)
Will the minister assure the House that the funding of this
important trials network will continue beyond March 1998?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has worked tirelessly with me with regard to the
clinical trials network which is based in St. Paul's Hospital in
Vancouver but again is well grounded in every region of the
country.
Very recently the clinical trial network here in Canada has
formulated a partnership with the U.S. AIDS clinical trial group
which will enable 500 Canadians living with HIV-AIDS to
participate in this trial on protease inhibitors.
My government is able to provide additional funding for the
years 1998-99 of $2.5 million and in 1999-2000 an additional$2.5 million.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Health.
Canadians are speaking out across the country against attempts
by the health protection branch to limit their access to safe natural
health products, including Chinese herbs, and to charge exorbitant
new fees which might drive them out of business and to restrict
access internationally through the Codex forum.
Will the minister agree to impose a moratorium on these
activities, these high fees and these attempts to attack the natural
health products, which are driven by pressure from multinational
pharmaceutical companies, until there has been a full public review
by the Standing Committee on Health?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member can jump to various conclusions but the role we
play as the regulator in terms of Health Canada is to ensure that any
products that come on to the market, in particular those which are
to provide a remedy for a health matter, are safe and that all the
appropriate tests have been done to ensure that the efficacy of the
product will be realized.
If the hon. member has particular products in mind, I would of
course raise this with the appropriate officials. I do not think it
would be appropriate for the Minister of Health to give a carte
blanche directive to the department when its very reason for
existence is to make sure that the product is safe and efficacious.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the presence
in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Parliament of
Ireland led by Mr. Michael Ferris, Chairman of the Joint
Committee on European Affairs.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Colleagues, it has been written that if you want to
look for the strength of a nation you should look to its laws and to
its conquests, but if you want to look at the soul of a nation you
should look to its artists, its poets and its writers.
Forty years ago this month the Canada Council was born by an
act of this Parliament. Since that time the council has made an
9221
immeasurable difference in the lives of Canadian artists and has
helped Canada's cultural life flourish.
[Translation]
We have the honour of having a group of artists in the gallery
today who are the incarnations of Canada's cultural success. They
represent all of the talent and all of the creative spirit that nourish
our cultural identity.
[English]
I am going to introduce these poets, these writers, these
musicians and these artists one by one and I would like you to hold
your applause until I have introduced all of them to you.
Please welcome these men and women who have told us about
ourselves as Canadians and who helped define Canada for the
world.
[Translation]
Father Georges-Henri Lévesque, a member of the Massey
Commission which called for the creation of the Council, and its
first vice-president. Would you please stand, Father Lévesque.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505)
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I would ask you to hold on for a
moment.
Second, novelist and poet Marie-Claire Blais. Please remain
standing, Madam. Reverend Father, will you please remain
standing. Angèle Dubeau, violinist; film maker Atom Egoyan;
Celia Franca, founder of the National Ballet Company; actress
Louise Marleau; Guido Molinari, visual artist; John Kimura Parker,
pianist; Jean-Pierre Perrault, dancer and choreographer; Al Purdy,
poet; Takao Tanabe, visual artist.
[English]
These are the Canadians we are honouring today.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Colleagues, like you, I want to meet these people
personally. They belong to us. I am having a reception for them and
for you in room 216. Would you please join us after question
period.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, while we have all these people representing the arts in the
gallery, why do we not agree to pass the copyright bill at third
reading unanimously right now.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Do we have the consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I heard a no.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Reform Party, we feel we could do a lot better than
Bill C-32.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): The Prime
Minister's proposal is an excellent one, and one we support.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
9221
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to table in the House today, in both official languages,
a number of order in council appointments which were made
recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the standing committees, a list of which is
attached.
* * *
(1510 )
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official
languages, Canada's international business strategy for the years
1997 and 1998.
* * *
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the report on
international business development. The document, entitled
``Achievements of the International Business Development
Program'', responds to recommendations put forward in the
November 1996 auditor general's report on Canada's export
promotion activities.
The auditor general recommended that the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Industry Canada
establish
9222
mechanisms to measure the effectiveness of our international
business development activities.
As recommended, we are establishing a performance
measurement framework to determine the effectiveness of existing
government programs and services and to help plan for the future.
The international business development report I am tabling
today will serve as an annual report card updating parliamentarians
on the results of our international business development activities.
[Translation]
We must ensure that the services we provide achieve their
intended objectives at the least possible cost.
[English]
Next year's report will have much more detail than this initial
endeavour and will discuss the preliminary results of our
performance measurement system, including feedback from clients
on our trade commissioner service, a review of the impact of the
department's exports, investment and technology development
activities. It will have baseline indicators that have been
established to measure Canada's year over year success in terms of
international markets and our promotion in those markets.
The government's international business development activities
work hand in hand with a rigorous bilateral and multilateral trade
policy agenda and clearly establish market access priorities to
ensure that Canadian businesses have competitive access to world
markets.
We are improving the delivery of services because international
trade is an important part of the government's job strategy. The
more companies we introduce to trade, the more jobs are created in
Canada. To that end we have set a tangible goal of doubling the
number of active exporters by the year 2000.
[Translation]
With exports accounting for nearly 40 per cent of our gross
domestic product, international trade has become the engine that
drives the Canadian economy.
[English]
For ever $1 billion in increased trade, we create or sustain 11,000
jobs in Canada, jobs for every community in the country.
Promoting Canada's products and services is, however, only one
part of the job.
We also must sell Canada as an outstanding place to invest.
Foreign direct investment in Canada has a dramatic impact on job
creation. Today three Canadian jobs out of ten, both direct and
indirect, more than 50 per cent of our total exports, and 75 per cent
of our manufacturing exports are directly attributable to foreign
direct investment in Canada.
Studies suggest that attracting a billion dollars of foreign direct
investment into Canada results in up to 45,000 jobs over a five year
period. That is why we have developed a specific agency, a specific
program, to help bring in more of those investment dollars.
(1515 )
I cannot talk about international business development without
referring to the success of the Team Canada trade missions led by
the Prime Minister, together with the premiers, which have helped
the private sector to bring home more than 550 business deals with
more than $22.1 billion for Canadian companies and resulting in
Canadian jobs.
Canada is meeting the challenge of globalization and members
have only to look at our track record.
The 1996 trade statistics are proof that Canada is succeeding
internationally. Canada's trade surplus reached a record level of
$34 billion. That was $6 billion more than in 1995. That is success.
This success has been built on the strength of the Team Canada
partnerships. We have forged solid alliances with our provincial,
municipal and private sector colleagues. By working together in
Team Canada, we have been able to deliver the programs and
services that Canadian companies need to compete internationally.
Finally, it is a pleasure for me to announce today that the
1997-98 Canada's international business strategy is now available
to the Canadian business community. International business
development programs and initiatives help Canadian businesses
become export ready by providing access to key financial services,
market information in export programs.
The federal government and its Team Canada partners continue
to forge ahead in their international business development
endeavours. Working together we are confident that Canada will
continue to prosper as we expand and diversify our markets abroad
and as we attract foreign investment and technology flows into
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
I could thank the minister on tabling this report, but that will
unfortunately be impossible for a number of reasons.
I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak on the report on
international business development entitled ``Achievements,
International Business Development Programs'' tabled today.
But before I do, I would like, if I may, to tell the Minister of
International Trade, through you, how the unacceptable attitude of
his government and his department has saddened and annoyed me.
Once again, this government and the minister's department have
9223
shown disrespect for the opposition by waiting until the very last
minute to tell us about the tabling of the report on international
business development. This hardly gives us enough time to become
properly acquainted with such an important report and to fully
absorb all of its contents.
We know that documents could have been made available to us
by the minister's office yesterday, and we would have known not to
release this information, because we thought there was honest and
sincere co-operation. We hope there will be honest and sincere
co-operation in the future. This is not the first time that I have to
raise this point publicly in the House. We do hope this issue will be
addressed.
I will not go on about this, except to say that the government was
unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to ensure that we
could carry out our duties properly; otherwise, we would have been
afforded the opportunity to read and prepare comments on the
report on international business development before it was tabled.
After all, is that not what we are supposed to be doing here today?
According to the minister, his report responds to the
recommendations made in the November 1996 auditor general
report. The report includes the following:
-in spite of the some $375 million spent by the federal government every year to
promote trade, the data on the results of this activity is not gathered systematically
and is not sufficiently objective. Moreover, a systematic and more objective
feedback on the results would allow the government to be better informed about the
eventual benefits of its action, and to better understand what adjudication process is
required when co-ordinating and distributing its resources.
Finally, the auditor general pointed out ``that the government
must inform Parliament more systematically about the activities
and achievements made under the international trade development
program''.
(1520)
In short, the auditor general is saying that the government
invests $375 million per year in a program, without checking to see
where that money goes. This is what the auditor general is saying.
Moreover, the auditor adds: ``I noticed the same thing 10 years
ago, and no change has been made since''. So, $375 million are
invested to help small and medium size businesses, to help
businesses export their products. Does the program work? Maybe,
but we do not know, because the government does not conduct any
audit regarding a meagre $375 million invested hapharzardly.
In light of all this, you can imagine my surprise when I noticed at
the last minute that the report tabled today by the Minister for
International Trade does not in any way address the Auditor
General's recommendations, any more than it addresses the report
of the committee on assistance to small export businesses. Because
the minister was not called to order on one occasion, he has now
been called to order twice: once by the Auditor General and once
by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
We would have expected the Liberal government to explain in
this report how it was going to come up with systematic and more
objective feedback on the results obtained in international trade
that would allow it to be better informed about the eventual
benefits of its action, and to better understand what adjudication
process is required when co-ordinating and distributing its
resources.
Instead, the report tabled today looks more like a pre-election
score sheet of the Liberal government's accomplishments with
respect to international trade. The report, the minister's speech, far
from making specific recommendations, only goes over the
mechanisms already in place within this program, as well as the
general directions taken by the government.
The minister should have done his homework. He wrote the
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade asking for an examination of existing mechanisms. We did as
he requested and, what is more, concluded our study and tabled our
report. And they replied to it. They are telling us they will reply at
some point. I am telling him he has already done so.
Moreover, the Minister for International Trade's letter of
presentation with this report clearly stipulates that the mechanism
for measuring the performance of resources allocated to the
international business development program is not yet in place, and
that further details will be forthcoming.
The auditor general has said: ``We have been waiting ten years
for it'', and now the minister tells us that he is well aware of the
fact that he needs to put feedback mechanisms in place, and that he
will do so in future.
I would like to point out that we can easily be a bit sceptical
about this. The government also wrote in its red book that two
groups were going to be set up to examine trade disputes and
anti-dumping problems. Both were to report to Parliament by
December 1995. They are saying: ``Trust us. We will make the
reports by these two groups available during the next election
campaign''.
Asking the Canadian public, and particularly the official
opposition, to trust the government is perhaps asking rather a lot of
them. One might have expected that the government and the
Minister for International Trade would have taken concrete steps to
respond to the auditor general's concrete recommendations. It was
not the nasty separatists, nor the Reform Party, but the auditor
general who asked the Minister for International Trade to take
concrete steps to correct the situation. The minister tells us: ``Trust
me, and you will see that, in future, we are going to coeect this
situation''.
9224
In closing, I remind him that former Prime Minister Kim
Campbell also said ``Trust me'' during an election campaign. So
now there are only two of them left.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to
respond on behalf of the Reform Party to the tabling by the
Minister for International Trade of the document entitled
``Achievement of the International Business Development
Program''.
Although we have not yet had a chance to see the document, this
is democracy at its finest. We are told that it responds to
recommendations put forward in the November 1996 auditor
general's report on Canada's export promotion activities.
(1525 )
Let us examine some of what the auditor general actually had to
say about Canada's export promotion activities. His comments are
somewhat less than flattering. ``We concluded that Parliament
needs to be better informed about the expenditures, outputs,
revenues and cost sharing of Canada's export promotion efforts.
This would help ensure that there is no undesirable overlap, that the
distribution of expenditures reflects the government's priorities
and that Parliament is kept informed about the progress being made
toward the government's objectives''.
I have to agree with the auditor general that there is a pressing
need for the public to know how its hard earned tax dollars are
being spent. For example, how much do all of our globe trotting
Team Canada missions cost? We are always told that business
people pay their own way, so ``don't worry, be happy, it is not
costing us anything''.
I would remind the House that it is the taxpayer who picks up
much of the tab for plane fares, hotels and food for all the
government officials who lay the groundwork for these missions
and for the PM's tag-along entourage. That is not paid for by the
business community.
I have a sneaking suspicion that some programs for export
market development money gets sprinkled around, as well as quite
a bit from the Export Development Corporation. I would really like
to know how much, to whom and did we get our money's worth. I
challenge anyone to get that kind of information out of EDC. All
you will get is a thousand and one reasons why such information is
confidential, sensitive or none of our business.
I look forward with some eagerness to seeing what the minister
proposes be done to keep Parliament better informed about
expenditures on all aspects of trade promotion.
Directly related to cost is cost effectiveness. Here is what the
good AG had to say on that score: ``While we were unable to find
conclusive evidence about the direct effects of trade promotion, it
is possible to measure the cost effectiveness of specific activities.
To do this requires information on costs and systematic objective
measures of the usefulness of specific activities to business or
measures of their impact. However, both the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of
Industry need better cost information. They need to obtain
systematic and objective feedback to determine the value and
utility of more of their key activities''.
I know, and the auditor general knows, that the exact impact of
government programs might be hard to measure. Did a foreign sale
happen because of a government initiative or did it happen because
a Canadian company had a superior widget and a lot of sales moxie
and initiative? All that the auditor general is asking is for objective
feedback about the key activities. He thinks that it can be done. I
think it needs to be done and done often.
I would like to comment briefly on the puffery surrounding
Team Canada's alleged success in snagging those ephemeral deals.
The government needs to ask itself: What other factors play a role
in determining our exporters' success? Really, if Team Canada's
initiatives are all it takes to be successful abroad, then why would
we not see our exports to China, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Chile,
Argentina and Uruguay rising instead of falling after our big ticket
missions there?
Mr. Eggleton: They are rising.
Mr. Morrison: The hon. minister says they are not falling. He
should check the government's statistics which are a matter of
public record. India, I recall, had a drop of 16 per cent.
(1530)
There must be some other ingredients required in the foreign
sales mix. A healthy economy is one. Strong companies and
confident consumers who are not burdened with an unbearable tax
load is another one. How about the ability to build some muscle
through domestic trade by allowing companies to freely trade with
neighbouring provinces?
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to tell the hon. member that he
has the same amount of time as the minister, and that time has
unfortunately expired.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 59th report of the Standing
9225
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items.
Pursuant to Standing Order 92, this report is deemed adopted on
presentation.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 60th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
regarding the membership of the Standing Committees on Industry
and on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 60th report later this day.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-390, an act to amend the Food and
Drugs Act (labelling for prepackaged foods).
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to propose this private
member's bill which would amend the Food and Drugs Act to
prohibit the retail sale of a prepackaged food containing an
ingredient that has been genetically altered through a prescribed
biotechnological process unless a label is attached stating that the
prepackaged product has been genetically altered or contains an
ingredient that has been genetically altered.
Since genetics engineering is racing full speed ahead with no
checks and balances in place, the purpose of this bill is to protect
the consumer so that the consumer knows what he or she is buying.
I am pleased to propose this bill today and I look forward to
engaging in debate when the time comes.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-391, an act to amend the Criminal Code (penalties for sexual
offences involving children).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill I am introducing today will do
three things in amending the Criminal Code of Canada. It will
provide a maximum punishment of life in prison with no parole for
25 years if guilty of sexual assault on a child under 8 or a child
under 14 who is under the offender's trust or authority or who is
dependent on the offender.
It will suggest an increase in the maximum penalty for forcible
confinement to 14 years in the case of a parent or ward who
confines a child and thereby harms the child's physical or mental
health. It will provide assurance that the definition of publication in
the case of child pornography covers transmission by electronic
mail or posting the material on the Internet or any other electronic
net.
(1535)
I would like to thank those who have supported me in this bill. I
look forward to debating this issue in the House in the near future.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
the consent of the House, I move that the 60th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled in the
House today be adopted.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
the consent of the House to move his motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved:
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on
Monday, October 28, 1996, be concurred in.
[
Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I am confused. When you
are writing with one hand and listening with one ear, mistakes
occur. Of course, we allow the report to be tabled, if it is not too
late.
The Deputy Speaker: Everything is possible in the House if the
House gives its consent to reconsider the motion of a few minutes
ago.
[English]
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the
concurrence in the third report of this standing This was with
regard to the family trusts that the Minister of Finance referred to
earlier today in question period when he talked about how he had
closed all tax loopholes and accused the other parties of not
supporting tax cuts.
9226
When we look at the record of this government as it relates to
issues such as family trusts, we find that the record is less than
commendable.
Last May, I believe, the auditor general tabled his report
regarding the family trust issue. He was very concerned about the
situation where about $2 billion had been transferred out of this
country on a tax free basis.
The transaction happened in 1991 but the present government
obviously concurred with the decision of the previous government
because it did everything it could in its power to ensure that the
decision of the previous government was retained and enforced and
it stood by it.
After some months, after it became public, the Minister of
Finance stood up in the House with a ways and means motion and
closed the loophole but did not close it retroactively. What that
meant was the issue of $2 billion moving out of this country tax
free by people of very substantial means. It is only people of very
substantial means who can have $2 billion to move anywhere,
albeit out of the country on a tax free basis.
(1540)
After the people involved and others who had the same
opportunities available to them were able to take advantage of this
loophole that had occurred in the law, the Minister of Finance stood
in the House and closed the loophole. I find that abominable for the
individual small taxpayer of this country.
As the House knows, the Reform Party in its fresh start
introduced proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act and
proposed that the basic exemption be increased from its current
amount of around $5,800 to $7,900. That gives every Canadian in
this country, rich or poor, working or otherwise, a tax break.
However, it does not focus the tax break on the super rich. It
focuses it on the working Canadians who carry this country on their
backs.
We found that the Minister of Finance, by his actions and by his
collusion with the decisions of the previous government, aided and
abetted a situation where hundreds of millions of dollars of taxes
went uncollected. On that basis, I find it rather appalling that the
Minister of Finance would stand in the House, as the protector of
the poor, and accuse the other parties of being otherwise when in
fact it was his government that had it in its power to ensure that the
rich and super rich pay their share and he did not do so.
These are the types of things that are abhorrent in this country.
When we look to our parliamentarians for leadership, we find they
make the rules according to those who have access, and for the
small individual Canadian who just pays a bit of tax there is no
opportunity for him to avoid or in any way escape the long arm of
the tax collector. Yet others we find have had opportunities to walk
away with what appears to be several hundred million dollars of
tax through a small loophole.
I was involved in the debates at the time through the public
accounts committee. I was appalled by the way the deputy minister
of finance and others in his department tried to justify this
situation. It dealt with an issue called taxable Canadian property.
Every tax practitioner I am aware of is fully aware that taxable
Canadian property has always been referred to in the context of
international transactions. No one but no one could find any
reference in the Income Tax Act, the income tax publications, the
income tax rules, the income tax books published by the CCH or
anyone else for that matter that made any reference to Canadian
taxable property as being part of the domestic tax scene. Yet we had
the deputy minister of finance come before the committee and say
``this was such a simple thing, it has been the rule since 1971, and it
is so obvious that we did not even have to document it in this
particular case''.
The point is if it had been such a simple and obvious thing, if
Canadian taxable property applied to domestic transactions, such
as real estate transactions-I remember one official from the
Department of Finance saying that every time a Canadian acquires
an asset he is acquiring Canadian taxable property and that is the
way it has been since 1971-not one publication, not one reference
in the Income Tax Act and not one reference by tax practitioners
would suggest this.
(1545 )
Members know of the ongoing dialogue between the accounting
profession and the Department of National Revenue regarding the
way the Income Tax Act is applied to profits. Over a period of 25
years not one reference was ever made to the fact that Canadian
taxable property was part of a domestic transaction. Yet the
government says it is so simple and it has always been that way.
How on earth could the practitioners deem that this particular
transaction was an allowable one? We have had the senior officials
in committee and the Minister of Finance in the House stand up and
say absolutely that this is an obvious situation. That is what turns
the small taxpayer against government and politicians.
When the Minister of Finance stood today and made specific
reference to this trust and the fact that he had closed the loophole I
took exception to his statement. I wondered what he was doing.
Today he is trying to be the defender of the small taxpayer. He
made reference to the fact that he had closed this massive loophole,
yet everyone knows that he left it open a mile wide. Anybody who
has the expertise, the desire and the motive can take advantage of
it. People can even get what is called an advanced tax write-off to
lock it in. After all that, we find out that the small taxpayer cannot
do it.
9227
The member for Medicine Hat told us that personal income tax
as a percentage of GDP has gone up 15 per cent. The Minister
of Finance told us that he had not raised income taxes. The small
taxpayer is carrying the country on its back, the wealthy have the
opportunity to take advantage of the loopholes and the government
allows them to go through before it closes the door.
I am going to close now because I am splitting my time
according to the Standing Orders.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member who has just spoken and so eloquently at that. I am very
pleased at the interest the Reform Party is suddenly taking in this
committee's report.
However, I learned that the question of family trusts was not
allowed to go to the public accounts committee. I would like the
member to shed some light on these famous family trusts criticized
by the Auditor General that should normally have been studied by
the public accounts committee but were not.
I would like an explanation, and I would also like to hear a bit
about this family trust scandal that, as my hon. colleague was
saying, apparently left the small taxpayer stuck once again with the
bill for this monumental blunder by the federal government. So I
would ask my colleague to tell us a little more about that.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to enlighten him on the
problem. I am sure the Minister of Finance was well aware of the
issue a long time before it became public through the publication of
the auditor general's report last May.
(1550 )
When it became public, the Minister of Finance immediately
referred it to the Standing Committee on Finance for study. It was
studied for many months while the law remained in place with this
great big, wide loophole that a truck could drive through. I am sure
many people did drive a truck full of money across the border tax
free because that is what happened when it went to the finance
committee. The committee sat on it for months.
After the finance committee reported back to the House in
September, three months after the general public became aware of
it and this House became aware of it, the Minister of Finance
introduced a ways and means motion. He could have stopped it the
very day the auditor general made his report public and he did not.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for St. Albert.
My colleague mentioned very clearly his concern about who
pays taxes. He talked about the long arm of the tax collector. He
also talked about the questions and answers of the Minister of
Finance today in the House. The minister tried to make the case
that the Liberal government was taxing banks and a variety of other
rich people in Canada more now than before.
The story is unclear. During this term of the 35th Parliament we
witnessed and know it happened, the Liberal government-the
Minister of Finance was involved and a representative from the
Montreal area-gave Bombardier $100 million practically interest
free.
An hon. member: It was $87 million.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): It was $87 million. Well, $87
million and $100 million is not very far apart. By the time it gets an
interest free loan it is soon going to be $100 million. This is a
company that made $400 million in profits in the last year and
could have financed $87 million very easily.
This goes on and on. The Liberals try to claim they are defenders
of the poor but at the same time they shovel the money out to the
rich. The poor people are being held by the long arm of the tax
collector. The tax collector grabs 40 per cent of the wages of young
people so they cannot get ahead. I would appreciate a comment
from my hon. colleague on that matter first.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. colleague as 30 seconds to
reply.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have said it once and my hon.
colleague has said it again. We can repeat it many times and we
will be repeating it many times on the election campaign.
The Deputy Speaker: There is 12 seconds left. Is the hon.
member splitting his time? I have three members standing. Which
member is speaking next?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I move:
That the member for Calgary Centre be now heard.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that the member
for St. Albert, who originally had the floor, had indicated to the
Chair and to the House that he was splitting his time. Perhaps you
would go back to that order.
The Deputy Speaker: The difficulty the Chair has is that in fact
I do not recall hearing the hon. member for St. Albert when he
began his intervention say that he was splitting his time. I heard an
hon. member say he did not hear him either. Can we have a small
moment of reflection?
It has been pointed out that the hon. member for St. Albert
indicated at the end of his remarks that he was splitting his time
with the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. Under those
9228
circumstances I hope colleagues will agree that the hon. member
for Saanich-Gulf Islands can now speak. The hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands can now speak.
(1555)
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I
would like to move:
That the member for Calgary Centre be now heard.
The Deputy Speaker: It is one of those afternoons. Members on
all sides of the House will appreciate that the peculiar requirements
for making a motion on a point of order, as the Chair sees it, were
met. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands had not said a
word of his speech.
Accordingly, the Chair has no choice, as I see it, but to accept
that the hon. member for Lethbridge has moved that the hon.
member for Calgary Centre be now heard. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it, barely. On
the basis that the yeas have it, I would declare that the motion is
carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will
find, on my point of order, that we had more than five members
rising. We want a standing vote.
The Deputy Speaker: Wonderful Wednesdays. The member for
Calgary Centre was recognized on debate. The hon. member for
Calgary Centre has the floor.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps
the Chair can give us some clarification. There were two members
standing. The member for Lethbridge stood up and asked on a point
of order for the House to recognize a certain member.
The Chair realized that it had no choice but to seek the opinion of
the House, which you did. When the yeas and nays were called, I
believe more than five members stood up seeking a vote. Perhaps
you can enlighten us why the bells have not been rung, and why the
member which the member for Lethbridge wanted to hear has not
been heard.
(1600 )
The Deputy Speaker: I basically agree with the way the
member has stated it, except that when the vote was called for the
yeas won it. Therefore, in my view, the motion had passed and
accordingly the House is acceding to the motion which is to give
the hon. member for Calgary Centre the floor on debate.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre has the floor.
Some hon. members: We need a ruling.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has made his point. I
obviously have not answered it to his satisfaction.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre has the floor on debate.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
concurrence motion on the third report of the public accounts
committee deals with a very important issue. The issue is the fact
that tax havens are a big concern to the government. I got that
straight from the mouth of the Minister of National Revenue. I
know she is concerned about this, as we should all be. It is a very
important issue.
Apparently the government feels that it has closed this loophole,
that the matter has been handled very fairly, and that in no way,
shape or form will rich people be able to transfer assets within
trusts, or assets outside trusts, outside the country without paying a
fair percentage of taxes that one would consider to be right and fair.
My big concern is with the way the matter was handled. Right
from the start the government was upset with the auditor general,
our watchdog on government. Lord knows we need a watchdog on
government. When we have cabinet ministers loose with a bunch of
money, billions of dollars without having someone audit them, we
can imagine what they could potentially do with it.
It should be the same as what we do with private citizens and
corporations. We audit large corporations and small corporations.
We audit individual taxpayers to ensure, as the Minister of Natural
Resources likes to say, that we have integrity in our tax system and
the volunteer system continues forward.
I do not think the government was very smart in attacking the
auditor general. After all, there was confusion with respect to this
family trust. It was a very wealthy trust. If the government is
worried that they have done something wrong then it should have
complained. If it was not worried it should not have complained. It
looked bad for the government.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I would
like a recorded vote on the motion put to the House by the member
for St. Alberta. The House does not know who said yea or nay. It is
my right to be able to ask for a recorded vote.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has already ruled on that
matter. It may have been an erroneous ruling but the Chair has
9229
ruled on it and we have moved on to the matter of the hon.
member's intervention which he is in the process of making.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would be so kind as to
let me know when I have one minute left in my speech. With all
these interruptions I am losing track of the points I want to make,
and I want to make sure I finish with a bang.
I am concerned about this third report. After the government
finally accepted the auditor general's criticism, looked into the
matter and had the Standing Committee on Finance and the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts review it, it became clear
that something had to be done and the government acted.
Personally I feel the government has gone too far. It put in some
strict rules that ultimately led to something everyone will see on
their income tax form this year. They will see a foreign asset
declaration section. Never in the history of the country has an
income tax form been used to find out where everybody's assets are
offshore. Because of this overreaction the government has put it in
the income tax forms. It was done prematurely, with arrogance and
with anticipation that the bill would pass and it has not passed. It is
not even law.
(1605)
Now we have confusion across this land. This will simply ensure
the Canadian taxpayer will become more frustrated and angrier
than ever with our taxation policies. Instead of simplifying our tax
policies the government continues to complicate them in such a
way that I think more money will go into the underground economy
and more money will go offshore because of high levels of
taxation.
More people will start investing in tax free jurisdictions through
tax exempt companies. They will put their after tax dollars into
those tax exempt companies. There are people from tax haven
countries who tour across the country and advise people on how to
do it. It is legal. Because of our high levels of taxation that is what
will happen.
They set up a lot of people, a lot of Canadian companies. Large
corporations have set up their head offices offshore so they will not
have to report their income to the Canadian government. If
Canadians are able to make investments in tax exempt companies
legally with after tax dollars as the money grows and accumulates
in whatever it has been invested in offshore; if they do not take a
dividend; and if they do not take a salary, they can still live in
Canada and enjoy our wonderful health care and education
systems, which are shrinking thanks to the Liberal government.
Then what happens? The offshore money grows tax free. They
can reinvest the offshore money tax free. Does that not sound like a
good idea? More Canadians will look at that. They will find that it
appeals to them, that they like it, that they enjoy it. They will do it.
That is where they will invest their money. That is what will
happen.
Fewer and fewer Canadians every day have disposable income,
including the Liberal Party whip who I know has some problems
meeting his financial obligations in his household these days
because he is taking home today much less money. I am making the
same salary except for the whip money. He is taking home $3,000
less today than he was four years ago thanks to his own
government. I hope he finds he can make ends meet with $3,000
less. In his tax bracket that is what the government and the finance
minister have cost him.
Why are Canadians investing offshore? I made a list of why I
think more people will invest less in companies in Canada and will
go elsewhere because of the growing global economy. Here is what
most Canadians feel about our country's taxation system. The
current system is not fair. People perceive it to favour the rich and
politicians at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
People question the value for money they are getting from
politicians who do not know how to invest their money and do not
have the business acumen to invest in businesses. Why are
government officials investing in businesses and competing with
the private sector? We could look at the bungling of the Pearson
airport and the huge grant to Bombardier of over $1 billion over the
years. This past year the company made a $400 million profit.
The Saskatchewan Conservative Party is being raked over the
coals and being sent to jail for misuse of funds and raising money
the wrong way. These are the things that scare people.
Let us look at the changes to the RRSPs for retired people. Now
they have changed it from 69 to 71. Reducing taxes is difficult.
Because of our confusing, complicated and convoluted Income Tax
Act there is a fine line between tax avoidance which is legal, taking
advantage of the loopholes, the exemptions and everything that is
there, versus tax evasion. I have no respect for those who are guilty
of tax evasion. Our bureaucracy in Revenue Canada is huge and
costs a lot of money.
(1610)
Yesterday in the public accounts committee we were reviewing
the issue of large corporations. Of the large corporations there are
6,000 plus 200 super huge conglomerates that they audit 100 per
cent every year. I asked whether any of them ever got through
without having to be reassessed. The answer was not one.
That does not mean these people are trying to evade taxes. It
means they are trying to avoid taxes wherever they can legally but
there is always a difference of opinion. Five or six people disagree.
There is a reluctance to address debt. I could go on and on, but
before my time is up and since I am having a hard time getting
everyone's attention I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
9230
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1650 )
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 273)
YEAS
Members
Blaikie
Cummins
Epp
Gilmour
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Jennings
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Thompson
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-19
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Discepola
Dumas
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Ménard
Mercier
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-151
PAIRED MEMBERS
Brien
Calder
Chamberlain
Collins
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
English
Fry
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Lefebvre
McKinnon
Patry
Rocheleau
Steckle
Vanclief
Venne
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
9231
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1730 )
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 274)
YEAS
Members
Arseneault
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lee
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Szabo
Telegdi
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-91
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Blaikie
Cummins
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Meredith
Morrison
Schmidt
Solberg
Speaker
Thompson
White (North Vancouver)
Williams -20
PAIRED MEMBERS
Brien
Calder
Chamberlain
Collins
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
English
Fry
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Lefebvre
McKinnon
Patry
Rocheleau
Steckle
Vanclief
Venne
After the taking of the vote:
[Translation]
Mrs Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition would like to vote on the motion.
An hon. member: They had their chance.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: No, no.
[English]
The Speaker: I called on three separate occasions during the
taking of the vote for all those who were in favour of the motion to
rise. Not seeing anyone, I called-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I called for all those who were in favour of the
motion on three occasions. Not seeing anyone, I called for all those
who were opposed to the motion and we voted on that.
If there are other members who are opposed to the motion, they
can vote now, but the voting for those who are in favour has passed.
I declare the motion carried.
(1735)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport and the
Minister of the Environment entered the House after the whips had
walked up the floor and they voted on the motion just taken.
Therefore, I think that their votes were out of order.
9232
The Speaker: The hon. members who were mentioned are here
in the House now. Did they enter after the vote was called?
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I would happily take my name off
the list of those who voted if it offends the hon. member. I do not
wish to hold the House up any longer on this point.
Mr. Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to follow the
leadership of my friend from British Columbia.
The Speaker: Are there other points of order?
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify things, I did rise.
When I looked, people at the end had not risen. It seemed they were
not going to rise. The Prime Minister said-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mrs. Tremblay: Our rights have been trampled.
The Speaker: I put the question and, for some reason, members
did not want to vote. They will not vote this time around. Is there
another point of order?
The hon. member for Richelieu.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services also came in late for the vote.
Mrs. Marleau: Mr. Speaker, if it can put an end to this silly
game, I will follow in my colleagues' footsteps.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I believe we are ready to proceed.
_____________________________________________
9232
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 18 consideration of the motion
that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government; and of the amendment.
The Speaker: It being 5.40 p.m., the House will now proceed to
the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment
relating to Ways and Means Motion No. 15.
Call in the members.
(1755 )
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division):
(Division No. 275)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier
Godin
Jacob
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-34
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dupuy
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Meredith
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
9233
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Szabo
Telegdi
Thompson
Torsney
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-127
PAIRED MEMBERS
Brien
Calder
Chamberlain
Collins
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
English
Fry
Gagnon (Québec)
Goodale
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Lefebvre
McKinnon
Patry
Rocheleau
Steckle
Vanclief
Venne
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to inform
the House that Friday rather than Thursday will be the fourth and
final day of the budget debate.
* * *
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a
message has been received from the Senate informing this House
that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the
concurrence of this House is desired: Bill S-15, an act to amend an
act to incorporate the Bishop of the Arctic of the Church of
England in Canada.
This bill is deemed to have been read the first time and ordered
for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
_____________________________________________
9233
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-300, an act
respecting the establishment and award of a Canadian
peacekeeping service medal for Canadians who have served with
an international peacekeeping mission as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-300 provides for a Canadian peacekeeping service medal to
be awarded to Canadians who have participated in peacekeeping,
peacemaking, peace enforcement or humanitarian assistance
missions which have been sanctioned by the Government of
Canada.
In my opinion these would be accurately described under the
umbrella term international stabilization missions. They do not
always have identified direct connection or impact on Canada but
Canadians, as compassionate citizens of the world and as
international traders, recognize the need and propriety of the
involvement of Canadians in these places to better the lot or
improve the situation for the people who find themselves in these
trouble spots.
The Canadians who respond to these calls willingly forego the
comfort of home, the companionship of family and the opportunity
to train and better their qualifications, to often place themselves in
uncomfortable, dangerous situations.
(1800)
In so doing they have brought great honour and pride to Canada,
including the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to those who served
the UN prior to September 1988. Some 150 of them have paid the
supreme sacrifice and many more carry the wounds and disabilities
that resulted from their participation in these activities.
In the past their contributions have sometimes been recognized
by the United Nations and other organizations, but until now there
has been no way for Canada to provide individual recognition of
the honour and pride they have brought to Canada. Today true
Canadian recognition for their individual service in the cause of
international stabilization, past, present and future, is one step
closer to becoming a reality.
Bill C-300 has undergone a metamorphosis, emerging at today's
pivotal point after having benefited from incorporating enlightened
and thoughtful input from hon. members of the House, from
interested Canadians across the country, and from the Canadian
Armed Forces. As a result I believe, with the exception of
specifically recognizing those who won the Nobel Peace Prize, it
now gives Canada the ability to acknowledge those military,
constabulary, medical or other Canadians who have given of
themselves to help others.
This will only happen if Parliament gives its approval, both this
House and the other place, prior to the dissolution of Parliament. If
not, all these efforts will have been in vain.
For Bill C-300 to have reached report stage and third reading
today is an exemplary display of what can be achieved when
members of all parties see the worth of a measure and set out to see
it proclaimed into law. I am truly honoured that members of the
House have given their consent by special order to move Bill
9234
C-300 quickly up the order of precedence to be debated at report
stage and third reading today.
I much appreciate and wish to thank the chief government whip
for his support and introduction of the motion making this debate
possible. I extend my sincere gratitude to all members of the House
for their tremendous support and constructive input both on an
individual basis and through debate. Many of the recommendations
which they offered have indeed strengthened and enhanced Bill
C-300 as they were adopted in committee on March 12 and are now
reflected in the bill reported to Parliament yesterday.
The co-operation afforded by members of the House of
Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs and the ensuing discussions on various aspects of the bill
have been most helpful and are gratefully appreciated.
The committee chair, the member for Halifax, and all members
are to be commended for their co-operation in moving my bill
quickly through committee. I should additionally thank the former
committee chairman, the member for Hillsborough, for his
contribution and support.
The expert testimony, advice and recommendations received in
committee from Major General Dallaire, the chief of staff for the
assistant deputy minister of personnel; Major Bev Brown of the
directorate of history and heritage, medals and honours; and Major
Gallagher, special assistant to the judge advocate general called on
as witnesses proved to be invaluable.
The defence department witnesses were able to give us the
guidance necessary to ensure that Canadian recognition for
peacekeeping service would be appropriately directed. I am most
appreciative of their support.
It was at second reading on February 3, 1997 that the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and
Veterans Affairs advised the House that the government would not
oppose the bill. Thus I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge
and thank the Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs
for the courtesy extended to me and the tremendous assistance
provided by the minister and his staff, in particular Margaret
Penniston.
There is every indication that it will be the will of the House to
pass Bill C-300 this evening. The only remaining obstacle will then
be approval in the other place. From communications I have had
with some members of the other place it would appear there is a
good chance that it will pass quickly and thus be in a position to be
proclaimed into law before the 35th Parliament is dissolved for an
election.
With that I will conclude, leaving the fate of Bill C-300 in the
hands of hon. members of the House.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is with
very great pleasure that I stand to speak in support of Bill C-300. I
return the favour and thank the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands for his kind words to members of the standing committee,
to members of the minister's staff and to others who assisted with
the bill. It is my great pleasure to pay tribute to the member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands.
(1805)
Too frequently in the House we are accused, and sometimes
rightfully, of partisan behaviour. In this case the member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands brought the bill forward and worked
diligently and with great perseverance with all our colleagues in the
House. There was also assistance from hon. members of the official
opposition.
I for one am pleased to have been involved in a small way in the
hard work put forward by the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
The only thing I would add is a reference to one of the high points
of this exemplary piece of legislation. It can be given to persons not
just in the Canadian forces but those involved in activities in the
peacekeeping area such as policing, local administration, the
delivery of aid, medical assistance or election assistance.
I conclude by thanking and congratulating the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands. I am very pleased to have had a very small
part to play in the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, first I
want to congratulate the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands
for his great tenacity and for his sense of duty.
As we all know, the hon. member had a long and distinguished
military career. He has made a major contribution to the defence
committee, because of his expertise and also because he is a true
gentleman. Indeed, the hon. member has provided a lot of input in
the work of the defence committee.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois, on whose behalf I am speaking, is
pleased to support this bill, which will allow peacekeepers
throughout the world to promote democracy and to preserve
freedom, so that the world can become a better place. As I said, we
are pleased to support this bill.
Ever since the UN was founded, Canada has been taking part in
peacekeeping missions all over the world. However, there is
currently no medal awarded to the military, civilians or policemen
who serve with a peacekeeping mission. Under this bill, we would
now be able to award such a medal.
Canada is aware of the many limitations of peacekeeping
operations. Canada, which is an average size country, must
continue to take part in these missions but, as we have always
pointed out, it must do so according to its means. I think that, as a
career military person himself, the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands understood that we can acknowledge such contributions,
but do it our own way. We need not compare ourselves to the
9235
greatest and wealthiest of this world, but only to ourselves and see
what we can offer.
Since Lester Pearson, Canada has deployed forces wherever they
were required to uphold principles. I think that, through this bill,
through the hon. member's tenacity and, of course, through the
government's support for this bill-everyone agrees on this-we
now have a bill providing that all these men and women who
participated in peacekeeping missions can be honoured. We cannot
put a price on that, I feel. It is not the metal that counts, but the
symbol.
(1810)
I find it interesting that, under this bill, the medal can be
awarded posthumously. There are people who sacrificed their lives
and their family will receive this honour on their behalf.
As I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois members are very happy to
support this bill. I think it promotes democracy and at least those
people who participated in peacekeeping missions will have a
tangible reminder of their deed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
order made on Tuesday, March 18, 1997, all questions necessary to
dispose of Bill C-300 at report and third reading stages are deemed
to have been proposed, put and carried.
[English]
Accordingly the bill is concurred in at report stage, read the third
time and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion
and of the amendment.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak on Motion
No. 277 of the hon. member for Beaver River. It is a topic which is
very dear to my heart.
I raised this issue on September 29, 1995 in question period and
again on October 2, 1995 in question period because it was brought
to my attention that the option of claiming to be a Canadian would
not be on the new census.
Having been one of the Canadians who had a long census form to
fill out, I found it very interesting, particularly Question No. 19 and
its confused language, nationality, geographic origin and colour.
Trying to answer Question No. 19 became extremely difficult.
One of the options under Question No. 19 was other. Because
Canadian was not listed anywhere in that question, I had the
uncomfortable situation of having to place Canadian under other. I
refused to identify myself as a colour, as belonging to some
geographic region or as someone who speaks a certain language.
For a government not to allow Canadians to identify themselves as
being Canadian is not progressive.
I am faced daily with people who are assumed to be immigrants
and newcomers to Canada. Some of these immigrants have lived in
Canada for 20 or 30 years. Because we as a government insist on
breaking people down based on the origins of the family trees of
individuals who are Canadians in all sense of the word-they pay
taxes, use and pay for the facilities, the hospitals and the schools,
have citizenship and vote in elections-they are not able to call
themselves Canadians on our census form.
I do not want to leave the impression that I do not believe it is
important to accumulate statistics. It is very important. It is
acceptable for persons to be asked in a straightforward manner
their racial background and left to determine what they want to put
down, whether it is Irish, Scottish, Jamaican, Korean or whatever.
They should not be asked if they are white or black, from the
Philippines or from the Punjab. That is the wrong way to ask for a
person's racial background or nationality. It is for statistical
reasons only.
(1815)
Canadians must be allowed to proudly claim that they are
Canadian. I do not care whether a person is a brand new Canadian
who got his or her citizenship the day before the census form
arrived, or are Canadian born, or are a Canadian who has been here
for 30 or 40 years. People who have come to this country or who
were born here and are proud of being Canadian should be
encouraged to state that on a census form.
It was with trepidation that I filled Canadian under other. It is a
disgrace to have to put Canadian under the category of other. I also
took the opportunity to fill in my lineage which was quite an
interesting experience since I am a typical Canadian. My parentage
is Scottish, Irish, Pennsylvania Dutch, German, Swedish and a few
other other things to boot. That is what being a Canadian is all
about. I felt I was not able, through the census form, to indicate
honestly what I felt: I am proud to be Canadian. I am proud to be a
third or fourth generation Canadian. I was saddened that my
children could not put down that they are Canadians.
My hon. colleague's motion asks to return to the use of the word
Canadian in questions like question No. 19. I do not buy the
answers I received to my questions in question period. I quote the
Minister of Industry: ``On the issue of race, in the past people have
9236
made calculations based on language rather than a specific question
on racial origin. This time we think the provision of fuller
information will give us a much better understanding of the
make-up of Canadian society that should be beneficial for a wide
range of purposes''.
I would like to know what is the ``range of purposes''. I would
like to know what the government is planning. It feels it has to
segregate little communities. Depending on how it feels it must
segregate them from each other. I really think this is a very divisive
way of dealing with new Canadians.
My hon. colleague from Beaver River is looking to the unity of
the country when she suggests that the federal government should
be concerned about those things that bring Canadians together,
about recognizing Canadianism. The identification of being
Canadian is one of those things that will unify the country rather
than divide it.
Any government program that is designed to give special
consideration to any individual over another is wrong, particularly
if it is based on gender, race, religion, geography or colour. Any
government legislation that does not treat all Canadians equally is
wrong. I fully support my colleague from Beaver River. I
appreciate her efforts in trying to return some pride in being
Canadian and in trying to return the ability to exercise the right to
put Canadian down not as other, not as an afterthought, but very
proudly to claim oneself to be a Canadian. I look forward to the
next census I have to fill in where I can mark Canadian rather than
other.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
too would like to commend the member for Beaver River for
bringing this motion forward. In particular, I would like to thank
that member for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the
motion.
(1820 )
We are in an age where government seems to be intruding into so
many areas of our lives. I can name a number of bills recently
introduced in the House that do exactly that. One has to ask the
question why. For example, think about the Canadian Wheat Board
and its impact on many farmers in the country, especially western
farmers, in how they sell their product. Some desire to sell their
own grain but cannot do so because of the restrictions placed on
them by the government.
I look at the gun control bill and see again a very intrusive
feature. Some sections in the gun control legislation impact
directly on law-abiding people. I do not think that is acceptable to
the majority of people in the country.
Some of the more recent broadcasting legislation impinges on
those who have businesses in that area. We see control on what can
be broadcast, what can be sent out over the airwaves and what
cannot. That is not to say that there should not be some legislation
or restriction, but here we have restrictions that are going much
deeper than what should be.
Coming up to the census, Statistics Canada, under the
Department of Industry, claimed that the purpose of the question,
in particular question No. 19 on the long form, was to organize
population by selected ethnic origins. Those are the reasons it gave
for collecting this data. This, irrespective of the politically correct
spin bureaucrats and social engineers attempt to put on it, is
nothing more than the labelling of people on the basis of race. Most
people just want to be called Canadians.
I look at my own riding. I live in a very multicultural riding. I
have neighbours who are from India, Jamaica and the Middle East.
For the most part, they would like to be considered as Canadians.
They came to Canada just for that reason. They do not come here to
be hyphenated Canadians, which is what is the official
multicultural policy of this Liberal government, which
unfortunately was introduced some time back into the House and
imposed on the people.
I refer to a statement made by Bruce Petrie, the StatsCan official
overseeing the census. He said that question 19 was changed on the
1996 census from other past censuses ``because too many
minorities born in Canada were listing themselves as Canadian''.
This upset Mr. Petrie. One would have to ask: Why would this
upset Mr. Petrie? I might point out that this quote came from the
Fredericton Daily Gleaner newspaper of May 13.
Mr. Petrie goes on to say: ``So someone who is black and speaks
English and was born in Canada puts Canadian- That gives us no
information to estimate the number of black visible minority
people. We are not trying to measure race per se. We are purely and
simply trying to enumerate visible minorities under existing
federal legislation''.
Again one would have to ask why. Why would the government
want to enumerate visible minorities under the existing legislation?
There is no question that it is a divisive form of regulation.
Let us go a little bit deeper. I have had the opportunity to speak
to RCMP officials. In fact in the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs this point was brought up. They want to have a
quota system on the different visible minority groups in the
country. The only way they can do that is to determine the number
or percentages of those different visible minorities through the
census.
The whole point is being missed if we engineer, for instance, a
police force, selecting those according to their race as opposed to
choosing the best there is regardless of race.
9237
(1825 )
Canadians know and feel that this is a form of social
engineering, and they do not care to hear that kind of spin. Mr.
Petrie would certainly fall into that category because it is people
such as himself who really drive this kind of a policy, with the
blessings of the government, in particular the Liberal government.
Putting a hyphen before Canadian, so people become
French-Canadian, Turkish-Canadian, Greek-Canadian,
Somali-Canadian, Israeli-Canadian, Hungarian-Canadian or
whatever, has to be the most divisive aspect of Canadian society. It
puts us all into little boxes and categories. I suggest this
undoubtedly is the purpose of the census information. It is going to
be used for that very reason.
I am going to speak again of my own riding, a very multicultural
riding. I see evidence there of this form of blocking of the
community by race or background. That does not enhance unity,
nor does it benefit those who come here from different ethnic
backgrounds or countries.
Canadians are painfully aware that Liberal politicians use the
information gathered from question No. 19 on the Canadian census
to appease minority groups to attract votes, so it has another
purpose. Vote buying.
Mr. Bodnar: Ludicrous.
Mr. Hanger: The member across the way said it is ludicrous to
say that, but that is exactly what is happening. The Liberal Party
has been a master at such manipulation.
Mr. Bodnar: You should be embarrassed at what you are saying.
Mr. Hanger: No, I am not embarrassed by what I am saying. I
think that it is important that Canadians hear it.
These same politicians also create quota systems for public
service jobs. It is a quota system that only impacts in areas where
the ruling party of the day allows it to take place. It is a form of
reverse discrimination. It is contrary to the equality of all citizens.
It sullies our reputation as a country which selects people for jobs
on the principle of merit rather than socially engineered notions of
race and entitlement.
Let us look further into this point of the census. The state is
demanding answers that are none of its business. The census also
asks Canadians to divulge other information: the marital status and
sex of room mates and/or inhabitants of their home; how much
money they make; how many books they have read in the past six
months; how often they take a vacation without the children; how
many windows they have which face north. That sounds like a real
valuable piece of information.
The government assures respondents that the information
collected from the census is confidential. I have been in the House
for about three and a half years. I realize that the information
gathered in many of the departments within the government is not
confidential. It is like a sieve and it leaks out all over.
The notion that the records will be kept confidential in my
opinion is absurd. I believe that a lot of Canadians have the fear
that it is not as safe as what the government would lead people to
believe.
For the reasons that I have outlined I have to urge that all
members of the House carefully examine Motion No. 277 and
support it in a vote.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
too am pleased to be able to have the opportunity to speak to the
motion of my colleague from Beaver River. I am especially
thankful for this opportunity, having become a Canadian by choice.
(1830)
When I received the census form this year I was one of the
individuals who received the long one. I cannot say exactly what
people feel like coming to a country and choosing it to be their
land. My wife and I came here in 1968 and fell in love with the
country and wanted to call it home. We chose to be Canadian.
Then along came this long census form. We saw choices of what
to mark but could not mark Canadian because it was not on the
form. I must admit the hairs on the back of my neck, because that is
the only place I have any, started to rise. I was getting angry.
I thought for a minute I should send a message by putting in
cocker spaniel. However cocker spaniel did not fit the way I felt at
the time and I thought pit bull would be better. I wanted to put in
something to drive home the point that I would like very much as a
person who has chosen Canada to be my home to write Canadian
and be proud to do so.
I wrote in the word Canadian. I was not going to sit back and say
it was crazy. I just cannot say how pleased I was to hear from the
social engineers on that side of the room. That is all this is, social
engineering. I probably would be one of those who would get in
trouble for not obeying the rule. We are required to obey rules.
However this leads to things that really bothered me. After we
arrived here we had one child born in Canada. He by birth is a
Canadian and very proud of it. As a Canadian he took advantage of
some of the opportunities available to him. He joined the air cadets
as a young man and spent five to six years in them. He was very
pleased with that program and I was pleased he did well. After
graduating from high school it was his desire to become a soldier.
He wanted to be a little better trained so he decided to go to
university to take some computer courses, which was a wise thing
to do, and to join the militia in Red Deer, Alberta.
He got acquainted with a group of people and spent two to three
years in the militia, along with getting some computer training at
9238
university. When he turned 22 he decided it was time to fulfil his
life dream to become a soldier in the Canadian army.
That is when everything fell apart. At the recruitment office in
Calgary he was told that because of his physical make-up there
would be no need for him to apply as a soldier in the Canadian
army for at least six years. It was necessary to fill the positions
available with other types of individuals.
That is totally shameful. That is exactly what happened. I hope
the member from Saskatchewan will not bother me with heckling,
nonsense and hogwash about quotas. I now have a son whose life
dream is being fulfilled. He got to be a soldier. It is only because of
where we came from that he was able to go south of the border.
Within three days the United States army took him because of his
qualifications. He has now been serving for over a year. He has
received a promotion and is doing very well. They were quite
intrigued with his qualifications and took him.
In the Canadian army he was told: ``Maybe in six years, but we
must fill these positions with other types of people''. I thought
Canadians should be able to fill those positions, particularly
Canadians who believe in the sovereignty of the land and are
willing to defend that sovereignty. Then along comes this form
which does not include the word Canadian.
(1835)
A lot of things make me very proud to be Canadian. We flew the
flag shortly after we came here as immigrants, before we qualified
to become citizens. We were proud to be in Canada so we flew the
flag. We could not be called Canadian at that time because we had
not had the opportunity to become one. We went to citizenship
court five years later when we qualified and walked away very
pleased to say we were Canadian.
Ministers and social engineers on that side of the House figure
that if they give out 20 million flags and get people to fly them
everywhere it will be a good sign of their love and pride for the
country. They have it all wrong.
As a result of this census and their so-called magnificent
employment equity bill, somewhere down the road through all this
social engineering and finagling even the people in private industry
will be forced in some way or another to make sure jobs are filled
with a certain quota. It is there already in a lot of places and it will
be worse.
At least on the census form we could have the word Canadian. I
really do not think it is a whole lot to ask for. I live in Canada. I
love the country. I am a member of Parliament. I would have liked
to be able to freely circle the word Canadian on that long form, and
it was not even there. That is why I felt like putting pit bull on the
form.
The social engineering that goes on in the House when it comes
to this kind of stuff makes me feel like a pit bull more days than I
would like to.
I have a son serving with the United States army in Georgia. He
does not like it down there. He would like to be in the north. He
would like to be in Canada. People who sit here and heckle, like the
member from Saskatchewan who heckled my friend from Calgary
Northeast when he was making his points, make life very difficult
for those who truly want to be a Canadian and to serve their country
in the best way they possibly can. They ought to be ashamed of
themselves for making it virtually impossible for a number of
Canadians to be able to do that.
Flying the flag is not the only thing. There are many other things
we can do and they do not see it. They are too busy social
engineering and doing the best they can for themselves.
Let us include the word Canadian in these census forms and be
proud we put it there. It will give people an opportunity to say they
are Canadian.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a delight
to stand in the House today to lend my support to the motion
proposed by the member for Beaver River.
Sometimes I am asked what it means to be a Canadian. I have a
number of different pictures in my mind of what it means to be a
Canadian that are very strong, very emphatic.
I am privileged by the fact that my grandparents were literally
chased out of their home country in 1923. They suffered great
persecution there. A number of my relatives were unjustly
murdered. My grandparents knew it was not a safe place for our
family and wondered where to go. Through various circumstances
which I do not have time to relate tonight they were able to find
their way to this wonderful country, Canada.
(1840)
I have recollections as a child growing up in a little farmhouse in
Saskatchewan where I was born and raised. I remember
overhearing my parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts and some of
their friends talking about the life they had experienced in what
they called the old country.
They talked about some of the hardships and difficulties they had
gone through and some of the ways in which their freedoms had
been totally taken away: their freedom to make a living the way
they wanted to make a living and their freedom to worship the way
they wanted to worship. Those freedoms were wrenched away from
them and they came to this country. I remember them talking about
how grateful and how blessed we were as a family because we
could be Canadian.
I remember being at the home of my grandparents many times.
Whether it was to celebrate a birthday, Easter or Christmas we
would get together as a family and my grandparents would lead us
9239
in family prayers. My grandmother was more expressive than my
grandfather. In her prayers she would say over and over: ``Thank
you for the privilege of living in this wonderful free country''.
They came here with 10 children. As an aside, until last year all of
them were still living. The youngest was 75. I come from hardy
stock. We live long.
My grandparents, my uncles and aunts on both sides of my
family came to this country as immigrants, worked hard and helped
to open up the west. They helped to till the land to produce food to
feed themselves and others. They were as proud as we are to be part
of this country. My parents were 12 years old when they came to
Canada so I am a first generation Canadian. I was actually born in
Saskatchewan. I called that home until I married and moved to
Alberta. I have very strong attachments.
There is especial attachment to the country when one grows up
in a farm family and tills the soil. There is an attachment to the land
when one actually works the soil and grows food for sustenance,
because we all know that without food we would not survive.
I have other recollections about being in this country. One of the
most valuable ones was that of my son who has served in different
places in the world where people were experiencing the same kinds
of hardships my grandparents experienced. Because of our family
heritage, partially at least, he felt it was a useful to spend part of his
life helping others who were in difficult circumstances. He worked
with various relief agencies around the world, carrying and wearing
a Canadian flag. He went there not only in the name of the
organization he was with but also in the name of our country.
A most recent recollection I had of the value of being a Canadian
was a very moving experience for me. I participated for the first
time ever in the ceremony of welcoming new Canadians at a
citizenship court. It happened last year on July 1. We were in the
historic court house in Fort Saskatchewan. As I recall the court
house was built before Saskatchewan became a province and joined
Confederation. It was an historical court house. There we were up
on the second floor with a number of different people who were
making Canada their home.
One lady in particular struck me. As she reached out to take from
the presiding judge her citizenship papers there were tears literally
streaming down her cheeks. It touched me because I had the
recollection of my grandmother who had that same emotional
reaction, that tie, that love of this country.
(1845)
When I talked to her afterwards she said essentially the same
thing that my grandmother had said: ``I came from a country of
great strife and I am so proud, so happy and so blessed to be a
Canadian''.
I do not believe that I can express more strongly or with more
emotion my support for the bill before the House today. It is a bill
which says let us call ourselves Canadians. This is the most valued
part of planet Earth. It is the most enviable place to live. There are
people around the world who would literally give anything they
have to live here, but for some reason we are hesitant to say that we
are Canadians.
I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this motion. I
urge all members on all sides of the House to support the motion
not because of any partisan consideration but simply because it is
the right thing to do.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
very glad to rise to speak to the motion which was introduced by
the hon. member for Beaver River.
I guess you might call me a new Canadian, having been born in
Scotland. I came here when I was 23 years of age. Unfortunately
that is quite some number of years ago. I cannot do anything about
that. Nonetheless, I am a new Canadian.
When I go back to Scotland to visit the many relatives and
friends I still have over there, after a few short weeks I want to
come back to Canada. This is my home.
I have family here. I have a wife and two fine young boys. My
wife was also born in Scotland. My boys were born here and they
are Canadian. They think of themselves as being Canadian. They
have lived in this country or all their lives, apart from a few weeks
when they visited Europe. What are they forced to put down on the
census form? Certainly not Canadian.
The Prime Minister stands in the House and tells us about how
this is the greatest country in the world. I endorse that statement. I
think this is the greatest country in the world and millions of people
would agree with me. However, let us remember that these people
built the greatest country in the world. It does not matter if they are
of Scottish origin, like I and my family, or of the different origins
which we have heard about in other speeches. They all came here
with a dream, with a hope, with an aspiration for a new beginning,
wanting to be Canadian.
I came here thinking that I wanted to be Canadian. For over 20
years I have held a Canadian passport. I am proud of that, yet there
is nothing I can put down on the census form which salutes and
recognizes that fact.
We have heard other speakers tell about the tragedies of where
their families came from. One of the great heritages of Canada is
that while, for example, Scotland has a great history of emigration,
Canada has a great history of immigration. That is what has made
this country strong.
My Scottish history tells me that a couple of hundred years ago
the Highlands clearances occurred and Scottish people's houses
were burned down and the kids were left to starve in the snow.
Some of them were able to make their way across the great Atlantic
Ocean to Canada. While they may have a strong emotional
9240
attachment to Scotland and call themselves Canadians with
Scottish roots, many of them have never left this country, and yet
they cannot call themselves Canadian.
(1850 )
I think back to the last war when Canadians liberated Holland.
The people of Holland are proud of it and grateful. As we know,
every year there are hundreds of thousands of bulbs sent over here
from Holland because the Canadians liberated their land. They
were not hyphenated Canadians, coloured Canadians, white
Canadians or other kinds of Canadians. All they know is Canadians
liberated their land.
Even when I was a little fellow back in Scotland they talked
about how the Canadians had worked around where I grew up and
the sawmills they built and the work they had done for the war
effort. They talked about Canadians. When I go over to Scotland on
a holiday, again these people see us as Canadians and are proud and
envious of what we have. Yet here in Canada we do not even want
to recognize who we are with our history of immigration.
While people have come from all around the world and from
desperate situations, each and every one of them has found
freedom. However, now we find that our freedoms are being
eroded. They are being pigeon holed, classified and counted
according to groups so that this government can come out with a
little subsidy program to say ``we are going to give some money to
you and to you'' because we are all categorized into different
groups. There are some of Scottish heritage, some of other
heritage, some who are black, some who are white, some who are
crippled, some who are handicapped and so on. The government is
going to count them all up so that it can see what the differences
are. That is divisive.
When the pioneers came to settle the prairies, I do not think they
cared two hoots about where a person came from. It was can he
work and can he put his shoulder to the wheel and does he believe
in building this wonderful land that we have. That was all that
mattered.
Now, in this great social engineering world that we are in, we
have to get everybody categorized and pigeon holed so that we can
design a program to fit them and have them developed down one
certain road. We are going to help other people develop in a
different way and somebody else go off in a different way so that
we can keep ourselves apart. How are we ever going to build this
national unity, national concept that we are Canadians from coast
to coast, each and every one of us?
It can be done and it will be done eventually in spite of this
government and in spite of government programs given enough
time. However, it will take a very long time if we continue on with
these divisive types of attitudes, categories, pigeon holes and labels
and count them all one to ten. Do we deny some people access to a
career even though they may qualify in merit but they happen to
come out of the wrong pigeon hole?
I have had this happen in my own riding. I have had people in my
office who had wanted to be members of the RCMP so bad that
they could taste it. I can think of one fine young gentleman with a
college degree who spent six hundred hours a year volunteering for
the RCMP. His older brother is a member of the force. He would
dearly love to be a member of the force. Wrong pigeon hole. He
cannot join. He has every qualification in the book that is required
and then some; yet wrong pigeon hole and he does not qualify.
This is the same as the member for Wild Rose. His son, wrong
pigeon hole and cannot qualify.
I dearly love, as a new Canadian, speaking in this House. Think
what that means when I travel back to Scotland and people say
``you are a member of Parliament in Canada'' and I say yes. They
say ``that is fabulous, how you have prospered over there''. I have
prospered. This country has been very good to me. Why, oh why do
we deny ourselves the right to call ourselves Canadian? Do we
deny the concept that we are Canadian, which could build unity and
harmony within the country, rather than the divisiveness that the
government wants to devise another program to solve. It is easy,
Madam Speaker. Listen to the people. Do not listen to the
government.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
order made Tuesday, March 18, 1997, the question is deemed to
have been put and a recorded division deemed deferred until
Monday, April 7, 1997.
It being 6.55 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.55 p.m.)