CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 23, 1997
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 10114
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 10114
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10115
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10115
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10115
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10116
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10116
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10116
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10117
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10117
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10119
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10119
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 10119
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 10120
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10120
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10120
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10120
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10121
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 10121
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 10122
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10122
Bill C-98. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 10124
Bill C-437. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 10124
Motion for concurrence in third report 10125
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10126
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10127
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 37; Nays, 101 10129
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 10129
Bill C-341. On the Order: Government Orders: 10136
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10137
10111
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 23, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As it is Wednesday, we will now sing our national
anthem. Today, rather than having the members of Parliament do
the singing, I have asked all our pages to be with us.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the pages sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since being
elected to this House in October 1993, I have worked to ensure that
Canadian landowners can have their concerns heard and considered
by the National Energy Board in hearings involving Canadian
pipelines.
I am happy to say that the Canadian Energy Pipeline
Association, CEPA, has introduced changes to the way it
communicates with landowners to allow landowner concerns to be
heard. This enhanced process will include mediation, when
necessary, to ensure that landowner concerns are not only being
heard but investigated by independent experts.
This could not have been accomplished without the tireless
efforts of the Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association, which is
centred in southwestern Ontario.
I look forward to working with CEPA, the Minister of Natural
Resources, the OPLA and other landowner groups across the
country, and federal and provincial federations of agriculture to
ensure that the enhanced process results in safer pipelines for all
Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker,
Le Courrier, the Saint-Hyacinthe newspaper, is
celebrating its 145th anniversary. Founded in 1853, it is the oldest
French newspaper in North America and a veritable institution.
Throughout its history, Le Courrier has covered political news
and the men and women that make it. Honoré Mercier served as
editor of Le Courrier, then member for Saint-Hyacinthe and then
premier of Quebec. Henri Bourassa and T.-D. Bouchard were both
residents of Saint-Hyacinthe famous at different times nationally
for their political activities.
(1405)
Despite its venerable age, Le Courrier remains a quality and
dynamic weekly respected even today by the weekly press, which
awarded it three years running-1994, 1995, and 1996-the
prestigious title of weekly of the year.
I would therefore like to congratulate the current employees of
Le Courrier of Saint-Hyacinthe and draw attention to the
invaluable contribution made by this monument of the Quebec
press.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are only days away from the expected election call.
The Liberals claim they will run on their record so let us take a look
at that record.
Bill C-33 provides the framework for further erosion of the
definition of the family and yet more benefits for a special interest
group.
Bill C-68 cracks down on millions of law-abiding citizens but
does nothing to the criminals of this country. The preservation of
section 745 of the Criminal Code allows monsters like Clifford
Olson and Paul Bernardo to apply for early release.
Over $250 million is being spent to cover up the Liberals'
Pearson scandal without creating a single job, in spite of false
Liberal claims. The CPP payroll tax has been hiked 73 per cent.
Social programs have been cut $7 billion. We have had the largest
tax revenue increase in Canadian history. Parliament has had one
free vote since 1993.
Convicted criminals have a record. Clearly they should not be
proud of their record. Neither should the Liberals.
10112
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
NDP welcomes the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the
repeal of the Chinese exclusion act, the discriminatory law that
along with the Chinese head tax that proceeded it, imposed great
hardship on Chinese Canadians.
It is a reminder that Canadian governments have not always
governed according to the highest standards of equality in
democracy. One is reminded of the way Japanese and Italian
Canadians were treated during the second world war, the way
Ukrainian Canadians were treated during the first world war, the
way the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were not welcome in Canada
or the way that so-called Orientals were denied the vote for years.
It is important to remember and to say never again, but may I add
that many of my NDP political predecessors in the CCF were
politically courageous enough to condemn such things when they
were actually happening and when it was not popular to do so. Part
of remembering is remembering who was there when the going was
tough.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Transport
Canada recently privatized the ferry service between Saint John
and Digby, Nova Scotia. I have spent the last few weeks trying to
correct this deal gone bad for the former Marine Atlantic
employees.
The winning bidder, Bay Ferries, let all 230 Marine Atlantic
employees go on privatization. They were told to go home and wait
for a phone call. Many of the employees were not hired back, even
though they were fully qualified with 20-plus years of service.
I have tried unsuccessfully through the Department of Transport
to get a copy of the final contract between Bay Ferries and the
government. My access to information request was returned to me
explaining that I needed to send an extra $100 because it would
take the department 15 hours to find a copy of its own contract.
This is a stalling tactic and tells me the Minister of Transport has
something to hide. If the minister has nothing to hide, I ask that he
live up to the government's promise of more open government and
table a copy of the contract in this House immediately.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many of my
constituents in Lincoln rely on herbal remedies for their health and
wellness needs. Lately they have been concerned that their access
to herbal and botanical preparations is being denied by the health
protection branch.
To their surprise, herbal remedies, many of which have been
used for hundreds of years, are increasingly being classified as
drugs, banned for regular use.
Perhaps the time has come to create a new legislative regime
which would respect the special role that herbal remedies play in
the health industry. The benefits would be clear, more protection
for consumers, stronger recognition of the importance of
preventive medicine and an enhancement of the health and
wellness of many Canadians.
This new step can only be taken if the health protection branch
and the natural medicine industry work closely together to define
an approach to natural health products that will capture their unique
uses and properties.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House today to recognize national book day and to
acknowledge the importance of Canada's printing industry to our
economy.
The advent of the printing press changed the face of the world. It
advanced math, literacy and the spread of information, paving the
way for modern democracy.
In 1751 the first printing company opened in Canada and today
most of us can name a friend or relative employed in this industry.
The printing industry is primarily Canadian owned and employs
more than 75,000 Canadians working in 3,200 establishments
across the country. Another 85,000 are employed in the fine paper
industry that supplies their presses. The printing industry is the
fourth largest manufacturing employer in the nation, producing $8
billion in shipments this year. Exports to the United States alone
increased by 13 per cent.
(1410)
Canada's commercial printing industry is dominated by small
firms, with 82 per cent employing fewer than 20 persons. They also
use some of the most advanced technologies available.
We should be proud of this industry, one that continues to
prosper, adding to a healthy Canadian economy.
* * *
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year Canada celebrates the 50th anniversary of its
Citizenship Act. For the Chinese Canadian community, 1947 was
also a year of importance for another reason.
It was on May 14, 1947 that the Chinese immigration act was
repealed and immigrants from China were no longer treated
separately from other immigrants. This act had been passed in
10113
1923 and virtually prohibited all Chinese immigration to Canada
until its repeal.
Attaining Canadian settlement and citizenship was a victory
made possible by generations of Chinese Canadians who
surmounted great hardship and fought for equal opportunity to
participate in and contribute to Canadian society. The Chinese
Canadian community across the country is planning a series of
events this year to pay tribute to those pioneers who paved the way
for those who have followed.
I know that all members will recognize the significant
contributions made by all immigrants, particularly by Chinese
Canadians, in all areas of Canadian society when this 50th
anniversary is commemorated next month.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, for a number of years now squadron 630 of
Beauport has been taking part in military march and music
competitions.
The cadets in the squadron have been finalists in competitions
for the past five years and winners of the SIMMS trophy for the
past three.
As member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, I had the
opportunity to see them perform in my riding, where the squadron
is based. This year again, they will demonstrate their worth and
their prowess on June 1.
I invite everyone to come and hear the next generation at this
competition in Quebec City. Military marching and music will be
the order of the day, and the cadets will be as talented as in years
past.
If we want people to have a sense of duty, we must encourage
their efforts and applaud their performances.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government ordered the Canadian forces to fight in the gulf
war. The troops went there fit and healthy but some were exposed
to chemical fallout and more than 200 returned with serious
multiple chronic disabilities.
Specific medical diagnosis may be difficult but reports from the
United States, Britain and other participants confirm that we can no
longer deny the exposure to toxic chemical rain after air strikes and
engineers destroyed Iraqi chemical weapon production and storage
depots.
The government promised these troops would receive the benefit
of the doubt but six years after the war, many claims are still
locked in the regulatory maze and some are simply giving up.
Those with less than 10 years' service with no recognition of
disability do not quality for pensions. Losing their health and
career under these circumstances only to face a bureaucracy which
refuses just treatment is devastating.
I join with the National Council of Veterans Associations in
calling for government to start the recognition process by
providing a basic pension for these deserving gulf war veterans.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week Canadians of Portuguese origin will be celebrating the 33rd
anniversary of their liberation from the dictatorship that had
gripped Portugal for 49 years.
[Translation]
This year, however, celebrations will be even more special
because of the federal government's decision to no longer require a
visa for visitors from Portugal. The decision reflects the desire of
the government to respond to Canadians' expectations, especially
those of the Portuguese community.
[English]
On behalf of the over 11,000 Canadians who signed a petition on
this issue, which I had the honour of depositing last December, I
wish to thank my government for its decision. I also wish to take
this opportunity to bid farewell to the Ambassador of Portugal to
Canada, His Excellency Fernando Manuel da Silva Marques and
his wife Natalia who will be ending their term in Ottawa next
month. I wish them the best of luck. Merci.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Liberal
members of the defence committee have completed hearings in Val
Cartier and in Halifax. We heard from generals and admirals but
equally important we heard from the enlisted ranks and NCOs. We
heard from social workers, health professionals, chaplains. We
heard from spouses, child care workers, crisis intervention
workers. We saw a fascinating picture of the life of our military,
their families and the people who provide support to them. We
heard stories that amazed, that inspired and that angered us, but
most of all we saw that our military is the vibrant, hardworking,
diverse institution we knew it was.
10114
(1415)
I am sorry the Bloc and Reform members did not see fit to join
us. Our visits were worthwhile for us and for the military.
To all the men and women who spoke with us so frankly, we are
grateful and proud and we salute you.
* * *
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great pleasure to make what may be my last statement in the House
of Commons on a high note.
The town of Kemptville is in my riding of Leeds-Grenville not
far from here. Its Junior ``B'' hockey team has gone through the
1996-97 regular season undefeated. The team's record is 38 zero
and four. In the seven game playoffs, which the team won four
games to three, it won the final game four to three in double
overtime.
I do not know whether any other team in Canadian hockey
history can match that record but it is a record of which we are all
very proud. Head coach Paul Sheard and assistant coach Derek
Rintoul are proud.
Congratulations to the Kemptville '73s. All of eastern Ontario is
very proud of them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on February 19, the Act Respecting a National Organ
Donor Week in Canada received royal assent.
In this first national week, I would like to honour the families of
donors, who, at a particularly distressing time in their lives, agree
to give someone they do not know the life that remains after death
has struck down someone they hold dear.
I would today like to honour the courage of Hélène
Rouleau-Verville of Laval. On the death of her son Alexis at 4
years, 2 months, she had the courage and generosity to rise above
her sorrow and anger and give five children a new life.
Hélène, your gesture speaks eloquently and forcefully of your
courage.
On behalf of all parents, I thank you.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is early March and the phone rings at the Canadian
Wheat Board office:
``And good morning to you, Mr. Minister. Did you consider our
request for an increase in initial wheat prices for farmers?''
``No, no, of course not, Mr. Minister, we haven't said anything
publicly. We certainly know how you feel about that. But that is
nearly two months from now, Mr. Minister. Do you not realize that
we are over half the way through the crop year? With this horrible
transportation mess you have allowed, our phones are ringing off
the hook. Farmers need cash. You know it is their money and there
is quite a bit of it considering how low you made the initial price
last summer.''
``An election in the spring. Oh I see, I see. You certainly are a
wily old politician.''
``Yes, yes, okay sure. You bet. We will definitely delay our
request for another six or seven weeks. We will await your call in
late April. You have a nice day too, Mr. Minister. And good luck in
the election. You are going to need it.''
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of an outstanding
Canadian who will soon be celebrating the 10th anniversary of his
Man in Motion World Tour.
Rick Hansen is a remarkable person who has used his
determination and success to bring attention to issues affecting
many people with disabilities.
In the two years, two months and two days that it took Rick
Hansen to travel over 40,000 kilometres through 34 countries and
across four continents and in the 10 years since, he has raised the
world's awareness of the potential of persons with disabilities.
We may never be able to measure the impact he has had on
attitudes but we know that the $20.8 million awarded in grants and
the $20.9 million that the Rick Hansen Institute has contributed to
removing barriers to the participation in society of people with
disabilities has changed their lives and promoted their equal
citizenship in communities across our country.
* * *
The Speaker: Before we proceed to question period today, I
would like to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of
10115
Baroness Caroline Anne Cox, Deputy Speaker, House of Lords,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
10115
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Liberal government is going into an election without much
to show in the way of jobs, According to the government's real
record, it is still more than 900,000 jobs short of the prerecession
job rate. Faced with the Liberal government's appalling inaction in
this respect, thousands of discouraged workers have given up even
looking for work.
When the Prime Minister meets unemployed Quebecers on the
hustings, what will he tell them? Will he repeat that jobs are on
their way? Will he advise them to move if they are in a hurry to find
a job? Or will he again say good luck?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will tell voters, when we have an election, within the
next 17 months-
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): -that when we started,
unemployment was at 11.4 per cent and it is now at 9.3 per cent;
that the Canadian economy created 757,000 new jobs during the
past three years; that this morning, the International Monetary
Fund stated that it expects Canada will have the highest economic
growth rate of any G7 country for the year 1997-98; that the IMF
expects unemployment to drop in 1997 and 1998 and that if
Canadians show the necessary discipline, inflation will not be more
than 2 per cent.
I will also tell them that we have been able to reduce short term
interest rates by more than 3 per cent, compared with the
Americans. We offer better interest rates than the Americans, so
that the Quebec government, for instance, can save $600 million on
its interest payments.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister should tell voters during the election
campaign that there are nearly 1.5 million people unemployed, five
million living in poverty, fewer and fewer people eligible for
unemployment insurance and an impressive number of discouraged
workers. That is something the IMF did not mention. The IMF did
not say that deficit reduction was achieved at the expense of the
unemployed and the provinces.
Will the Prime Minister admit he did not keep his promise of
``jobs, jobs, jobs'', any more than he kept his promise to scrap the
GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian economy has performed reasonably well,
because 757,000 new jobs were created since we came to power. Of
course we would have liked to have more. However, in the
circumstances, it is a very good performance because, as I have
said on several occasions, this is a problem facing countries
throughout the world. In Canada we have created more jobs than
Germany, Italy and France combined, although the population of
each these countries is much larger than ours.
We are not satisfied, however, and we feel we should keep
working on it. However, we have put the government's financial
house in order. The country's finances are in better shape than they
have been for a long time. Our objective was to reduce the deficit to
3 per cent of GDP, and we are more than a year ahead of schedule.
That is why today, people throughout the world are saying that
Canada's example is the one to follow.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister should realize that economic growth
should mean more tax equity, more jobs, more humane policies for
the unemployed and more social justice.
Will the Prime Minister realize that economic growth should
benefit the unemployed and not take place at their expense?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly why in the last budget, for instance, we
invested new money totalling $850 million in tax exemptions to
fight child poverty, because we on this side of the House have a
social conscience and we want to ensure that everyone benefits
from the progress we have made.
The first amounts that became available were applied to poverty.
We then provided incentives for training people. We invested $800
million in innovation, so Canada will be ready to compete in the
21st century.
Instead of being negative, we look positively to the future
because we believe that Canada is the country that will be best
equipped to enter the 21st century.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what the Prime Minister neglects to mention is that, while
a few million dollars will be forthcoming, but only in 1998, to
combat poverty, he has cut $4.5 billion from social programs.
An hon. member: True.
10116
Mr. Loubier: Let us talk GST, Mr. Speaker.
Since April 1996, the Minister of Finance has defended the $1
billion in compensation paid to the maritime provinces, through a
pseudo-program of adaptation assistance, one which, when applied
to Quebec, entitled it to no compensation whatsoever. Such was the
minister's position for eight or ten months, the time Ottawa took to
provide Quebec with the figures and information on how they were
reached. Since then, Quebec has proven that the federal
government cheated in its calculations and that, in reality, Ottawa
owes it two billion dollars.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of
Finance, who generally admits to his mistakes, tell us why he is not
giving Quebec the compensation to which it is entitled?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been very clear. The
compensation program offered to provinces having harmonized
their tax with the federal tax applies to all of the provinces.
The provinces which lost money because of harmonization are
entitled to compensation equivalent to half of the losses incurred.
In the case of Quebec, it broadened their tax base since
harmonization. For each of the past six years, it has collected more
in sales tax than it did at the time of harmonization. Having lost
nothing, therefore, it did not qualify for compensation.
This has been stated clearly, moreover, by the person who was
Minister of Finance at the time of harmonization, and is now the
opposition finance critic. He stated clearly and honestly that, in
fact, Quebec had gained rather than lost in this arrangement with
the federal government.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would invite the Prime Minister to read the ten pages of
Mr. Landry's budget, and he will gain some understanding of the
matter; at the moment, he understands absolutely nothing.
I am now asking my question of the Minister of Finance. Will the
Minister of Finance acknowledge this legitimate claim and
reimburse Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer I have just given applies, because there was no
loss for Quebec, there was a gain. That is clear, and easily verified.
When people have nothing else to say, they refuse to look at the
truth. I know very well that many Quebecers will recall that, a few
years ago, employees were given pay raises before the referendum,
and then, for the second time in Quebec history, those who received
something before the referendum had their pockets picked by the
Parti Quebecois after the elections.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is preparing to go to the polls after
only three and a half years in office, the earliest election call by a
majority government in 50 years.
Why is it that the government is going to the polls so early? Not
because it has anything new to say on generating jobs. Not because
it has anything new to say on its high record of taxation and debt.
Not because it has anything new to say on national unity. The
government is calling an early election because it has run out of
steam. ``Running on Empty'' is the name of this movie.
How can it be that this Liberal government is so utterly devoid of
new ideas that it has to go to the polls after only three and a half
years?
(1430 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after years of the leader of the third party's wanting us to
go to the people, now he is chickening out.
We want to go to the people because of the work we have
accomplished since the beginning of our term.
We will say to the Canadian people that his party does not have a
program any more. That party was always talking about the deficit.
We solved the problem.
We will go to the people of Canada and say that because of the
good government we have provided we now have the lowest
interest rates in 35 years. We will go to the people of Canada and
tell them that because we had a good government their mortgage
payments are about half of what they were six years ago. Now
when people renew a $100,000 mortgage they have $6,000 or
$7,000 more in their pockets each year, after tax.
That is much better than the tax cuts which that party promised
to give to the banks.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister must be joking if he thinks he can run
on his record. He must be imagining things. He consulted JoJo the
psychic who read his mind and went bankrupt shortly thereafter.
The Prime Minister cannot run on his record because during the
election he will be running away from it. The Prime Minister is
going to be hiding from the 1.4 million unemployed. He is going to
be hiding from the two to three million underemployed. He is going
to be hiding from those millions and millions of taxpayers to whom
he promised tax relief and then broke his promise.
How does the Prime Minister think an early election call will
help him to run away from his record, especially when he has
nothing new, fresh or creative to say?
10117
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I always take into consideration the fear of the leader
of the third party before making up my mind.
The leader of the third party says that we will run away from our
record. No, we will not.
We were supposed to have a new type of opposition. It was
supposed to give free votes to its members. It never did that. There
were more free votes on this side of the House than on that side.
I will go. We will go. We are very confident because we have
restored integrity in the public's eye. In the last four years there has
not been a scandal on this side of the House. We have changed
completely the mood of the country.
Last month a poll was taken. Five years ago the same poll was
taken. It surveyed 18 countries. At that time the confidence which
Canadians had in their national government was at the bottom of
the list. Only 15 per cent of Canadians had confidence in their
national government. In the poll taken last month we were ahead of
every other nation. In four years confidence rose from 15 per cent
to 55 per cent. That is the best level of confidence of any of the 18
countries surveyed.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is a prophet. He said he will go, and he
will go.
The Prime Minister brings back the memory of Liberal Premier
David Peterson who called an early election, could not explain it to
the public and then played to protect the lead and lost the game.
There are four things which the Prime Minister cannot escape
through an early election call or through last minute deal making.
(1435)
He cannot escape the worst record of unemployment numbers
since the depression. He cannot escape the broken GST promise.
None of them can escape the obscene MP pension plan. He cannot
escape a pathetic national unity strategy that came within 50,000
votes of destroying the federation.
Since the government has a record like that and it has nothing
new or creative to say to Canadians, why is the Prime Minister
going to the polls after only three and a half years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to go to the people of Canada. I will tell them that
when we were fighting for unity in the referendum the leader of the
third party said nothing, trying to make our life difficult.
I will tell them that if we want to keep the country united, we
need a party that can get members elected in every province and
territory of the land.
I will go to the people to tell them that Canada will survive with
Liberal values and not with values that try to divide the country on
different bases.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance has nothing better than unconvincing
sophistries to offer in response to the Quebec Minister of Finance,
who reviewed his calculations and was able to provide evidence, in
black and white, that Quebec is indeed entitled to $2 billion, and
not to zilch, as maintained by the minister.
Since it has been established that the minister's McKenna
formula, when used properly, provides for $2 billion in
compensation for Quebec, why is the minister not paying this $2
billion to Quebec? Why is he stubbornly defending the
indefensible?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we talked to the
Quebec government. The federal government held numerous
discussions with the Quebec government on the calculation of the
compensation for the GST and the QST.
We continue to arrive at the conclusion that Quebec simply does
not qualify for adjustment assistance. Quebec has not suffered
losses to the harmonization of the QST and the GST, the public
accounts of Quebec.
I suggest the hon. member look at the public accounts. They
show us that the annual revenues derived from the QST increased
following the signature of the harmonization agreement. They went
from $5.1 billion in 1988-89-90 to $5.4 billion. That is up. In 1991
they went to $6.2 billion.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
March 19, the Minister of Finance himself compared the
adjustment assistance paid to the maritimes for harmonizing their
taxes to the financial support provided to the Saguenay flood
victims and to equalization payments, as if this was just another
federal assistance program for have-not regions. The minister
finally admitted that his harmonization adjustment assistance
formula was a front, a pretence to deny Quebec compensation.
With his share of the $1 billion paid to the maritime provinces,
Frank McKenna is wooing away our businesses with our own tax
money. When will the minister put an end to this unfair
competition? When will he pay Quebec the $2 billion it is entitled
to?
10118
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the federal
government does the calculation, assuming a full harmonization of
the GST and the QST in 1990, using data supplied by Quebec, it
still arrives at the conclusion that Quebec simply does not qualify
for the adjustment.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
pork has all been divvied up now. The tires are being checked. The
beer is on ice right now and it looks like the Liberal campaign plane
is all but ready to take off, except for one small problem. The fuel
tank reads empty.
(1440)
Canadians are still wondering what this government intends to
run on. Maybe it is its job record: 1.4 million Canadians
unemployed; 800,000 Canadians moonlighting; 78 months in a row
of unemployment over 9 per cent; the worst jobs record since the
Great Depression.
Since the Liberal jobs, jobs, jobs record is in the tank, can the
Prime Minister tell Canadians if this is the record his government
plans to run on?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon.
member look at the labour market statistics which are published
each month. I suggest he look at the labour market statistics for
October 1993: 11.2 per cent unemployment. That was at the time of
the last election. Presently it is down almost 2 per cent to 9.3 per
cent. That is a record.
Today the IMF has come out with a new statement. The IMF says
that this year and next year Canada will have the highest growth of
the G7 countries, 3.4 per cent, which will bring the unemployment
rate down even more.
Of course that is not enough. Of course our unemployment rate
is too high. We are working on it and are bringing down. That is the
Liberal system.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
apparently there is still a little gas in the tank over there.
If we add in all the people who have dropped out of the job force
over the last couple of years, the real unemployment rate in Canada
is over 12 per cent, more than double the American rate.
If it is not the Liberal's jobs record, maybe the minister wants to
run on their tax record or on their bankruptcy record. How about
the $3,000 drop in disposable income Canadian families have
suffered since this government came to power and the 37 tax
increases? What about the record levels of bankruptcy, a record in
1995, 1996 and 1997?
Which one of these is the minister planning to run on, or do the
Liberals plan to run on empty just like they have done for the last
3.5 years?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talk about a party
running on empty, I wonder how many times the record shows that
same question being asked by the Reform Party.
Let us take a look at the Reform Party's taxpayer budget. What
does it state in this taxpayer budget? It says it is going to do this
and that but it will cause a little higher unemployment. If we want
higher unemployment, we should go to the Reform Party.
We are going to run on our record, and our record in deficit
reduction is second to no government in the country. The Globe
and Mail quoted a major Japanese newspaper on Japan's adopting
Canada's system: ``Canada's method, consisting of the adoption of
clear deficit targets and bold cuts that don't spare any of the
so-called sacred cows, could very well serve as a model for Japan''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Yesterday, the minister told us about his intention to set up new
programs for home care and pharmacare. The election campaign is
already underway for the Liberals, who announced that they intend
to promote a new intrusion in an area under provincial jurisdiction,
so as to make political gains.
Will the minister guarantee to those provinces not interested in
taking part in these programs an opting out privilege, with full
financial compensation?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member opposite is only about four months late in
assessing what this government has done and said with regard to
health care.
The national forum indicated quite clearly to all Canadians that
governments, both federal and provincial, examine the prospects of
a national home care program and a national pharmacare program.
I do not understand why members of the Bloc Quebecois do not
want to support senior citizens across the country and senior
citizens in the province of Quebec. I think it is very important that
the Government of Canada work co-operatively with all provinces
to establish those programs for senior citizens all across the
country.
10119
(1445)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
cutting some $4.5 billion in social transfers to the provinces,
including over $2 billion for health, does the minister recognize it
is outrageous that his government would now consider
implementing new programs in an area that comes under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces? This is what is outrageous.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let it be understood by the hon. member opposite and those who
support that political party there is no question provincial
governments have jurisdiction in the field of health. It is also clear
under the provisions of the Constitution that the Government of
Canada has responsibility and jurisdiction when it comes to the
field of health.
I cannot understand why the Bloc Quebecois does not want to
support senior citizens when it comes to pharma care or home care.
I say to the Bloc and I say to the people of Quebec that we should
work together for senior citizens in Quebec and across the country.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
just a few days the Prime Minister will call an election and run on
his record. The record is broken, broken, broken.
Let us talk about his record on patronage. His former campaign
manager becomes lieutenant-governor for Saskatchewan; failed
Liberal candidates, immigration boards; Liberal Party officials,
airport authorities; Liberal fund raisers, they just shoehorn them in
wherever they can fit them. Even the girlfriend of a former Liberal
prime minister cashes in on this shameless system of Liberal
rewards, and it is all at taxpayers' expense.
Since pork and payoff are the true record of the government,
could the Prime Minister tell us how many appointments and
contracts are being handed out this month to Liberal Party faithful?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the same number as usual. We are just running the
government.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): When there are openings we fill
them with competent people. It so happens there are some Liberals
who are competent, and others too. If we were to choose only from
Reform supporters we would have very few to choose from.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have heard of people talking about family values. This is the first
time I have heard about Liberal values being the patronage trough.
Let us talk for a second about the Senate. There have been 20
appointments over three and a half years, which is better than with
Brian Mulroney.
During the last campaign the Prime Minister talked about
patronage when he said:
The people of Canada will see a big difference with the Liberals in power.
If they did, the only difference I can see is that the appointees are
now Liberal instead of Tory and there is more of them. Maybe that
is the difference.
In 1984 then Prime Minister Trudeau made 172 appointments in
his final month in office and he went on to lose the election. How
many appointments has the Prime Minister made in April? Is he
trying to set a new record?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there was a big change in appointments to the Senate. For
the first time ever there have been more women named senators
than men since we have been the government.
We on this side of the House supported the possibility of having
elected senators. But what happened? Reformers voted against that.
They wanted to have elected senators and we were for that, but they
campaigned against changing the Constitution in a way that would
have permitted the election of senators. Now we appoint senators
and for the first time in the history of Canada we have named two
women senators for each man during this last period.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, pointed
out how upset the Bloc Quebecois was at Heritage Canada's
ideological and propagandist slant in its treatment of young people
seeking employment under the Young Canada Works program.
The Deputy Prime Minister even had the nerve to reply to the
official opposition that ``when you work for Heritage Canada, it is
obvious that you must also belong to Canada''.
(1450)
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given the attitude
of the Deputy Prime Minister, would the Prime Minister tell the
10120
House whether a Quebecer who has the required qualifications and
who is a sovereignist may work for Heritage Canada, yes or no?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very surprised again today that this question is being
asked. I am an Acadian from New Brunswick, the only officially
bilingual province in Canada, a fact of which I am very proud. I am
proud to be a Canadian, and I am proud that Young Canada Works,
a national program, is there to provide work for young people.
I personally think we should say yes, and not no, to Canada, and
if it takes young people to help us recognize our country, we say
yes to Canada.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think the parliamentary secretary was looking at the wrong page
when he answered.
I would remind this government and the Prime Minister that
freedom of expression and association is specifically mentioned in
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is dangerous to
see the Prime Minister and his government departing so easily
from established rights.
I ask the Prime Minister whether we are to understand from the
government's reply that it is confirming that a sovereignist from
Quebec could not work for the federal government because of his
or her political opinions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would point out to the hon member in this very public
forum that, when the Parti Quebecois was elected to office in
Quebec, it forced representatives of Quebec abroad to resign,
unless they bowed down and practically swore an oath to the cause
of independence. Nothing like this ever goes on in the federal
government.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the late Right Hon. Paul Martin Sr. signed the auto pact 32
years ago. Since then it has generated hundreds of thousands of
jobs in southwestern Ontario and contributed immeasurably to the
national economy.
Constituents of mine are concerned that the auto pact is under
attack from Japanese auto makers. Will the Minister for
International Trade confirm to the House and to the constituents in
Windsor that the government will protect the auto pact and the
future jobs it will create?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a year ago the tariff on auto parts used in
manufacturing was lifted. That benefited all Canadian auto
manufacturers.
Canadian manufacturers, the big three and the Japanese auto
makers are all an important part of the economy. We have no plans
to lift the tariff on vehicles. We are however undergoing a regular
comprehensive review of the auto pact and are consulting all
stakeholders.
I must say the auto pact has been an enormous success to Canada
in terms of job creation. It is the biggest single component of the
trade surplus of the country. Certainly the big three auto
manufacturers are a very key part of that.
We want to maintain that industry's strength. We want to
maintain those jobs.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked why the Liberal government allowed prisoners
the right to vote in the upcoming election and the government
responded: ``We will look at it''.
This brilliant response shows Canadians where the government
has been coming from all along. ``Conditional sentences, we will
look at it; victims rights, we will look at it; early release for
Clifford Olson, we will look at it; Young Offenders Act, we will
look at it,'' and nothing gets done.
Four recent cases of rape or attempted murder were given
conditional sentences, no time in prison. Is the Liberal government
prepared to do more than just look at it and exclude serious
offenders from conditional sentences now?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for the question. As a result of working
together the federal and provincial governments have determined
that the use of the conditional sentence, properly applied by the
courts, will improve the safety of our citizens over time.
(1455)
A problem that has been in place is that many violent and
dangerous offenders are put in jail. The jails are often full of people
who are not a danger to society. As a result of conditional
sentences, those who are not a risk to society can be released to
serve their sentence in the community, leaving more room in our
correctional facilities for dangerous offenders who should be in
jail.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
take it that the answer was no and dangerous offenders are actually
rapists and attempted murderers.
A corrections investigator observed in prison:
Drug trafficking, loan sharking and brew making are on the rise.
The recommendation he made to the Liberals to fix the problem
was:
10121
-that immediate action be taken to ensure that offender pay scales reasonably
reflect the cost of living within institutions.
A pay raise, they say, for brew making and drug trafficking.
My question is obvious. Why would the government consider a
pay raise for prisoners after what it said about victims rights, that
we could not afford them, that we could not afford the
implementation of them? Why is that?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's allegations
are totally unfounded. The government is not considering giving
any pay raise to any prisoner.
They are paid the scale that has been established for a long time
for work done in the prisons. I do not know where the member is
coming from, as usual.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Since the Liberal government took office, it has increasingly
made the Quebec and Canadian agri-food industry pay for food
inspection costs. The Liberal government is imposing all sorts of
fees, but forgets that farmers are always the ones stuck with the
bill, and that consumers ultimately have to pay for it.
How can farmers remain competitive if the 1996-97 estimates
for the agriculture department provide for cost recovery measures
in at least 42 areas for the next three years?
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe we have
been very consistent in looking at agriculture and agricultural
policies. We have put priorities within our spending in agriculture.
We have made certain that research is the number one priority with
agriculture. We are making sure that our producers are well treated
and have markets.
The excursions by the Prime Minister and the minister of
agriculture have increased our markets so that we are almost at $20
billion in exports today. Our agricultural market is being defended
and worked upon very readily by all policies we are bringing down.
There is no question that it has been a very high priority and that
we will continue that priority.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan just issued a householder
claiming that the Reform Party has been urging the government for
three months to have an election. He should have been paying
attention because the Reform has been asking why we are having
an election.
Surely the Prime Minister does not think he can win based on the
conditional sentences bill or his section 745 lack of action or his
refusal to do anything with the Young Offenders Act. Is he calling
an election because Aline Chrétien told him to do it now? If he is,
could he please give me her phone number so I can call and ask her
why we are doing this?
The Speaker: I do not know if that relates to the administrative
responsibility of anyone.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. It has to do with a promise he
mad to the Italian Canadian community prior to the last election
when the Liberals were in opposition. At that time a promise was
made to the Italian Canadian community that an apology would be
forthcoming in the House of Commons with respect to the
treatment of Italian Canadians during the second world war, along
with a variety of other things that would be part of an overall
package.
(1500)
I want to ask the Prime Minister why that promise was not kept.
What is the position of the Liberal government in respect of that
promise today?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's position on this
issue is quite clear. My predecessor, the hon. member for Mount
Royal, made a statement in the House in 1994 which said very
clearly that while things had happened in the past history of the
country, that if history could be repeated, they would never happen
again.
It is time for us to move on to form a new future. In doing so, we
have created a Canada where the charter of rights and freedoms
guarantees that this can never happen in the future.
We have created the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. We
have met with many communities to hear their history and their
stories.
10122
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance. Some Canadians have
expressed concern that the new seniors benefit will be based on
family income. They believe that this provision will unfairly
discriminate against married senior couples and favour single
seniors who co-habit.
Can the minister assure Canadians that the new seniors benefit
will in no way discriminate against married senior couples?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
quite right. This is a concern. It is completely wrong, however, to
describe senior couples as being disadvantaged under the seniors
benefit as compared to single seniors. The base benefit for couples
will be twice as great as for singles at the same income level.
Since the GIS has always been targeted to income levels, it is
equally appropriate to combine the incomes of higher income
couples to determine their levels of benefits. In addition, we use the
family income in many instances for targeted benefits and that is
what we will do in this case.
* * *
The Speaker: I am going to ask the pages to come out and stand
around me.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I do not have any more information than members
do, but I am just being precautionary. Should this be our last
Wednesday together, I want to publicly in front of all members and
all Canadians say thank you to our pages for this last year 1996-97.
As you know, the pages were chosen from some 500 applicants and
they are, in my view, and I know in the view of all of you, among
the finest young people we have in our nation.
[Translation]
Dear Pages, on behalf of all my colleagues and all Canadians, I
thank you for the fine work that you have done for us here in the
House of Commons.
[English]
I want you to know as you go on in your careers in life that we
hold you to our hearts and that you will always be part of our
parliamentary family. I do thank you in the name of all
parliamentarians here today.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, either we will no longer have pages here next week, or you
just announced the date of the next election.
(1505)
On March 20, in reply to a question from the leader of the
official opposition concerning the $4.8 million secretly paid by the
federal government to Option Canada, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage made comments which do not accurately reflect the
reality. She said, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, the member is certainly aware of the fact that the Government of
Quebec-and I have in my hand a copy of the October 11 order in council-gave a
total of $4.8 million to the Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec headed by Yves
Duhaime, the great friend of the new leader of the official opposition.
This statement aroused our interest, and I have here the October
11 order in council to which the minister referred. If I can get the
unanimous consent of the House, I will very pleased to table this
document. The order in council reads: ``Whereas the government,
through the August 16 order in council, has already authorized the
payment of $2 million to the Conseil de la souveraineté, and
whereas it is in order to pay an additional amount of $1.8
million''-and a bit, but I believe this is the right
amount-``therefore it is ordered, on the recommendation of-, to
pay $1.8 million''.
What confused the minister is the ``whereas'' providing that, in
order to grant a subsidy of more than $1 million, the government's
prior approval is required. The minister added $2 million, plus $1.8
million, plus $1 million, for a total of $4.8 million, when in fact-
The Speaker: In my opinion, this is not a point of order, but I
thank the hon. member for the information provided.
Is there unanimous consent to have the document tabled?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The hon. member may therefore table the
document.
10123
10123
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table
two copies, one in each official language, of the 1996 public report
of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
[English]
I ask that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
This is an interim report on the issue of a victims bill of rights.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee has considered
the subject matter of Motion No. 168, a victims bill of rights, and
has agreed to report it with recommendations.
In doing so, we ask for a response as soon as possible from the
Government of Canada with respect to this important matter.
* * *
[
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 61 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to section 7 of the Centennial Flame Research Award Act,
I have the privilege of tabling the report of the Standing Committee
on Human Rights and Status of Disabled Persons in both official
languages for the 1994-1995 centennial flame research report.
I bring to members' attention the Crane story which will be
tabled with the report, which is a report on the first of the Braille
libraries set up in Canada. I commend the reading of this
marvellous story.
* * *
(1510 )
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 65th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
committee's mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a) in relation to
the provision of services and facilities to members.
I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee,
particularly the member for Bellechasse who, in my view and in the
view of the committee, has done an exceptionally good job in
preparing the report for the committee. I thank him for his good
work.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts, I have the honour to present the ninth report of
the committee.
This report deals with our review of Chapter XVII of the
September 1996 report of the Auditor General of Canada, as it
relates in particular to Human Resources Development Canada, the
Canada Pension Plan and the CPP disability benefits program.
The report contains three recommendations, which are: first,
that, as part of developing an official quality assurance program,
the department establish performance indicators to help determine
the extent to which program objectives were achieved. These
indicators are to be included in the department's April 1998
progress report to the committee; second, that more information be
shared with workers compensation boards, provincial social
services and private insurance companies to increase the program's
efficiency; and finally, that the department consider the possibility
of intensifying its efforts with respect to rehabilitation to make the
program more widely accessible.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to this report.
[English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure of presenting for the information of the House, in
both official languages, the report on privacy entitled ``Where do
10124
we draw the line?'' It is the third report of the Standing Committee
on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
We all know that privacy is understood to be the right to be left
alone in our society, but in the technical age in which we now live
there have been many changes. This report brings to our attention
issues about which we should all know.
In accordance with the committee's permanent mandate under
Standing Order 108(3), your committee has agreed to conduct a
study on privacy rights and new technologies, report its findings
with recommendations and, in accordance with Standing Order
109, the committee requests a government response if and when
this government returns to work.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the
Standing Committee on Finance.
This report is the first report of the subcommittee on
international financial institutions relating to the development and
effectiveness of World Bank lending programs.
I would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the
subcommittee.
This interim report begins the study of what can be done to
ensure that World Bank lending and its programs meet the needs of
the world's poor and satisfy the concerns of taxpayers in Canada
and elsewhere in the developed world.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration relating to a study of Citizenship and Immigration
Canada's foreign workers policy.
The committee requests that the government table a
comprehensive response to this report within 150 days of its
presentation to the House, in accordance with Standing Order 109.
(1515 )
I would like to thank Santosh Sirpaul, clerk of the committee,
and Margaret Young, researcher from the Library of Parliament, for
their devotion to the task and the fantastic job they have done. I
send my best to all the members of the committee for their
devotion to the task as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with regard
to the Bloc's minority report on the admission to Canada of
temporary foreign workers, we agree with the main thrust of the
majority report. However, we have some serious misgivings
regarding this document. Unions were not invited to take part in
the consultations. In addition, the report does not pay enough
attention to the astronomical unemployment rates in Canada and
Quebec, especially among young people.
We decry the fact that companies spend so little on manpower
training. Moreover, companies should improve the work place
environment, working conditions, and salaries to prevent highly
skilled workers from leaving Canada for the United States. Finally,
foreign workers should only be allowed in for a few years, not
indefinitely. The regular immigration system should take care of
the shortage of workers in the high tech industry.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-98,
an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in
respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other matters
and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-437, an act to amend the Canada
Transportation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to rise in the House
today to present a private member's bill entitled ``An act to amend
the Canada Transportation Act''.
The bill calls upon Parliament to allow for the appointment of a
grain transportation administrator whose duties would be to
monitor grain transportation performance and to apply a scheme of
sanctions against those who fail to meet established service
obligations.
The primary purpose of this bill is to ensure that grain
transportation participants fulfil their obligations for receiving,
carrying and delivering wheat and barley from western Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
10125
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ) moved:
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts presented on
Monday, October 28, 1996, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will
be sharing my time with a colleague and that my motion is
supported by the hon. member for Laurentides.
I am pleased to speak today to a theme that will play a major part
in the next election campaign, that is, the integrity of this
government.
Speaking of which, the report we are discussing under this
motion deals with the famous family trust scandal, as you may
recall.
What exactly was done in this matter? As chairman of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I must say that,
unfortunately, our committee was not able to get to the bottom of
what really happened.
(1520)
Let us put the facts in their context. On December 23, 1991, a
date that sets off an alarm as to how a taxpayer can get an advanced
decision on December 23, 1991. It quickly raises a certain
question. So, two taxpayers were able, with Revenue Canada's
permission and blessing, after asking the advice of the finance
department, to transfer $2 billion in family trusts to the United
States.
I said that this government would have to account for its
morality or its integrity. We in the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts wanted to shed some light on that issue. Since the very
beginning, the Bloc members on this committee have asked that an
independent inquiry be conducted so that Canadian taxpayers can
find out what really happened on December 23, 1991.
Even though, as representative of the official opposition, I chair
the committee, it has to be explained to people watching our
proceedings that the official opposition does not have a majority on
the committee. The Liberal majority on the committee literally
gagged the Bloc members.
Mr. Speaker, could you ask the chihuahua from Vaudreuil to go
yap outside the House?
The tabling of this new report by the Liberal majority on the
public accounts committee about the family trust scandal is in
keeping with the government's cover-up of a financial and tax
scandal unprecedented in Canada.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts had to shed light
on the nebulous events surrounding the advanced ruling delivered
on December 23, 1991, leaving the finance committee to deal with
the technical aspect, that is to say, the tax changes needed.
Soon after that scandal was uncovered by the Bloc Quebecois,
which followed up on the report of the Auditor General, which
party raised that issue in the House of Commons? It was the Bloc
Quebecois. This is a very good illustration of what we are going to
tell Quebecers during the next election campaign: ``It was a good
thing the Bloc Quebecois was there to uncover this scandal because
if, instead of 54 members of the Bloc Quebecois, we had had 74
Liberal members out of 75, as we did in the 1980s during the
Trudeau era, this issue would never have been raised''.
This is yet another good reason for Quebecers to elect a strong
contingent of Bloc members to defend Quebec's interests and to
point out inequalities and injustices in the Canadian federal system.
The day after this scandal came to light, several Liberal
members of the committee were outraged by the actions of
Revenue Canada and the Department of Finance. These recalcitrant
Liberals soon went back to the party line of doing everything
possible to protect the interests of those in very, very high places.
I ask those listening from the comfort of their homes to try to
imagine, the day before they file their tax returns next May 1, that
they have a way of hiding $2 billion. Are these ordinary taxpayers?
Are these single mothers who are able to hide $2 billion tax free?
No, these are not ordinary people.
An hon. member: Not even $100.
Mr. Guimond: Exactly, they would not even hide $100. For
every hard won cent the average citizen earns, the government is
right there grabbing half of it. The public will remember this during
the next election, and the public knows that the Bloc Quebecois
also defends the interests of the middle class and of disadvantaged
members of our society.
(1525)
To justify its ineptitude and its lack of courage, the Liberal
majority maintains that the committee found no element for which
to cast doubt on the integrity of bureaucrats involved in the making
of this premature decision. This is incredible. This is extraordinary.
Liberal MPs are being hypocritical and even naive in pretending
to be able to pass judgement on the integrity of the bureaucrats
involved. All of the Liberal MPs' actions during the committee
meetings were a shameless attempt to bury the affair by trying to
conceal the facts.
Numerous other examples make the list of inconsistencies,
inexactitudes, lapses and differing versions even longer. From the
outset of the committee's work, the Liberal majority, blatantly
10126
manipulated by the government, prevented the public accounts
committee from shedding light on the entire family trusts scandal.
The majority report is the crowning achievement in this blatant
effort by the government to bury this scandal and to silence the
truth in order to protect themselves. What we said during the 1993
election campaign, and will repeat during the next one, is that the
Liberals and the Conservatives are like Tweedledum and
Tweedledee. Put them into a hat and pull one out, there is no way to
tell them apart.
Let us not forget that this family trust scandal happened in 1991,
when the Conservatives were in power. Let us not forget that. We
said to the Liberal majority: ``Why do you not let us bring this fully
out into the light? You have nothing to gain, but do you have
something to protect?'' Let us ask the question. Let us remember
the 1993 election campaign, with its $1,000 parties at Senator
Cogger's in Westmount, the fund raising parties attended by the
present Prime Minister.
That is why, when campaign contributions are being examined,
we say ``Look at who is contributing to your campaign fund, and
then you will know whom you are beholden to''. We in the Bloc
will be collecting funds for the next election campaign from
ordinary people, $2 here, $5, $10 or $20 there. Our election
campaign will not be funded by big business. Whom will we be
answerable to after the next election? To the ordinary people who
contributed to our campaign fund. We owe nothing to big business.
Look at who is behind the funding of the Liberals, of the
Conservatives. They are no different one from the other.
That is why with this dissenting opinion we, the Members of the
Bloc Québécois, make the following recommendation, and I quote:
``That a special commission of inquiry be set up, independent of
the government, with the mandate to shed light on all of the events
surrounding the December 23, 1991 decision and the subsequent
use of this tax loophole by other rich Canadian families''. That is
what the Bloc Quebecois thinks.
To conclude, without a neutral investigation, free from all
partisanship in the Liberal government, this scandal will never be
brought out into the open. If the government has nothing to hide, no
one to protect, nothing to feel guilty about, as it says, what is
stopping it from putting such an commission of inquiry into place,
one which will certainly absolve it of all blame? Or so the
government has been telling us over and over for the past six
months.
Once again, I must conclude that, unfortunately, the Liberal
majority has gagged us in the public accounts committee, and again
here today we are unable to tell Quebecers and Canadians what
actually happened in this family trust scandal, where two rich
families were able to transfer $2 billion to the United States
without paying any income tax.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I wish to pay a glowing tribute to my colleague
because he worked so very hard. He is the fiscal conscience of this
party. Unlike the hon. member for Vaudreuil, he will be able to rest
easy tonight because he did his job.
(1530)
The question I wish to put to my colleague is this: Could he
explain, with his usual clarity and expertise, why the Liberals
refused to shed more light on an appalling situation? Everyone in
this House knows we are talking about the flight of capital, tax
evasion and protection. Do members of parliamentary committees
not have an obligation to report on these matters?
I want to ask the hon. member how our Liberal colleagues could
be so lacking in integrity, transparency and a sense of values?
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for his very pertinent question.
When answering this question, we should consider that the
names of the two contributors to the campaign fund were never
released. The Globe and Mail reported the story. I am not going to
repeat what it said, because we have no evidence.
However, we need only look at the main contributors to the
Liberal and Tory campaign funds. When we see companies giving
$500,000 and more, the reason is simple: you scratch my back and I
will scratch yours. We always see the same donors, I agree, but
these are people who are close to the Liberals.
My second point is that senior officials who were there at the
time, including Pierre Gravel, the Deputy Minister of National
Revenue, who was there in 1991, continued to work under the
Liberal government as well. This means that to repudiate the
decision made by Mr. Gravel in 1991 would have been tantamount
to admitting it was a sign of incompetence to have kept someone
like Pierre Gravel since 1993, when the Liberals came to power.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 18
months ago the member for Richelieu introduced a votable private
member's bill providing a limit for contributions to campaign
funds, knowing that certain individuals, groups or companies pour
hundreds of thousands of dollars into a party'coffers or, not
uncommonly, into two parties' coffers, to hedge their investment.
I was listening very carefully earlier to my colleague for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans talk of the two prominent
families, obviously well known, that sent over $2 billion to the
United States without paying a cent in income tax. I would ask the
member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans to take a few
10127
minutes to tell us in the Bloc about this transfer of $2 billion to the
United States tax free.
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the question by my colleague from
Frontenac is particularly relevant, but very complex. I will not be
able in the next 45 seconds to provide an intelligent and
comprehensible answer to this question. I make no claim to any
expertise in taxation. So I think my answer would require a lot of
details.
What we can say is that the folks who manage to transfer $2
billion worth of assets without paying taxes are not the folks who
do their income tax at the kitchen table while they watch hockey.
We are talking about billionaires who can afford the best tax
lawyers in the country at $500 an hour. They are not ordinary folks
who have a hard time and are fed up with paying income tax.
Ordinary folks cannot afford a tax lawyer.
So, to answer the question, what is involved is tricks, tax
loopholes, always above board. However, we might well ask
whether something like this, which is legal, is also moral. Let us
have a look at the government's morality.
(1535)
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. With whom will you be
sharing your time?
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I only mentioned that I would share
my time with one of my colleagues.
The Deputy Speaker: Would you please choose who it will be,
my dear colleague.
Mrs. Venne: I believe you should choose, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for
Quebec:
That you recognize the member for Berthier-Montcalm so that he may now be
heard.
The Deputy Speaker: As I was saying that the next speaker had
to be designated, I noticed that the Bloc House Leader had risen. I
thought she might indicate who had been chosen. She mentioned
the member for Berthier-Montcalm, but I gave the floor to no
one.
Under such circumstances I believe it is right to give the floor to
the member for Berthier-Montcalm.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I am certain the member
for Saint-Hubert would have delivered an excellent speech. I will
try to be just as good.
A moment ago I heard some Liberal members tell the member
for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans that it was all the
Conservatives' doing. I believe we should set the record straight.
Family trusts are the creation, a great big Liberal baby, of the
Liberals under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in 1970.
In 1970, Pierre Elliott Trudeau in his great wisdom created
family trusts for 21 years to reward friends of the government,
friends of the Liberal Party and other federal parties, since the main
goal of family trusts is to avoid taxes and allow families to get
richer.
Therefore, in 1970, the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott
Trudeau, of which the present Prime Minister was a member, since
the member for Saint-Maurice was in Pierre Elliott Trudeau's
cabinet in 1970, created family trusts for 21 years.
What happened in 1991, 21 years later? The Tories, who were
against family trusts in 1970, came into office with Mr. Mulroney
as Prime Minister, and they decided to maintain the family trusts.
Really, 1991 was an exceptional year. I think that our viewers
should pay attention to what is going to be said next, if they ever
had doubts about the efficacy of the public service. I will tell them
what happened on December 23, 1991, Christmas Eve, at about
11.30 p.m. Some public officials went in to work, to allow the
Bronfman family, two wealthy families in fact, to transfer some $2
billion to the United States.
(1540)
The day before Christmas, some government employees came to
Ottawa, went in to their offices at 11.30 p.m. and authorized
multibillionaire families to transfer $2 billion to the United States
without paying a single penny in taxes.
Do you know what kind of Christmas gift that represented for
those families in 1991? It meant approximately $500 million, an
amount which the Canadian taxpayers paid, donated to those
multibillionaire families. What did the Tory government and the
Liberals do meanwhile? They turned a blind eye. Because, as we all
know, these families give to Liberals and Tories alike.
Fundamentally, these families are federalists. Whether the
Liberal or Conservatives are in power is of no consequence to
them. In any case, they manipulate them through their campaign
fund. This is how they manipulate the big parties opposite, the
parties that are funded by these big families. This is why the
Liberal or Conservative government is so generous.
Here we have the biggest scandal of the century breaking out.
We learned about this scandal, $2 billion transferred from Canada
to the United States without any tax being paid. What did the
government do? What did the Bloc Quebecois do? The Bloc
Quebecois immediately condemned this action, especially when
we know that the Liberal government is attacking the poorest. It
makes cuts to unemployment insurance, to transfer payments.
What must the provinces do, then, if they are stuck with cuts of
$4.5 billion, like this year? They have to cut welfare, health care. It
10128
is the federalists opposite, the Liberals opposite, who are primarily
responsible for that.
We know that two families got $2 billion out of Canada. We
know that the government seems to have trouble finding money for
social programs. What did the Bloc do? It asked a parliamentary
committee to examine the issue and to see whether or not the
officials who met one Christmas eve to give a nice $500 million
gift to two multimillionaire families in Canada, had not shown a
lack of integrity.
It is obvious that, at the time, Liberals sitting on the committee
agreed with the Bloc Quebecois. They were really astounded by
that announcement, by that scandal, and they seemed to want to get
to the bottom of the issue. They seemed to want to co-operate with
the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, to examine the issue,
so this would not happen again.
However, the members who had shown some resistance, who
had dared voice their opinion before checking with the Prime
Minister, fell back into line, saying there was no problem,
everything was all right. But it is not all right to let this go on.
The committee had to determine if there was any interference by
officials. Did they or did they not show any lack of integrity? These
are the big questions the committee had to ask and answer. Instead,
all the Liberal members of the committee spent the whole time
trying to sidestep the issue, to avoid shedding light on this
extremely important matter.
Did the committee have the power, the authority to shed light on
this matter? Yes, it did. Had it made use of all its powers and all the
parliamentary mechanisms available, it could indeed have shed
light on the matter. Yes, it could definitely have pointed a finger at
those responsible and provided a permanent solution to the
problem.
What did the Liberal majority in the committee do? What were
they instructed to do by the Prime Minister of Canada? They
started by preventing the committee from fulfilling its mandate.
That is what they did. They refused to use the investigative powers
available to them. They would not let the committee hear the
testimony of all the officials involved. They did not want the
committee to hold more than two meetings to consider this scandal.
(1545)
It is the scandal of the century. Never before in Canadian history
have such huge amounts been taken out of the country without the
proper taxes being paid. The Liberal government across the way
and its Prime Minister persist in wanting to protect the friends of
the Liberal Party, those who put money into the party's campaign
fund. I am sure that, on the eve of calling an election, the Prime
Minister got on the phone to remind a few friends they had been
spared in the family trust scandal, adding: ``I hope you will
remember how good the Liberal Party was to you, because there is
an election coming''.
That is how it works. They had all the facts, but chose not to act.
They would rather let things be. They ran interference when Bloc
members asked questions. Yet, $2 billion was taken out of the
country. I would say that was pretty serious. What did the Bloc
members on the committee do? They drafted a dissenting opinion
to make it clear to the government they disagreed with the
government's attitude on this issue.
Quite frankly, with respect to this issue, given how much money
is involved, I think it is fair to say, seriously and honestly, that the
Bloc Quebecois took a very effective approach on the issue and
acted with professionalism in immediately blowing the whistle on
this scandal and seeking to correct the situation.
There is no way that all aspects of an issue as important as this
one can be considered in just two days. No way. This was not the
first time that the Liberal government used such a tactic. The
government did the same thing in the case of the Somalia inquiry. It
did not give enough time to the commissioners and judges to get
the real answers to the legitimate questions of Quebecers and
Canadians.
The same is true in the case of family trusts, this outrageous
scandal. Some Canadians and Quebecers had legitimate questions,
but the solutions and answers to these questions could not be found
in two days.
In a dissenting report, the Bloc Quebecois referred to some
evidence and testimony before the committee. You cannot hear
many witnesses in two days, but you can still take note of certain
things.
Mr. Speaker, since my time is almost up, I would like to
conclude by moving a motion.
I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
[
English]
The Deputy Speaker: 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
10129
(1635)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 333)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bridgman
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Dumas
Duncan
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hermanson
Johnston
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Ménard
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ringma
Rocheleau
Speaker
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-37
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Gaffney
Godfrey
Graham
Harvard
Hayes
Hopkins
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Morrison
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
Young
Zed-101
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bergeron
Brushett
Cauchon
Crête
Culbert
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Flis
Iftody
Jacob
Landry
Lefebvre
Loubier
Maloney
Mercier
Murphy
Paré
Richardson
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
[English]
Mr. Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair for being
late but had I been here in time for the vote, I would have voted
with my colleagues.
Mr. Pillitteri: Mr. Speaker, had I been here, I would have voted
with my colleagues in the government.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House now prorogue.
The Deputy Speaker: It was a good try but that cannot be done.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm has five minutes left for questions and
comments.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to use the time
left.
Earlier-I would appreciate it if hon. members would pay more
attention-I was discussing the report of the public accounts
committee and pointing out that my colleague did an excellent job.
He looked at the inconsistency, the inaccuracy and the
non-compliance of the committee in this-
The Deputy Speaker: I must tell the hon. member that there are
five minutes left for questions and comments. It seems the hon.
member is not the one who should have the floor. I now recognize
the hon. member for Gaspé.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is true that it is
hard to concentrate when the House has just held a vote. I would
like to see colleagues in the House exercise a little restraint.
For us in the Bloc Quebecois, it is very important just before an
election is called that all Canadians and all members opposite, on
the government side, feel directly concerned. They will be
10130
accountable during the upcoming election campaign for having
covered up the whole situation surrounding family trusts.
I think my colleague, the chairman of the standing committee,
the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, showed
this very well. It is one of the loveliest ridings in the Quebec City
area. I think the committee's hearings showed that the Liberals
tried to cover this up.
I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who gave a
brilliant speech. I would like him to explain again to the Liberals
opposite the avarice behind what they were trying to hide.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to reply
to my colleague, the member for Gaspé, on this issue.
On a number of occasions, the Liberals were heard telling us in
the House that the whole issue of family trusts, the scandal of the
century, was not their fault. They were not the ones who did it, it
was the Conservatives. To help the Liberal members opposite,
because they are going to be asked about this during the upcoming
election campaign, I would like them to recall that it was in 1970,
when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was in office, that 21 year family trusts
were introduced.
In 1991, the Conservatives took over. Having opposed the idea in
1970, they simply continued the family trust system.
What must be remembered is that, on December 23, 1991, the
day before Christmas at approximately 11.30 in the evening, very
industrious employees of the department headed up to Parliament
Hill and went to their offices.
(1640)
Why? So that two rich Canadian families could move $2 billion
out of Canada without paying a cent in taxes. Do you know what
kind of a present this represents for these multibillionaire families?
It represents a minimum of $500 million that Canadian taxpayers,
the unemployed, single parent families and fathers who have
trouble making ends meet at the end of the week because of taxes
and the way the Liberal government is spending public money, all
had to make up through the taxes they paid.
That is the scandal. And what have the Liberals done since 1993?
They have covered it up. They have done everything to prevent us
from finding out what really happened on December 23 at 11.30 in
the evening. The Liberals took part in this cover up.
We in the Bloc Quebecois, as the official opposition and as
watchdogs, asked questions here in the House. We wanted to get to
the bottom of the matter once and for all in committee, and the
member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans did an excellent
job in this regard as chairman of this committee in really trying to
get to the bottom of this cover-up by the Liberals, who did
everything they could to prevent us from getting answers to
legitimate questions everyone had about this scandal.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Shefford-Hyundai plant in Bromont; the hon. member for
Brandon-Souris-Flooding.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the
Bloc party opposite who called for an adjournment of this House. It
gave us time to gather together to once again go over the same facts
that we have already gone over in very public debates, not only
here when debating a Bloc motion when we covered this ground,
but also in a debate in the public accounts committee and a very
public debate in the finance committee.
Instead of talking about innuendo and speculation and the Bloc's
idea of what they are looking for, which is a problem, let us deal
with the facts the committees had to deal with. The fact is
Canadians can see through the transparency of the political
process. We had not just one process which is normally accorded to
an issue, but two processes with two separate House committees
both of which have membership from all parties across this floor.
The primary spark of this debate was an issue and two rulings
that came up when the Tory regime was in power, long before we
were the government.
The auditor general has to be given credit for bringing this to the
attention of the House and not the Bloc, which they would like to
argue. The auditor general, not the Bloc, is the watchdog. The
auditor general deserves the credit for doing his job. That credit
was given to the auditor general in the third report of the public
accounts committee.
The auditor general reviewed all the documents in the file. He
witnessed this Liberal government's quick and decisive response to
issues which originated out of a tax problem. Those were dealt with
primarily by the expertise of the House finance committee and
legislation was brought in to close any so-called loophole that
could have existed.
There was another process in the public accounts committee to
go over the Revenue Canada side. Recommendations were issued
in the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The
recommendations were acted upon by the revenue department, but
not when the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
asked under recommendations; in fact the public accounts report
congratulated Revenue Canada for having acted immediately on
the issue being brought to the attention of the House by the auditor
10131
general. We have a response. We have today an objective that is
more political than substantial by the Bloc members of the House.
(1645)
I quote what the auditor general said at the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts. ``I take comfort in the fact that the problem we
raised was debated openly by parliamentarians and other observers.
And at the end of the day, the Minister of Finance chose to amend
the act and to clarify certain points which had created problems for
us. I therefore consider this matter closed''.
Those are not the words of the government. Those are the words
of the auditor general: ``I therefore consider this matter closed''.
Mr. Campbell: But not for the Bloc.
Mrs. Barnes: But not for Bloc members. They know what is the
business before the House today. They get the Order Paper. We are
going to spend time debating the motion and so be it. They are
technically within the rules and so we will answer.
We acted quickly and thoroughly to ensure that events that
occurred under the previous Tory government could not occur
again. That is the basis. People in the country want good
government. They do not want to hear about problems. They want
to know what the solution is. Well, we have a solution.
We in the government are solution and future oriented, not going
back into history to find more and more grievances to air just
because we can get some coverage.
The official opposition heard the comments of the auditor
general. Bloc members heard that he now considers the matter
closed. They are now questioning the judgment of the auditor
general, even though they went out of their way earlier in the
debate and earlier in committee to praise the auditor general for
raising the issue. They praise him when he raises the issue but
question him when he says that the case is closed. That is the
official opposition.
The official opposition said that the auditor general is the watch
dog. We concur. The auditor general has the responsibility to
oversee all events that take place here. That is why auditor general
reports not only come before the public accounts committee but
many other committees when he reports on specific activities
within the domain of those parliamentary committees.
When we took power in 1993, the auditor general stated at that
time there needed to be consistency of rules. We now have
consistency of rules. We also agree that there has to be a
transparency of process. What could be more transparent than two
standing committee of the House holding public meetings with the
press, witnesses, experts and people who have an interest in the
problems able to be there. We are talking about the taxation policy
of the country and the rulings of departments.
As taxation policies evolve, certain rules have been tightened,
clarified and more and more consistency has been imposed. We
now have a broad publication of rulings. All this was done before
the age of everything being computerized and out in the public. Of
utmost importance is the privacy of individual taxpayers. That is at
the heart of the system of taxation which we know is the best in the
world.
Bloc members must understand that 96 per cent of Canadians
report their income voluntarily and pay their taxes. We are in tax
season now with a deadline of April 30. We have one of the best tax
collection systems in the world. We have one of the best
departments in the world. It seems the integrity of all the people
who work in that department is always being raised as an issue.
Integrity is definitely not the issue. After the issue was drawn to
our attention, the assistant auditor general, the person who had
primary control of this file, testified not only before public
accounts committee but he also before the finance committee.
(1650)
At the finance committee he said: ``We have seen no evidence of
bad faith and we have seen no evidence of wrongdoing''. Before
the public accounts committee the auditor general said on May 8,
1996: ``I have never had the occasion or the need to ever question
the integrity of the senior officials at Revenue Canada''.
I go on to the Reform Party. Its members were on these
committees. The Reform member for Capilano-Howe Sound said
in the House: ``In spite of serious efforts on my part, in no case
could I discover any evidence of wrongdoing''. The Reform Party,
in the minority report that was tabled with part of the public
accounts committee report, stated: ``We are in no way imputing
motive and questioning the integrity of the officials involved''.
The only ones perpetrating the myth of a scandal is the Bloc
opposition. It has no evidence of back up allegations but it persists
because it is looking for some issue for the campaign trail. Instead
of dealing with the orders of the day we will deal, for partisan
purposes, with the Bloc. The government is not afraid to deal with
that issue because it is already dealt with. We dealt with it with
legislation. We dealt with it in committees and we have tabled
reports.
What we have to do here is look at reality. Reality is that there
was a taxable Canadian property definition. When people leave this
country, what will they be taxed? It is a migrant taxation issue,
which is a very technical area of the act. Decisions were made.
Both reports stated that the decisions made were concurred in by
10132
experts in the tax community. I will let the people in the finance
committee deal with the process.
Somebody is trying to use some nice catch phrases-maybe if
we say family trust-we can scare up a few individuals. I used to
practice law. Trusts were set up every time somebody died and had
a will. That is a form of trust. Thousands and thousands of people
have family trusts. They are not rich folk. They are ordinary
Canadians. We can use the trigger words that Bloc members hope
will catch on, or we can do something about what was a legal
problem and clarify it.
I do not know why we are talking about that because it is already
done. We have already done our job. We know the system is now
tighter. We know that Revenue Canada now publishes the rulings
widely because of privacy concerns.
I am not even sure if the Government of Quebec has done that. I
am pretty sure that it has not, even though its members talked about
it. They should be coming up to where we have the problem. That is
another matter. I will let that jurisdiction take care of itself.
The privacy concerns of taxpayers are something that the Bloc
opposition at one point in the debate were not even concerned with
because they wanted release of taxpayers' names. I can remember
sitting in the public accounts committee and asking how Bloc
members could do it, how they could go to the heart of the tax
system wanting to release to the public names.
It took quite a few meetings before they finally withdrew that
Bloc motion, but finally they saw the damage they were doing.
Maybe it finally clicked in their heads that it was their constituents
too who could have had their taxpayer files open just because
somebody told them that this information would be released. We
know that is wrong. We know that is absolutely wrong. Not only
that, but I cannot imagine it.
(1655)
I read an article last week about tax cops in Russia who actually
rap on people's doors. They do not have the good voluntary
compliance within the tax system that we have. That could happen
if we just throw out the rules. The Bloc's original motion asked us
to release tax names, but the government stood very firmly and said
that it would not do that, because it is not a permissible situation,
nor is it in the Canadian public's interest.
We have very specific rules. Revenue Canada publishes the
rulings for the guidance of tax professionals who need that
clarification. This allows for consistency, which was not there
when this original problem came up. It is even done when
interpretations and decisions are published so those within the
department and tax practitioners across Canada can know what the
department rules. Revenue Canada takes the special step of
releasing that identifiable information. The amendment is
necessary so the names cannot get out and so identifying
information cannot get into the public domain.
The heart of the matter is that the Bloc members do not want to
listen, they do not want to learn. They want scandal. They are not
interested in good government. They are not interested in
progressive legislation. They are not interested in the sanctity of
the taxation system. They are interested in cheap partisan politics.
This is not the first attempt but at least the third attempt. There will
probably be more because they will compound this in whatever
way it can be utilized.
Perhaps the most important thing I could do today to assist us in
this matter that has been raised by the Bloc is to move an
amendment. I move:
That, the motion moved by the Bloc today be amended by deleting all of the
words after the word ``be'', and by substituting therefor the words ``referred back to
the said standing committee for reconsideration of the dissenting reports contained
therein''.
That is exactly what the Bloc members really want. They want
an airing of their dissenting reports. We will comply.
I thank the hon. Bloc members for giving me the opportunity to
go over this very old ground and to make sure the Canadian public
understands there is a difference between people who complain and
people who act, between people who stand for good government
and a fair, equitable and transparent tax system and the people who
just want to use partisan politics to go over an issue that auditor
general has on more than one occasion complained. Case closed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The
amendment is in order. We will be resuming-
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, we would like a copy of the
motion in French, please.
(1700)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All hon.
members have the right to table, in one of the two official
languages, an amendment or a document. I will read the motion as
it was moved and the hon. members can use the interpretation
services.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I want to briefly point out four things to the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.
First of all, I would like to know if it is normal, or usual, for the
employees of the revenue department to process in such a way the
request of an ordinary taxpayer, an ordinary citizen, who wants to
get some tax benefits. If a resident of mine, in the riding of
Saint-Jean, Île d'Orléans, were to ask for an advance tax ruling,
10133
would an army of civil servants be asked to work on next
December 22? Is that normal? Is that acceptable? Is it what the
people who are listening to us can usually expect? This is what I
want to find out. I would like the parliamentary secretary, who has
some contacts in the revenue department, to tell me if it is possible,
normal and usual.
Second, I would like to know why the parliamentary secretary
thought it appropriate to give us a lecture on ethics and
transparency. I almost took out my handkerchief. She nearly made
me cry. We are given lectures on transparency. I would like to know
why, at the public accounts committee, the parliamentary secretary
herself voted against the Bloc Quebecois proposal calling for an
independent inquiry into the family trust scandal. Why did she, and
not her neighbour, her grandfather or her grandmother, vote against
this?
I want to remind Quebecers that it is a good thing the Bloc
Quebecois was there to ask for this independent inquiry. Had
Quebec been represented by 75 Liberal members, as it used to be in
the Trudeau years, instead of 54 Bloc members, there would never
have been a request for an impartial, independent inquiry not
controlled by the government. Thank goodness the Bloc Quebecois
was there. That was my second point.
The third point I want to make is a little more technical. The
auditor general tells us that it is unusual for Revenue Canada to
issue advance rulings on past transactions. Once again, if it is
unusual, why was it done in this case? Why?
(1705)
Are there two kinds of justice or two sets of rules? If you want to
transfer $2 billion in family trusts, either you can do it as a private
citizen and Revenue Canada will harass you afterwards or you
cannot do it. Why did Revenue Canada make an exception and
issue advance rulings on past transactions?
Finally, I would like the parliamentary secretary to comment on
the attitude of the Deputy Minister of Finance, David Dodge, who,
after that meeting, chewed out the auditor general. It is another
form of psychological torture. It is a way of criticizing him for
unearthing this, for rocking the boat. What kind of attitude is that
coming from one of the highest ranked government officials,
Deputy Minister of Finance David Dodge, who literally lashed out
at the auditor general in public, in front of private citizens and
journalists.
Unfortunately, good manners prevent me from repeating in this
House the exact words that were used on that occasion. I would like
the parliamentary secretary to tell us if she finds such behaviour
normal and acceptable.
Mrs. Barnes: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his question.
[English]
It gives me an opportunity to say what a wonderful job he did
chairing the public accounts committee during these debates. This
is the gentleman, not the government, that controlled the
committee. The questioner himself was the person who chaired the
public accounts committee during the debate.
I thank him because that is the only committee chaired by the
official opposition. I agree with the fact the official opposition
chairs the committee.
The questioner is now saying his committee is not good enough
and that there should be a public inquiry. He wants us to spend
some more money and to forget we have had two public and
transparent committees, one in the control of the hon. member
asking the question. Again I thank him for the job he did chairing
the committee.
I want to answer him directly. He raised by innuendo some
speculation that there is perhaps something funny about giving
rulings in December or just before Christmas. The hon. member
was in the room when the testimony was given at committee. He
knows Revenue Canada statistics show that issuing a great number
of rulings in December is the norm because it is the year end and
the last date for cutoff.
In past years we had floating years for corporations, but most
business people in Canada understand that a great many
corporations have January 31 as their cutoff for the year. It is
changing in some respects, but it was the norm at the time these
rulings were issued.
I will deal specifically with the member's question. I will give an
example. Nineteen rulings were issued in the last week of
December 1991. In 1992, 33 rulings were issued in the same
period. In 1993, 42 rulings. In each of 1994 and 1995, 28 rulings
were issued in that week.
In actual fact the bulk of of the rulings of Revenue Canada occur
in the last quarter of the year. That is not unusual. To get to that
point some work has to be done in advance.
The Canadian public needs to know that Revenue Canada is in a
service business. We have clients who pay us taxes so we can do the
work of good government as the Government of Canada. We
require the funds but we also have committed to advance rulings
which are not very useful if they are given after the fact.
When somebody comes to us with a problem and says ``here is
what we need to do by this date so please give us an advanced
ruling'', we work toward making sure we meet that deadline. That
is common sense, that is good government and that is service.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on the excellent speech
she gave and want to ask her a question. Quel est le problème avec
le Bloc?
10134
(1710)
Why would the Bloc totally confuse the situation? Why would
the Bloc talk about 1971? The Liberals brought in the 21-year rule
which stated that at the end of 21 years the rich would pay. The
Tories extended the 21-year rule indefinitely when they came to
power. When the Liberals came back into power they closed it off
completely. To add further to the confusion, could it be that Bloc
members are just as interested as the Tories were in giving tax
breaks to the rich?
Why would the Bloc on October 18, 1996 in the House of
Commons refer to the tax agreement the Tories negotiated to
change the estate tax and say that it supported a Senate bill? It
supported entering into an agreement with the United States on
estate taxes. It realized that some Americans were penalized by
differences in legislation. It indicated that the bill did not specify
how many millions or billions of dollars were at stake. It did not
know which country, Canada or the U.S., would benefit the most
from tax liberalization.
Why would the Bloc be supporting tax breaks that the Tories
negotiated for the rich?
[Translation]
Why does the Bloc want to protect the rich? What is the problem
with the Bloc?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
parliamentary secretary has 30 seconds to answer.
Mrs. Barnes: Madam Speaker, with 30 seconds to answer I can
only say I have no idea what is in the minds of Bloc members. I
know what the government does and I can make that choice.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
hearing some interesting comments being thrown back and forth.
The last Liberal questioner just does not understand the objective
of the Bloc. The Bloc is not out to give tax breaks to the rich. The
Bloc is out to tax the rich. It is exactly the opposite. It is
complaining that billions of dollars are disappearing because they
are hidden in family trusts. It wants to tax those people. It wants its
share of the revenues.
How can a Liberal member who is listening to the debate say the
Bloc wants to give tax breaks to the rich? This is what is wrong
with the Liberal government. It is the spin it wants to give the
thing. It is the perception it wants to create. Liberals are interested
in perception, not reality. They are not listening to what the debate
is all about.
It is a shame that a gentleman who is as good at communication
and can express himself so eloquently would waste those God
given talents on distorting the truth and the facts.
Nevertheless I am a member of the Standing Committee of
Public Accounts. I was also present when the issue was debated
there. As Reformers my colleague from the riding of St. Albert and
I were very concerned about the issue. The Liberal spokesperson
from public accounts who addressed the issue refuted what the
Bloc members had to say. She did a reasonably good job of
explaining the circumstances.
I find interesting now that it is relatively over, so to speak, her
recollection of the facts: the events are now wonderful. She praises
the auditor general when the chairman of the Standing Committee
of Finance, who was present in the House today, openly criticized
the auditor general for having the audacity to question the transfer
of these trusts to the United States. That is the reality. He criticized
the auditor general and now the Liberal spokesperson is praising
the auditor general.
(1715)
Another fact conveniently distorted or interpreted different from
the way I saw things happen was when this hit the newspapers and
it was out there, the Bloc Quebecois did make a big issue out of this
and raised family trusts. It was on family trusts from the very first
meeting we had on the GST the first year it came here. It is an issue
that it is very concerned about and very much interested in.
This issue comes to the forefront and lo and behold, the finance
minister tried to pre-empt the responsibilities of the public
accounts committee and take away its right to review the situation.
He shoved it off to the Standing Committee on Finance where it
wanted to review all of this and not have it under public accounts.
We know the public accounts committee is the one that is
supposed to be looking at the comments of the auditor general and
from that ask for witnesses and testimony. We felt that the Standing
Committee on Finance could do what it wanted and we also looked
into it.
In pursuing the issue I have some other facts I would like to
present. Looking into it, trying to get to the bottom of it, trying to
find out whether there were some tax dollars that should have
stayed in Canada that ended up not being collected, those are
honourable and good questions.
Imagine a system once they form the government in the new
country of Quebec. They are going to publish names of taxpayers
they are investigating. That is not right. That is not the kind of tax
system I would like to have or a country I would like to be in. That
is a private matter and is very confidential. On that issue I
definitely disagree.
The chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in
one of his questions earlier today was concerned about what kind of
system we have where somebody asks for an advance ruling. I
think that is good system. An advance tax ruling on a complicated
10135
issue is a service that Revenue Canada should provide. It is a
service that is very valuable and is used very often.
When some people are into very complicated financial
transactions and the implications of moving funds around in trust
to find out how the tax department would treat it, whether it would
be taxed right away, deferred or not taxed at all, these are important
elements to consider. Advance tax rulings are a process we in
Canada, a lot of individuals and businesses, appreciate.
The actions of Revenue Canada on this issue are suspect for the
reason, as I recollect the facts, that on the second ruling the
department in all its documentation, in everything that was in the
files prior to the last meeting, indicated it was not going to give a
favourable ruling. It was to rule against this movement of assets,
taxable properties, within a family trust
All of sudden it is reversed. Why? The purpose of the public
accounts committee was to find out and ask witnesses. We still do
not have a clear answer on that. We do not know why there was a
reversal. Certainly it is its right to reverse it but when all the
documentation, all the arguments and all the evidence as it builds a
file and review a case are leading it in one direction, why all of a
sudden is it changed?
The Bloc is asking good questions. Why is there special
treatment here? Was there special treatment? Was there
favouritism? Was this an order by a cabinet minister who said
reverse it? Was it politically motivated? We tried to get to the
bottom and we could not. The Standing Committee on Finance then
made some recommendations and it theoretically closed the
loopholes.
(1720)
What was happening that was wrong while the committee was
doing this? While the Standing Committee on Finance was
reviewing the issue, the Minister of National Revenue froze all
other transactions of this nature, denying for six to seven months
the rights of other Canadians to obtain advance tax rulings and to
make transactions within trusts. It was done at the expense of other
taxpayers.
It was something the Minister of National Revenue should not
have done. She should have allowed the process to continue
because if the decision was a good decision and if the decision had
the facts to support the action from a tax point of view, it should
have been a precedent which would have been available for other
Canadians. It seemed to us in committee that the government was
trying to hide it, push it under the rug and not let us get to the
bottom of it. It was frozen.
Then the loophole was closed and we were told it is finished.
However, like I say, there was a price to pay in doing that.
I would like it to be known that this transaction had with it a tax
liability. The trust went to the United States. It went to New York
state. We found out that the way the deal was made, the way the
ruling came down, this could be allowed to happen but only if
during the next ten years, from 1991 to the year 2001, if any of
those assets were cashed in, if any of it was liquidated, the tax
liability would be owing to Canada and Canadians would receive
that money. Theoretically, as we are debating this issue today, if
those individuals were to do anything to liquidate certain assets
within the trust, the moneys would be taxed and the tax would be
owing to Canada.
After the ten years the tax would be owing and payable in the
United States, in New York state. However, these individuals did
not do this to avoid paying tax. The tax liability is there. It is a
question of whether it is payable to Canada or to the United States.
Ten years from the date of the agreement the tax is owing to
Canada.
As well, the tax rate in New York state on this trust would have
been higher than it is in Canada. Therefore to argue that these
individuals were trying to avoid taxes or trying to pay lower taxes
is not true. I would like to let it be known that these people were
just looking for ways to get their trust moved around.
Did this happen in such a way that there should have been an
immediate tax liability on the assets payable to Canada? I do not
know. I do not know the technicalities. I cannot say whether there
should or should not have been. However, other Canadians should
not have been denied the same rights while this was being looked
at.
The public accounts committee went as far as it could, with good
intentions. We were not quite satisfied with all the answers. There
were minority reports filed.
With respect to the matters of tax liability, tax avoidance and tax
concurrence there is an honour system in Canada. I am starting to
get the sense that the government is becoming tougher and is not
willing to trust Canadians. The government amended the Income
Tax Act in the last budget, which is to come into force this year.
Now we are going to be requested on our income tax forms to not
only report our income, tax liability, how much was deducted at
source and how much is still owing, but a year from now the
government is going to ask all individuals to list their foreign
assets. We will not only have to report our income and the liability
on that income, we will have to report our foreign assets. Why? The
government does not trust Canadians. It feels that some Canadians
are hiding assets offshore and not paying tax on them when they are
sold, not declaring their gain on the assets.
(1725)
Our system in Canada hires a lot of people. Revenue Canada has
a budget of $2.2 billion, 44,000 employees. There are some darned
10136
good auditors. Those auditors are the ones who should be looking
at who is and who is not paying taxes on offshore assets. Why not
do that?
If there is a problem with the business immigration plan and
some immigrants are not following the system, audit more of them.
We know that when a tax avoidance scheme or a tax shelter
develops and the business community takes undue advantage of it,
the auditors audit research and development grants until we find
out what is legitimate and what is not and we find out that some
people were cheating. That is how to solve it, not putting in the
Income Tax that one must under penalty of imprisonment or under
penalty of something else. That drawing and quartering is
ridiculous. That is not the way we should be going.
Today something happened in public accounts that is all related
to what we do as a committee. A very important issue was raised
about generally accepted accounting principles and how
government commitments are booked; the $961 million transition
payment to the three Atlantic provinces; the $800 million
commitment for the foundation for innovation.
Bloc members were ready to debate this. Reform was ready. The
auditor general was at the committee along with the deputy
minister. These people were kind enough to show up to discuss the
issue so that I would either stop criticizing or continue to criticize
the finance minister. There are seven Liberal members on that
committee. Not one of them showed up and the chairman had to
cancel the meeting. That is a shame and I do not think it is in order.
I feel I have contributed as much as I can to shed light on what
happened on this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to put a question to the hon. member. The Bloc Quebecois has
decried throughout Canada what they call the family trust scandal.
Mr. Nunez: But it is true.
Mr. Peterson: It is not true. Both the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Finance have held
public hearings on this issue. Tax experts who had conducted an
extensive review of this case told us that our public officials were
fair and had the right to give what is called an advanced tax ruling.
According to these experts, who hail from the private sector and
work in this complicated and difficult area, our employees had the
right to act as they did.
But despite all of this, I want to point out that, after being made
aware of the situation, the government reacted very quickly. It
agreed with the proposals made by the Standing Committee on
Finance to create in Canada one of the toughest tax systems where
immigration is concerned.
We have heard a lot of lies in this House and everywhere else
about family trusts. Let my give you an example of a lie I heard
today. Someone said that it was the Liberal government under
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in 1970, that came up with the idea of
family trusts. That is not true. Family trusts have existed since the
17th century. They have always existed to help families, farmers,
people-
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5.30
p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
10136
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
On the Order: Private Members' Business:
October 30, 1996-Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest)-Second reading
and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-341,
an act to establish the terms and conditions that must apply to a referendum relating
to the separation of Quebec from Canada before it may be recognized as a proper
expression of the will of the people of Quebec.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for Calgary Southwest is not present to move the order as
announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly the motion will be
dropped to the bottom of the orders of precedence on the Order
Paper.
[Translation]
The sitting is suspended until 6.30 p.m., unless the hon.
members agree to call it 6.30 p.m.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I
call it 6.30 p.m?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10136
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
10137
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, Hyundai
has been in the news a great deal in our area since this firm closed
its plant in Bromont.
The former Bloc member for Brome-Missisquoi, Gaston
Péloquin, had predicted during the last election campaign that the
Hyundai plant in Bromont would close. Of course, everybody then
believed that he was not telling the truth.
After getting a $23 million loan from Ottawa and the same
amount from Quebec, Hyundai set up its plant in Bromont with the
objective of producing 100,000 cars a year. We know that this
objective was never reached.
When the closing of the plant was announced, Mr. Péloquin and I
got together to try to find out more about the future of the Hyundai
plant and the 800 jobs that would be lost. We are talking about 800
direct jobs, 800 quality jobs, 800 well-paid jobs. These 800 direct
jobs and the contracts that were awarded generated significant
economic benefits throughout the Granby-Bromont region.
These jobs were held by people between 25 and 30 on average.
We know how difficult it is today for young people to find quality
jobs. Our young people were hit hard.
At that time, I urged the government, on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois, to act as quickly as possible to save these jobs and,
more importantly, to ensure that this situation does not reoccur.
The Prime Minister does not miss an opportunity to brag about
job creation. In this case, the federal government failed miserably. I
also attended a few meetings held by employees of the Federal
Office of Regional Development for Quebec, in Montreal. Nothing
could be done. The Liberal government across the way did nothing
to save this plant other than take part in unsuccessful meetings.
What we know now is that all the equipment was taken out of the
plant and that the executive is challenging the City of Bromont's
assessment roll to have their municipal taxes reduced.
(1735)
Yet, the solution for the future is obvious. We must find another
destination for this plant. We should find buyers, a company
willing to acquire this infrastructure, a modern plant. We have to
recognize that Hyundai will not change its decision. A responsible
government claiming that it is stimulating employment should do
its utmost to revive the plant.
On April 16, I asked the Minister of Industry whether
discussions had been initiated with his Quebec counterpart or any
potential buyer who could take over this idle plant and get it
running again. I was told that the question would be taken under
advisement. Can you imagine that. Not a very impressive answer.
They claim they can run a country, and their stated objective was
job creation. Remember: ``Jobs, jobs, jobs''? What did they do?
Just about nothing. Of course, my Ottawa office has not had an
answer yet, even though the parliamentary secretary undertook to
give me one. We did not get anything, but it is not the first time, we
are used to it. Liberals talk a lot and make lots of promises but,
unfortunately, they do not deliver much.
Therefore, I put my question again to the Minister of Industry or
his department. Do they have solutions to propose to the people of
my riding and the neighbouring riding of Brome-Missisquoi,
which is not appear anywhere, on this issue. Are there talks
between the government in Ottawa and the one in Quebec City to
look for potential buyers who could get this idle plant running
again?
People in my riding have the right to know what the federal
government is doing for them and I expect an answer on their
behalf.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased the hon. member for Shefford has given me the opportunity
to speak to the development of the Hyundai plant in Bromont,
Quebec.
As the Minister of Industry noted in the House previously,
Hyundai informed the government of its intention to remove its
equipment from the Bromont plant since its efforts to reopen the
plant with partners or to attract investors had been fruitless.
Having reimbursed all sums owed to both governments, Hyundai
has no other formal obligations. The arrangement agreed to by
Industry Canada, the Quebec industry department and Hyundai was
that Hyundai would pay back the entire amount of the contributions
it received, $46.4 million, under the Canada-Quebec industrial
development agreement if it ceased production and was unable to
introduce a new product or find an interested buyer for its Bromont
plant.
As neither of these conditions could be met, Hyundai has now
returned the entire amount which will be used jointly by the federal
and provincial governments under the entente to fund other
worthwhile projects that will contribute to economic development
in Quebec.
The federal government continues to search for opportunities to
create jobs and growth. Industry Canada now has a dedicated
investment unit, which is a joint initiative with the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, working on an
international marketing campaign to increase international
awareness of Canada's advantages as a location for investment.
10138
Investment Partnerships Canada builds new federal, provincial,
municipal and government-private sector partnerships to attract
investment.
I am confident of the work of Industry Canada. It will respond to
any investor interest in the Bromont plant.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am here tonight to address once again what continues to
be a worsening condition in my home province. The flood waters of
the Red River are still on the rise. Yesterday Premier Filmon
declared a provincial state of emergency.
Our minister responsible for Emergency Planning Canada, the
Minister of National Defence, was in southern Manitoba recently
and attempted to meet with Mr. Filmon and to inspect the situation.
(1740)
During yesterday's question period I had the opportunity to
discuss the situation with the hon. minister. Given the time
constraints, the minister was unable to address the specific
measures the Government of Canada has taken and is willing to
undertake in the future. Tonight I greatly appreciate the opportunity
to further discuss the matter.
I will put the present situation into a historical context. This is
certainly not the first national disaster although it may be the worst
flood the province has seen in 100 years. The memories of past
floods are etched into the minds of those who suffered through
them. We refer specifically to 1950, 1966, 1979 and 1996. In each
of those years neighbours and communities pulled together to help
each other.
The province of Manitoba did its share to co-ordinate emergency
efforts. Along with the Government of Canada it was there to
provide strategic support and in the end financial assistance to help
recover some costs associated with the disaster.
When the incident is over the financial aspect bears some
scrutiny and discussion. Financial assistance has been given
according to a disaster assistance formula put in place back in the
seventies. Since 1970 the federal government has paid over $53
billion to the province, a substantially higher amount in proportion
to other provinces of similar size. This is due through no small part
to the severe and devastating floods that have occurred on a fairly
regular and repetitive basis.
Under the DFAA arrangements the federal government is
permitted to assist provinces when the cost of responding to major
emergencies such as the one we are facing now puts undue strain on
the provincial economy. When this happens financial assistance is
requested by the province of the federal government. The amount
of federal assistance is in accordance with a cost sharing formula
based on the provincial population and eligible provincial
expenses as spelled out under DFAA guidelines.
The province receives invoices from the municipality,
catalogues them and forwards them to the federal government for
its scrutiny. The province may however provide more generous
assistance than what the guidelines designed between the province
and the federal government actually state. As a senior minister
from Manitoba stated earlier today in a media interview, it is up to
the province to develop and deliver its own program of assistance
to victims of a disaster according to the nature of the disaster and
the needs of the people deeply affected.
Recently the Government of Canada committed to compensate
the amount of $1.25 million for funds for Manitoba in 1993 and
1995 regardless of what the disaster assistance guidelines clearly
state. It is a one-time payment which does not set a precedent. It is
a generous way of showing that the Government of Canada is
committed to compensating equally and fairly all Canadians who
have endured a natural disaster. It displays the level of generosity
the federal government needs to express to those areas hit.
We would ask the minister's representative to kindly clarify
what measures the Liberal government is taking to ensure that in
the middle of such confusion Manitobans can be assured of equal
and good treatment in the future.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for Brandon-Souris for his question. I
understand his concern for our fellow Manitobans.
By all measures the flood waters that now threaten Manitobans
are cause for great concern. While we cannot fully overcome the
full force of Mother Nature, the local municipalities, the
Government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada will
endeavour to do everything within their powers to minimize the
personal, social and economic dislocation that so often follow
natural disasters of this magnitude.
Already the federal government, working with Manitoba's
emergency measures organization, has in place a number of
initiatives aimed at helping Manitobans prepare for the impending
floods. As of today more than 300 Canadian forces members are
actively participating in sandbagging operations in southern
Manitoba. An additional 1,400 CF members have been committed
and are moving into the area. Many more CF members are on
standby and ready to deploy at a moment's notice.
A number of reservists from the Manitoba area are among those
on standby, a wonderful example of how local support for the
militia is often returned in kind to the community.
10139
By Friday April 25, air command will have 10 helicopters in
Winnipeg. Zodiac boats, heavy equipment and more personnel are
being moved to the area as we speak. Resources such as these will
prove to be vital in flood support operations such as evacuations
and emergency situations.
At the request of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Manitoba's
Liberal MPs, yesterday afternoon the Minister of National Defence
toured by helicopter the area south of Winnipeg affected by
flooding. The minister wanted to review the situation personally
and ensure that all that can be done is being done to assist the
Manitoba government and those people affected by this natural
disaster.
The Canadian forces however represent but one dimension of the
federal government's response to this potential disaster.
Human Resources Development Canada is arranging for
expedited movement of pension and other such cheques.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is in close communication
with First Nations communities, including Dauphin River, that
could be isolated by flood waters.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has compiled an
inventory of emergency housing if evacuees need to be relocated.
Revenue Canada Customs has arranged to provide 24-hour
service at other entry sites to expedite commercial truck traffic
detoured from its usual port of entry.
The Canadian Wheat Board has been moving grain out of
threatened areas with the assistance of the railways.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans-Canadian Coast Guard
in Manitoba has its fleet of small boats and equipment ready for use
by municipalities if required. The coast guard has mobilized
several large barges ready to transport livestock and other property
if evacuation is necessary. Some cattle already have been
evacuated in the St. Pierre-Joly area.
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration has five fields
ready for use as an emergency feedlot. Preparations are also being
made to deal with an influx of animal carcasses in areas where
evacuation of livestock may not have been completed.
No one can fully mitigate the devastating effects caused by
flooding. If our worst fears are met, challenging times surely will
come in the wake of rising flood waters.
While it is the human spirit which will ultimately ensure that the
vitality of communities facing flood waters will remain intact, I
can assure the citizens of Manitoba that the Government of Canada
will do its part. Everyone from the Prime Minister on down is on
alert and everything possible will be done to help my fellow
Manitobans.
Finally, Manitoba is not facing its first nor likely its last natural
disaster. The treatment of Manitobans by the Government of
Canada however will be second to none.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. The House
stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.48 p.m.)