CONTENTS
Thursday, April 25, 1996
Bill C-32. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 1923
Bill C-274. Motions for introduction andfirst reading deemed
adopted 1923
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 126; Nays, 72. 1924
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 127; Nays, 73 1925
Bill C-31. Consideration resumed of second reading 1926
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1932
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1933
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1941
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1942
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1953
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1954
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1954
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1954
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1955
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1955
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1956
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1956
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1956
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1957
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1957
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1958
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 1958
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1959
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1959
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1959
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1960
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1960
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1960
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 1960
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1961
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1961
Bill C-31. Consideration resumed of motionfor second reading 1961
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1972
Bill C-31. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
amendment 1973
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1975
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1982
1923
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 25, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's response to 11 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-32,
an act to amend the Copyright Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-274, an act to amend the Criminal Code
and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative
sentences).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for
Mississauga South for seconding my private member's bill which
aims to recognize victims of crime as individuals by ending
volume discounts for rapists and murderers in our courts. These
volume discounts are granted by concurrence sentencing which
allows a serial killer or a serial rapist to serve sentences for
multiple crimes at the same time and be out on the street in only a
fraction of the total sentence.
I believe Canadians are tired of having the price for murder and
rape marked down by the courts and parole boards. This bill would
narrow the gap between our justice system and justice.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present a petition signed by people in and around my riding.
The petitioners call for an indivisible Canada, whose boundaries
and those of its provinces, territories and territorial waters must not
be modified.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions today. The first one comes from Edmonton, Alberta.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon
Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination
against families who decide to provide care in the home for
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The second petition
comes from Sarnia, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
1924
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning I have the honour to present a petition from
constituents of my riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre with some
225 signatures.
The petitioners humbly request that Parliament not increase the
federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget. Having
said that, I received this petition obviously after the 1996 federal
budget but I am sure they mean ever.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1924
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in
Canada, not more than 10 further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of
the committee stage of the bill and, at the expiry of the time provided for in this
Order, any proceedings before the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and
in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the said bill
shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
(1010 )
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 44)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-126
1925
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ringma
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Wayne-72
PAIRED MEMBERS
Caron
Chan
Cohen
Daviault
Duceppe
Gallaway
Harb
Kirkby
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Paradis
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Venne
Wells
(1055)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I was
unavoidably detained on government business. Had I been here I
would have recorded my vote with my Reform colleagues against
the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry. We
cannot accept the vote of the hon. member.
[Translation]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the
budget tabled in Parliament on March 6, 1996, not more than one additional
sitting day after the day on which this order is adopted shall be allotted to the
consideration of the second reading stage of the bill and, fifteen minutes before
the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day so allotted
to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings
before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order,
and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage
of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 45)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
1926
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-127
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ringma
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Wayne
Williams-73
PAIRED MEMBERS
Caron
Chan
Cohen
Daviault
Duceppe
Gallaway
Harb
Kirkby
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Paradis
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Venne
Wells
(1110)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
[Translation]
The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on March 6, 1996, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-31, a bill recently
introduced by the Minister of Finance, which not only implements
several budgetary provisions but also adds to the provisions of the
latest budget brought down by the Minister of Finance some
elements of the agreement on the GST reached the day before
yesterday between the Minister of Finance of Canada and three of
the four maritime provinces.
My argument will focus on two major aspects of the bill: first,
the part dealing with certain provisions of the Unemployment
Insurance Act and, second, certain provisions of the agreement on
the GST, and those calling for the outrageous amount of $961
million to be paid out in compensation to the maritime provinces.
But before I go on, I must say that I deplore the fact that the
government does not like to be told the truth, to hear certain facts
about the unemployment insurance system, the GST or the
outrageous agreement entered into with the maritime provinces.
Instead of responding to these statements and debating the issues in
public, in front of the people, the government chooses to hide
behind a wall of silence, stifling debate with a gag order not once
but twice today. This is a shame and a disgrace.
1927
Regarding the unemployment insurance system, I would like to
start by commending my colleagues, particularly the hon. member
for Mercier, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup,
the hon. member for Lévis, and all those who have supported them
in literally besieging the human resources development
committee, whose members were once again trying to limit
debate, something we will not abide. The real issues must be
raised. I congratulate my colleagues on doing just that and we will
keep on fighting with their support.
Our position on unemployment insurance is clear and, regardless
of the gag put on us and the government's attitude in trying to hide
the truth from the people who elected it, we will press on. The only
thing that this bill is good for is to be tossed out. This is the only
way the unemployment insurance system can be properly reformed
today.
Let me restate our main reasons for opposing this reform. First,
the proposed reform is unfair, because it will be harder to qualify
and two categories of unemployed will be created, depending on
how frequently they are unemployed. Second, this is a regressive
reform, because there will be a single rate of contribution and the
maximum insurance earnings will be reduced to $39,000.
(1115)
Third, by lowering the maximimum to $39,000, the Liberal
Party of Canada is doing a favour to large corporations, since those
that can afford to pay insurable gains totalling $39,000 annually are
precisely the big corporations that contribute to the Liberal Party's
coffers.
Fourth, the reform is detrimental to job creation, since the new
contributions structure favours capital intensive industries, at the
expense of labour intensive industries.
Fifth, the reform will generate poverty, because it lowers the rate
of benefits while taxing workers from the very first hour of work.
This debate on Bill C-31 gives me an opportunity to reiterate the
position of the Bloc Quebecois regarding this issue. The proposed
unemployment insurance reform is not agreeable to Quebecers and
Canadians as a whole. The government must withdraw its bill and
start the whole exercise all over, do some real thinking, and come
up with a real unemployment insurance program that will help the
poor in our society, instead of hitting them hard with cruel
measures.
As regards the GST, there are many things we could say and
repeat to the Minister of Finance. There are many things we could
say and repeat to the Prime Minister, now and then. There are many
things we could say and repeat to all government members
regarding the numerous promises they made concerning this tax.
Why did the government, this morning, limit to only one day, or
100 minutes for the official opposition, the debate on the new
agreement reached between the maritime provinces and the federal
government concerning the GST? Why did it do that? I will tell you
why. It is because this government is ashamed of the Liberal
Party's promises that have not been kept. This government is
ashamed of the attitude of its Prime Minister, who reneges on his
commitments. This government is ashamed of the attitude of the
Deputy Prime Minister, who said she would resign if the GST was
not abolished. We are being gagged because the Prime Minister
failed to meet his commitments. This is why.
Not that long ago, the government made very clear statements.
We have recordings, newspaper articles and even videos of that,
just as in the case of the numerous scandals involving the
Department of National Defence. Prominent members of this
government have made a formal commitment to Quebecers and
Canadians, especially during the election campaign. They have
made a promise. This Prime Minister stated in a CBC interview in
1993: ``We will scrap the GST''.
What is the Prime Minister saying now? He keeps repeating we
should read the red book. But what did he say personally? He
indulged in petty politics by promising Quebecers and Canadians
that he would eliminate the GST. We have his commitment on tape.
It was recorded. And that has nothing to do with the red book. He
promised that he would kill the GST. And what is he doing now?
He is breaking his promise.
On October 18, 1993, on the CBC, the Deputy Prime Minister
made a statement that is just fine when you want to entice voters
during an election campaign:
[English]
``I have already said personally and very directly that if the GST
is not abolished I will resign''.
[Translation]
So, she promised to resign if the GST was not eliminated.
What is she doing now? She is laughing at us. She is laughing at
Quebecers and Canadians with her broken promises. Shame on her.
We would have thought that, as it was said during an election
campaign, they would stop saying they would if they did not really
mean it. But that was not to be. On May 2, 1994, about six months
after coming to power, the Prime Minister repeated: ``We hate this
tax, and we are going to eliminate it''.
How can they take such an attitude now? How can they try to
hide behind an agreement with the maritimes, an agreement that
not only leaves the GST in place throughout Canada, but also
buries it in the price?
1928
(1120)
How did we get from a formal commitment to some kind of
political hybrid that makes the Minister of Finance look good and
gives the Prime Minister the opportunity to say: ``Look, we have
done something about the GST'', when what he promised was not
to do something about the GST, but to scrap it? How can a
government deceive the voters this way? It is unacceptable. It is so
totally unacceptable that there is a general outcry in Quebec and in
Canada.
About the hidden tax, for instance, let me remind the House that,
as early as 1994, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce made a
survey and concluded that 70 per cent of its members were opposed
to a sales tax, the new GST or any new value added tax, being
hidden in the price of goods. Seventy per cent of its members were
against such a measure in 1994. The Canadian Chamber of
Commerce carried out another survey not so long ago, last
February in fact, and realized not only that the situation had not
reversed, but, quite the opposite. There are now 76 per cent of
Canadian businesses that are opposed to the new GST being hidden
in the price of goods.
When there is almost unanimous consent within the Chamber of
Commerce on this issue, why should the government come up with
such a hypocritical initiative? The Canadian Taxpayers'
Association, through its president, also reacted strongly against a
hidden GST. Why? First, because it allows the government to
conceal what the real financial situation is in Canada. It also allows
the federal government to conceal its mismanagement of public
funds and the fact that it is standing on the brink of a financial
abyss, with an accumulated debt of over $550 billion. That is the
first reason.
The second reason is that by hiding the tax-as the Minister of
Finance has done in the agreement reached with the three maritime
provinces and which he would like to extend to the rest of
Canada-the government has found a roundabout way to increase
the tax, year after year, without the consumers in Quebec and the
rest of Canada knowing about it.
In fact, while in opposition, the Liberals vigorously attacked the
previous government on the GST and emphasized the very same
things we just mentioned. In 1989, the Liberal opposition minority
report said: ``Moreover, if the GST is hidden in the sales price, it
will be a lot easier for the government to raise it later''. This is
what was said in the Liberal minority report of 1989. It also said:
``Nothing will prevent the government from regularly raising the
GST.'' This is still according to the 1989 Liberal minority report.
This is what the Liberal Party was saying then. I find it peculiar
that they should do a complete turnaround a few years down the
road. How can the people of Quebec and Canada trust a
government like that?
As such, the agreement is a bad deal. Why? Because not only is
the problem of the hated GST not solved, not only is this tax hidden
and there is no national reform, since this is restricted to the
maritimes only, but this will cost Quebecers and Canadians outside
the maritimes at least $961 million over the next four years to
compensate the maritime provinces for the revenue loss they will
experience after replacing the actual federal and provincial
taxes-totalling some 19 per cent in the maritimes-by a single
federal tax of 15 per cent.
This is a $961 million political compensation that has nothing to
do with federal compensations like, for example, the one that
followed the abolition of the Crow's Nest rate for the transportation
of western grain. They said then that economic distortions were
created.
(1125)
These economic distortions are being eliminated, but there must
be compensation for those who, since 1897, benefited from this
preferential transportation rate. That is not the same thing. That
was an economic compensation. This compensation is political. We
are supposed to believe that the government is doing something
about the GST, that it wants to harmonize the consumer tax
collected by the federal government and the provinces, when in
reality this accord is a smokescreen for a broken promise and an
outrageous expenditure of $961 million over the next four years.
This is a lot to pay so that the Liberal government can pull the
wool over our eyes, to the tune of almost $1 billion over the next
four years. This is not right.
Not only that, but the finance minister is keeping something else
from us about this agreement, and that is that in four years, when
the $961 million have been paid, equalization payments will kick
in. It is not just $961 million. After the fourth year, we will
continue to pay, on average, approximately $250 million annually
to the maritimes for this bad deal, this political deal that the finance
minister signed this week.
[English]
The new deal between the federal government and the maritimes
will cost $1 billion to Quebecers and Canadians outside the
maritimes. It is a high price to pay for Canadians for a bad deal, a
political deal, which maintains the GST.
It is not the only price. After four years Canadians will continue
to pay compensation to the maritimes by equalization payments.
When one reduces the taxation base, as in the proposal of the
Minister of Finance, equalization increases automatically.
In Quebec we realized harmonization for five years without any
cost to the federal government, without any cost to Canadians in
other parts of Canada. Why is it not possible for the Liberal
government to do the same thing in all territories of Canada? Why
is it not possible to avoid paying $1 billion to the maritimes?
1929
[Translation]
Not only is this agreement costing us dearly, not only does it
solve nothing, not only is it a smokescreen for the Liberal Party's
broken promises, but in addition there is a danger that it will set a
precedent of interfering in the fiscal autonomy of the provinces.
I would like to tell you what the deputy premier of Quebec said
when he heard about this agreement, because there are fears in
Quebec about the agreement. He said, and I quote: ``Certain
conditions cannot be gotten around, including full fiscal autonomy
for Quebec, which must retain full flexibility to set the base and the
rate''.
His concerns are not without foundation, because in the paper
tabled Monday at the same time as the agreement, it is clearly
mentioned that the new Canada revenue commission, the one
which was announced in the speech from the throne and which
came up again in the last budget speech, will be responsible, in
place of the provinces, for managing the new tax, the Liberal
government's new hidden and hypocritical GST.
As this paper points out, if application of this agreement between
the federal government and the maritime provinces is to be
expanded to all of Canada, over the next few months there will be
many approaches made to the various provinces to get them,
Quebec in particular, to give up their taxation autonomy,
administration of the sales tax, the right to set the level of their own
taxes-something Quebec is totally free to do today-and
particularly the right to determine which goods and services are to
be taxed. This is what lies hidden behind the agreement reached
between the maritime provinces and the Minister of Finance.
We can but regret this agreement, this political agreement, this
bribery of the maritime provinces, aimed at getting what the
Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister want. We can but
regret, as well, what occurred here yesterday at 5.21 p.m. Since I
saw it as a tragic moment for Canadian parliamentary history, I
took note of the exact time the Minister of Industry tabled a notice
of motion to gag us in the debate on Bill C-31, as well as on the
outrageous agreement between him and the maritime provinces.
(1130)
This agreement will be terribly costly for us. A minimum of $1
billion over the next four years, $250 million from the tax dollars
of Quebecers to foot the bill for a political agreement entered into
with the maritimes. This agreement will serve to increase
competition between Quebec businesses and those in other
provinces, New Brunswick, for example.
Such a situation is not right, particularly since we in Quebec
have come to an agreement with the federal government, have
made an incredible effort to harmonize the tax, have defined highly
efficient mechanisms for its application and administration, and
now are rewarded for our efforts by the federal government's
presenting us with an agreement that has been thrown together, a
political agreement that will cost Quebec $250 million, and the rest
of Canada some $750 million.
I can understand why Quebec is starting to rise up, and the other
provinces as well. It is not right for a federation to be administered
the way the federal government is administering this one. Nor it is
right for it to renege on its commitments, as the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Finance are doing.
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened
with great interest to my friend and colleague. He is an eloquent
speaker, but as is all too often the case, only part of the picture is
presented and is not one we on this side of the House agree with.
The member questions the finance minister and the
government's making an arrangement with the three Atlantic
provinces because they saw it was fit, fair and just to provide a
degree of compensation to assist with the transition. This is
especially the case because of the lowered provincial rate portion
of the harmonized tax.
I am a member of the House of Commons finance committee, as
is my colleague. I went through the extensive consultations in the
spring of 1994 which covered a wide range of witnesses across the
country and a wide range of issues. We looked at about 20 options
for replacing the GST. There was no doubt the best replacement for
the GST was a harmonized system involving provincial taxes and
the federal GST.
We had the concurrence of the Reform Party on this suggestion.
An hon. member: Wrong.
Mr. St. Denis: We only have to look at the minority report to
confirm that fact
I will deal specifically with the member's points in the latter part
of his presentation and why the province of Quebec should not now
receive some payment for having harmonized some years ago. We
appreciate that Quebec had the foresight to harmonize. It was the
right thing to do and obviously the government of the day thought
so. It is still a good plan. No doubt there are some improvements
that can be made and as a government we look forward to working
with Quebec on that.
However, statistics will show Quebec actually gained from the
harmonization. In the maritimes because of the tax base and the
desire to lower the provincial rate of tax, a 5 per cent threshold was
decided on. For any province which harmonized above a 5 per cent
cap, compensation would be provided for loses above 5 per cent.
As we calculate it there would be no loss for Ontario. As we see it
1930
there was no loss for Quebec. Some other provinces might
experience a loss.
(1135)
As a government we are being responsible and we are prepared
to provide some limited degree of compensation. This is not a
political decision. This is a country that is not built on cheque book
federalism, it is a country built on partnerships among all the
regions of this great nation. Every area is treated equally but we
cannot treat every area the same.
Did Quebec gain when it harmonized its provincial tax with the
GST?
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Madam Speaker, my colleague is being a bit
facetious in asking such a question. Harmonizing taxes, reducing
the paper burden and simplifying the administration of taxes are all
good things. Nobody said they were not. This is in fact what
Quebec has understood and has been doing since 1991. We
harmonized the federal tax and the Quebec sales tax, but not at a
cost of $1 billion. Not at all.
We harmonized the bases gradually, through discussion, through
an administrative agreement, the kind you are so fond of. You are
always advocating administrative agreements, everyone's full
understanding and participation by all the provinces. And what are
you handing us this week-a slapdash agreement with three of the
four maritime provinces.
Without consulting any government in any province of Canada,
least of all Quebec, you announce that from now on this will be the
basis of discussions. And then you bring out this agreement, which
will cost $961 million over the next four years over and above the
equalization payments, which will take over. And now we have to
pay. Button it and pay up is what you are telling the governments of
Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British
Columbia.
This is not how it was in Quebec. There, we could see the
advantage of harmonizing and of simplifying the administration.
We could also see that the more we simplified and cut back
administration, the better our economic performance. But we never
asked for anything. The only money the federal government gives
the Government of Quebec is for services rendered, because it
administers the federal government's GST. And that is what is not
right.
Furthermore, I do not think we are alone. Some may call us evil
separatists and perpetual federalism bashers, but it is not true. See
how rational, very rational we were with the GST, unemotional
even. In Quebec we harmonized it. Not only are we criticizing this
ridiculous agreement, but like the rest of Canada, we in Quebec
find this whole business unacceptable. It is not right that the rest of
Canada should pay for an agreement that is going to allow people
in the maritimes to save 4 per cent in provincial tax.
If it were an equalization adjustment, it would be a completely
different matter. Let us not mix apples and oranges as the Minister
of Finance is so good at doing in order to confuse Canadians. That
is not right. Do not forget-and my colleague knows it full well
because he sits on the finance committee-that when a tax base in a
province or a group of provinces is reduced from 19 per cent to 15
per cent, as is the case with the new consumption tax, the new
hidden GST, and the federal government pays out $961 million in
compensation, the federal equalization formula must kick in.
Whether we like it or not, it is automatic. Put a 15 per cent
consumption tax base in the equalization formula, a reduced base,
and after the fourth year or maybe after the third year or maybe
immediately-we do not yet know the specifics of the political deal
signed between the Minister of Finance and the three maritime
provinces-given the equalization formula, Canadians will
necessarily have to pay, not for four years, but ad vitam aeternam,
as long as the principle of equalization is in effect in this country.
This is a bad deal. Because we are making people aware of this
bad deal, because we are bringing to their attention your poor
management, political deals made to give the impression that the
government is acting on the Prime Minister's commitment to
eliminate the GST, we are being gagged. It is not right to deal with
such important matters in this manner.
(1140)
I would be very careful if I were you because, when you go back
to your ridings this weekend or the next, you may find that some of
your constituents are disgruntled. During the 1993 election
campaign, some people thought: ``Wow, this will be a good
government. It will abolish the GST, scrap it. We will vote for
them''.
But the situation has changed since Monday. The Minister of
Finance admitted he cannot keep that promise, while the Prime
Minister told us they had kept it. Who should we believe? I think
we must trust the intelligence of Canadians. They know perfectly
well that the GST is there and for a long time, but that it will be
hidden from now on.
So I think a lot of your constituents will be waiting for you with
two messages by next week: you did not keep your promises and
the government acted hypocritically.
1931
[English]
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak on the implementation of certain provisions of
the budget, presented on March 6, which are very important to my
riding.
While the 1996 budget meets the federal government's
commitment of sustained deficit reduction, a balanced budget by
and of itself must never be our only goal.
The Liberal government has the challenge of safeguarding and
ensuring our social programs remain effective well into the next
century. The new Canadian health and social transfers, which
consolidate transfers for health care and post secondary education,
began on April 1, 1996. Because it is block fund it offers more
flexibility to the provinces, allowing, for example, for the
development of innovative programs for people receiving social
assistance.
Greater flexibility will reduce administrative costs and allow the
provinces to adjust to the new funding levels while protecting
program quality.
The 1996 budget introduced a five-year funding arrangement for
the CHST for 1998-99 through 2002-03. The CHST will be
stabilized at 1998-99 levels for two years. Then it will begin to
grow.
There will be no cuts to the CHST beyond those announced in
last year's budget. By providing predictable funding the
government is demonstrating its commitment to safeguarding
health care and other social programs valued by Canadians. The
provinces will be able to plan programs with clearly set levels of
federal funding in following years.
When the CHST begins to grow in the year 2000-01 federal
transfers will increase for the first time since the mid-eighties.
While the CHST will promote innovative solutions, established
national principles will continue to be upheld. Provinces must still
provide social assistance without imposing residency
requirements.
The government will continue to vigorously defend the five
principles of the Canadian health care system. It will also work
with the provinces to develop other shared principles and
objectives for the new transfer. Funding will remain constant at
$25.1 billion for the first two years and will actually increase over
the remaining three.
Although the cash component of the Newfoundland CHST will
decline initially, transfers will resume growth sometime during the
five-year arrangement. The federal government is guaranteeing the
cash component of the transfer will never be lower than $11 billion
during this five-year period. Newfoundland will benefit from the
tax component as well as from the cash guarantee.
By putting a floor of $11 billion under the cash part of the CHST
the federal government is ensuring the principles of the Canada
Health Act can and will be enforced throughout Canada.
A new seniors benefit will replace the existing old age security
and guaranteed income supplement. The new system is designed to
help those who need it most. In my riding of St. John's West there
are many single seniors and many senior couples who live on
incomes well below $40,000 a year.
(1145 )
Over these past few weeks I have met with many of them and I
have reviewed with them the new seniors benefit. It was found that
they will be better off under the new system than under the old one.
The new benefit will be tax free and fully indexed to inflation. The
new system targets those who need it most and ensures the system
is sustainable in the future.
Fiscal progress should always be the means to a greater public
end such as lower interest rates, more jobs and then a more
prosperous and secure nation. Fiscal progress must give us the
green light to move forward on priorities such as the preservation
of Canada's social safety programs, programs that have helped
establish Canada as one of the most envied and respected nations in
the world.
In order to meet this end, as the Prime Minister has said, we have
to provide a long term funding arrangement for health and social
programs and arrangements that are growing, stable, predictable
and sustainable.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, my
colleague opposite was very brief, she addressed only two points in
Bill C-31. She forgot quite a few others. She kept silent on many
issues this bill is trying to hide.
I would like to remind her that this bill contains provisions on
unemployment insurance that were supposed to be in Bill C-12
originally. This morning's gag orders will prevent us from really
discussing Bill C-31, also dealing with unemployment insurance,
and Bill C-12 at committee stage. So when will we have the
opportunity to address these issues?
Bill C-31 amends the Unemployment Insurance Act so that,
retroactively to January 1 1996, maximum weekly benefits will
drop from $445 to $413. Why is this government introducing the
same measure twice? Why use two bills, C-31 and C-12, to enact
the same legislation? Is the government afraid of some kind of
complication? Does it fear it will not be able to respect the
deadlines set in the budget?
Bill C-31 does, in a roundabout way, what the government
should be doing directly with Bill C-12. With each new bill, we
should be discussing new issues. Will my colleague be happy this
weekend when she meets her constituents? Will she be able to
explain what is happening with unemployment insurance?
1932
[English]
Mrs. Payne: Madam Speaker, I omitted to mention at the
beginning of my speech that I will be sharing my time with my
colleague from Provencher.
When I began my speech I indicated that I would be referring
only to elements of the budget that were very important to my
riding. These dealt with the CHST and the seniors benefits.
Over the last two or three weeks I have spoken to a great many
people in my riding about both of these matters. About 90 per cent
of the people I spoke to will be better off under the new seniors
program.
(1150 )
I am extremely pleased that the Minister of Finance and the
House had the foresight to look at those who are most in need of the
benefits that they will now receive under the new program.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
member for St. John's West should know that to be liked,
appreciated and respected a tax must be simple and fair.
How could she explain to Canadians as a whole that this tax is
fair when her government is going to take close to $1 billion of
taxpayers' money to buy, to conclude a political deal with three
provinces who, it appears, could but benefit from teaming up with
this new government which was has been in power for two and a
half years already?
Hardly 12 months ago, this same government paid $1.6 billion
directly to western grain producers when the Crow rate was
abolished. This time, it is going to spend $1 billion to compensate a
small portion of the Canadian population who will pay less in
provincial sales tax and GST.
Does she believe this tax is fair and simple while Liberal
members when they were in opposition were dead against-
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We are now
resuming debate.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise in the House to participate in the debate on
Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament March 6, 1996.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the portion of Part
II of Bill C-31 that deals with the sale of government owned
railway cars, or hopper cars, as they are known. In the budget of the
Minister of Finance on March 6, 1996 he announced that in order to
continue the transformation of the western grain handling and
transportation system, the government would do primarily two
things. First, it would dispose of its fleet of grain hopper cars and
second, it would minimize its role in the day to day operations of
that system.
The government has committed itself to selling all of its fleet of
13,000 grain hopper cars. This policy change is designed to
enhance the competitiveness of the grain handling and
transportation system while keeping increases in freight rates paid
by producers to a minimum.
I would like to remind the House of a couple of incidents, in
particular in the use of grain hopper cars in the export of grains to
the Vancouver port, the difficulties that western farmers have had
in the control over that process. I am pleased to say that this
allocation process will give western Canadian farmers greater
control over that export process.
These decisions were adopted from a package developed by
senior executive officers or the SEO group. This industry group
was tasked last year with reviewing car allocations, the disposal of
the government hopper car fleet and the Canadian Wheat Board's
role in transportation. The review was announced in the 1995
budget. The report by the SEO group was carefully reviewed and it
is important to note that several of their recommendations were not
accepted due to concerns voiced by producers and producer led
groups.
Two of the discarded proposals which were very important
included a proposal by this group to sell the government cars to the
railways for $100 million with a $1 per tonne freight rate increase
for up to five years to cover the cost.
(1155 )
Second, producers were also concerned about the lack of a
producer's voice on a proposed car allocation policy group. The
Minister of Finance listened to these people. He listened to the
producers and he acted accordingly.
I should point out that between 1972 and 1979 Canada had a
Liberal government that listened to the pleas of farmers who were
concerned about the transportation of grain at that time. It spent up
to $500 million with interest payments on those capital costs to
provide an additional 13,000 grain hopper cars for western
Canadian farmers.
How will the commercialization of the grain hopper cars affect
farmers? Selling the fleet will allow for the efficient use of grain
hopper cars. Cars will now be allocated on a commercial basis
responding to market need. This will improve the ability of farmers
to get their products to market quickly. It is an essential element,
particularly with regard to a disposable good such as grain and in
getting it to our international markets in the Asia Pacific rim and
eastern Europe.
1933
The government has already acted in its latest budget to protect
the farmer's position by limiting the freight increase associated
with the sale of the cars to 75 cents per tonne, as announced in
the finance minister's budget. It will also postpone that same
increase by another year to 1998. Further, efficiency
improvements will generate reductions in the freight rates which
should offset the increases over time.
Other measures, such as legislating the fair sharing of
productivity gains between farmers, railways and shippers will
assist farmers. The other side of the coin is how will this policy
affect the railways?
Currently cars are allocated on an administrative basis which is
not effective. Selling the fleet will result in more efficient use of
the cars that will be allocated in response to market demand.
The railways will be given the flexibility they need for efficient
day to day operation of the system. These efficiency improvements
will over time result in lower costs for the railways and
consequently lower freight rates which will help farmers. Proposals
to buy the cars will be encouraged by all interested parties
including-from my perspective most importantly-producer
friendly entities. Producers, farmers, the railways and any other
interested party will be given their say.
As the budget stated, the federal government will consider all
proposals put forward for the disposition of these cars. It will take
into account the interests of producers, shippers and railways and
the need to make the most efficient use of these cars.
Bill C-31 seeks to implement the measures I have outlined and to
implement the budget the minister has given. The
commercialization of these cars is a sound and productive measure
of the budget. It should be allowed to be implemented at once.
Producers, grain companies, railways and ultimately Canadians
will benefit from this privatization exercise.
As my colleague, the Minister of Transport recently stated: ``We
have to ensure that Canadian grain reaches world markets as
efficiently as possible. Improving global trade in this way enhances
Canada's international competitiveness, a key element of the
government's economic growth and jobs strategy.''
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
could my colleague, who welcomes the fact that the government is
providing a great deal of assistance to western farmers to help them
adapt to the elimination of the Crow rate and sale of hopper cars,
remind his finance minister that, over five years, he has cut $220
million in subsidies to dairy producers, nearly half of whom are
located in Quebec, without offering them any transitional help?
This same government paid $1.6 billion directly to producers, $1
billion to promote export and $300 million to improve
transportation-hopper cars, as the member explained so well.
(1200)
In total, the Canadian government will spend $2.9 billion on
western grain producers, and close to $1 billion to help three
maritime provinces harmonize the GST and their provincial sales
tax.
Does he not believe that his government is using a double
standard?
[English]
Mr. Iftody: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to answer the
member's question. I want to refer to a response by the member's
former colleague and that is the one-sided picture always presented
by the Bloc on these matters.
Some of the largest dairy producers in the province are in my
riding of Provencher. The riding of Provencher produces almost 50
per cent of the milk in Manitoba. Of course I too was concerned
about any possible decreases in subsidies to dairy farmers. I remind
the member again that it was a Liberal government in the early
1970s which brought in that support system and continues to
defend it also for Quebec farmers.
In specific response to his question about the subsidy, he must
know, ought to know and should be telling his constituents and his
dairy farmers that they have been allowed to pass those costs on,
through the Canadian Dairy Association, to the consumers. Over a
three or four year period, the reductions in those subsidies will be
recovered by the dairy producers.
It is my pleasure here today to give the hon. member that
information so he can share it with his dairy farmers in Quebec if
he does not already know that.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, to
wrap up on the issues the member was talking about, I would like to
know how much of the program is designed after this transpires.
After there is privatization in the selling of the hopper cars, how
much will then become farmer operated and farmer driven rather
than by government? Is the government going to back out as most
farmers believe they should or will it continue in this area?
One major thing that concerns all Canadians, including farmers,
on which I have not heard anything from that side of the House,
from the Prime Minister, the finance minister, right down the list
and about which nobody talks, including the hon. member, is the
huge national debt. It is literally tearing the guts right out of a
number of opportunities and programs particularly in the
agricultural area as well as thousands of other places.
1934
Why are the huge growing debt and the interest payments on
it which are becoming the greatest expense we have not being
addressed by any member on the opposite side of the House?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry, but
the time has expired. Resuming debate.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to address Bill C-31. I will touch on some elements in the
bill. I will talk about how sometimes an opposition party that
becomes government looks at things and operates. Specifically, I
will talk a little about the Prime Minister and his philosophy. Then
I will go on to aspects of the bill and the part in question which is
the harmonization with compensation.
In reading the autobiography Straight from the Heart by the
Prime Minister, I found a couple of quotes, which in my opinion
explain to Canadians the type of thinking our Prime Minister uses.
One is: ``In politics, perception is everything''. Another is:
A successful politician must not only be able to read the mood of the public,
he must have the skill to get the public on his side. The public is moved by mood
more than logic, by instinct more than reason, and that is something that every
politician must make use of or guard against.
Interesting, is it not? A third quote is:
I learned early that business is business and politics is politics. The proof is
how few important businessmen have made good politicians. They make think
they are very smart about everything because they made millions of dollars by
digging a hole in the ground and finding oil, but the talent and luck needed to
become rich are not the same talent and luck needed to succeed on Parliament
Hill-.Most businessmen have very limited, specialized knowledge which often
gives them a narrow view.
(1205)
As a businessman, the kind of person he is talking about, I do not
believe my view is narrow enough to mislead and distort the
Canadian public. The fourth quote I would like to put into context
is: ``If businessmen want to make the decisions, the solution is
simple: they should get themselves elected to Parliament''. Well I
did. I am here and I am going to try to do my best to point out the
hypocrisy, duplicity and failure of this Liberal government to keep
their election promise.
I refer specifically to that part of Bill C-31 which appropriates
$961 million-let us round that out to $1 billion because it rhymes
with bribe-from the consolidated revenue fund to pay off or bribe
as most people are saying. It is not just the Reform Party, the
premier of British Columbia has called it a bribe. The provincial
elected officials in Ontario have called it a bribe. A lot of people
are calling this a bribe to the three Atlantic provinces which have
agreed to harmonize the PST with the GST but only if they are
compensated for revenue shortfalls.
I would like to review, analyse and comment on the Liberal
promise, not the one to kill, abolish, scrap the GST. We have gone
through that and the Liberals have admitted they broke that
promise. They have admitted that they failed to deliver on that
promise. That is fine. But what about the promise they put in
writing, the one the Prime Minister brags about, to replace it, as per
page 22 of their now dead and embarrassing red book? In that red
book the Liberals promised to the Canadian public that they would
replace the GST with a system that generated equivalent revenues.
That is not so. They are not equivalent revenues.
The harmonization in the Atlantic provinces represents a
shortfall over three years of $1 billion and in order to induce,
encourage and bribe those provinces to get on board, the
government is going to pay for that shortfall. They are not
equivalent revenues. The Liberals failed on that part of their
promise in the red book. It does not generate equal revenues.
Basically it is a tax cut for the three provinces at the expense of all
Canadians. Wait until the consumers in those three provinces find
out how much more they will be paying for the promises of their
three Liberal premiers to the Liberal Prime Minister.
Page 22 says that this replacement tax will be fairer to
consumers and to small business. I will agree it is fairer to small
business. It does improve the situation for small businesses. They
will have one tax to collect and one tax to remit. They will have a
choice on how they can do it. There is no question that it does
streamline it for the businesses. However, it will not be fair to the
consumers. The consumers will be the ones who will be paying a
greater portion of the tax in those provinces.
If we look at what goods and services the retail sales taxes are
applied to or exempted from in New Brunswick, Newfoundland
and Nova Scotia, we will find many that are exempt from the PST
but will now be taxed with this new 15 per cent GST. Although the
provincial rates go down on the PST, the combined rate will
increase taxes on a lot of items that are in the service industry.
Work done by construction companies will now be taxed.
Certain footwear, children's clothing, hair cuts. All these items will
now be taxed. Funerals, pharmaceutical and medical supplies,
mobile homes, utilities such as water and heating oil in the
province of New Brunswick. Most of the lists are the same.
Children's car seats, postage stamps and coins. We read about that
in the paper today. The revenue minister did not even know there
was a tax on stamps. Many labour charges, wood burning stoves,
wood splitters, hand crafted products. These are all things on which
people have not had to pay PST but will now have to pay tax. This
is where it is an 8 per cent tax increase to the consumers in those
three provinces who have allowed their premiers and their
governments to harmonize with compensation.
1935
(1210)
The harmonization we support and we say works is one that is
revenue neutral. It combines the two rates into a single rate and is
applied to all things so there is the lowest possible rate. However
the government did not do that. It chose to do it another way. The
government chose to do it so that no revenues are lost on the GST
portion. The premiers of those three provinces can promise their
people a tax cut which will be subsidized by all Canadians. It is
distorting the economy and creating unfair competition. That is not
the kind of harmonization our party supports.
When the Prime Minister says that the Reform Party supports
that kind of harmonization by quoting the minority report of the
Reform Party, he is once again distorting and stretching the reality
of what we said in that paper. He is taking it out of context and I
take exception to that.
That is why I quoted the Prime Minister. It is not reason or logic
that matters. What matters in his own words is the mood, and make
sure that programs are matched to the mood of the people, and
instinct. Whatever you can get away with, do it when you can. It
will only be a short term hit. It will only be criticized for a while
and then away we go, we are off to the races. That is why the quotes
in my opening comments are very, very important.
In a speech at the University of Prince Edward Island in October
1993 the Deputy Prime Minister had the following to say about the
GST: ``Food is not subject to GST because it is a necessity. So are
books. They are needed for young minds to grow''. If she still
believes what she said during the last election campaign, then why
has her government not only not removed the GST from reading
materials but in harmonizing the tax systems in Newfoundland,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick has effectively doubled the tax on
reading materials?
Also, the current chairman of the Standing Committee on
Finance, the hon. member for Willowdale, had this to say about the
tax on reading materials, a tax his government has now doubled:
``The government is proposing to add to its GST by taxing the
printed word. It strikes a blow at learning, the transfer of
information''. That is what the hon. member said in the House.
What does he say now about increasing the tax on reading material
to 15 per cent from 7 per cent?
There is more. The Minister of Health urged the government to
``axe the tax and prevent the GST from being presented on books
and literature''. Believe me, there is more.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, does she now support a tax on
reading, a tax that will now double which will make it even more
difficult to deal with Canada's literacy problem? This is a tax she
promised to scrap, not to double, as her government is doing now.
Going for mood and instinct rather than logic and reason is not the
way to govern a country.
We go back to the promise on page 22 of the red book. We have
analysed whether it generates equivalent revenues. Not so. Fair to
consumers and small business is only 50 per cent true. It is fairer
and simpler to business but unfair to consumers and wait until they
find out.
I am only talking about page 22. The Liberals promised to
replace, not scrap, not abolish, not kill, simply to replace. That is
all. Have they met their promise as the Prime Minister claimed
yesterday? That is all I am trying to establish here today. I am
laying evidence and putting forward the argument that the
government has failed to do so.
The third element is ``promotes federal-provincial fiscal
co-operation and harmonization''. I submit it is not so. What kind
of fiscal co-operation is it with three provinces out of 10? The
province of Quebec is angry and Alberta is saying: ``We share. We
contribute $2 billion to the GST. Where is our share of that
subsidy?'' Is Ontario happy about it? No. That is not fiscal
co-operation. It is fiscal disharmony, not harmony.
Who asked for this? Did those three provinces in Atlantic
Canada ask for this? The answer is no. None of the provinces
across Canada asked for it. I was on the standing committee when
this was reviewed. I listened to the witnesses in the spring of 1994.
I was a co-author of our minority report on the GST replacement.
Nobody in the provinces asked for it.
(1215)
From the witnesses and the discussion of the MPs around that
table, we knew it would have to be a federal initiative. The
government would have to go to the provinces, lay out the
advantages and do the sales job. None bit until the word
compensation came in and until the government lowered the rates
in those three Atlantic provinces to 15 per cent combined instead of
the 19 per cent they have now.
That is when this took on some life and when the son of GST,
which is being nurtured in the three Atlantic provinces, comes to
life. Only when the government subsidized a tax cut did these three
provinces even agree to go further.
As the chief finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois has mentioned,
this is a politically motivated agreement. This has nothing to do
with economics. This increases the tax burden on consumers in
those provinces. This is uneconomical and inefficient for
consumers. It is will cost more to their pocketbooks.
In opposition the current finance minister said: ``If you ever
merge the federal sales tax, the GST, with provincial sales tax, the
PST, it will be very difficult to get rid of the GST''. Now that he is
the finance minister what has he done? If it was bad in opposition
three or four years ago, why is not bad now? When a person
promises to get rid of something why does he go about entrenching
1936
it? That is exactly what the finance minister has done. It will be
very difficult to ever separate the two.
Those three premiers, to brag about a tax cut, have now lost their
autonomy over their own rates. How in heaven's name will those
three premiers argue with the federal government when they are a
little short on revenue and want to raise their share of the PST or
the GST? The federal government will say ``no, it is the GST. We
collect it, we set the rate and it is staying at 15 per cent. Tough. Do
it through the income tax''.
One of the three provinces is already presenting legislation in its
legislature to increase personal taxes. The price that one of these
provinces has to pay will be enormous. This does not create
federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization. It is
exactly the opposite.
The finance minister has now basically entrenched the GST in
the lives of those three provinces. In an effort to sell it everywhere
else, we are talking about words like mood and instinct: ``this is the
time to do it, we have the majority, we will force it down their
throats''. People did not forget Brian Mulroney after forcing the
GST down their throats. People will not forget what the Liberal
government is doing.
What a joke, closure on a debate as important as this. We are
talking about a billion dollars and the advantages or disadvantages
thereof and the government has introduced closure. It wants to
limit debate on this because it wants to get going. It brought it in
really fast under ways and means. A hundred changes, all the little
things we could all be contributing toward making it better; but no,
it wants to go ahead and do it without all that. That is not
democracy.
In opposition the Liberals cried, bellyached and whined every
time the Conservatives introduced closure. Now they have done it
more times in two and a half years than the Conservatives did it in
their whole term.
The Liberals are looking for and promoting support everywhere.
They are begging for people to show the advantages of it. When the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports it, they are
talking about only a narrow sector. It is a special interest group, a
small business. However, they do not talk about the consumers who
buy the products of those business and how much more they will
have to pay.
I would like to ask the president of the CFIB what the answer to
that is, transferring the tax from businesses on to the consumers of
their products. I hope they are proud of that. When they get one
accounting firm out of the millions across Canada to support their
proposal they get the media to put it on the front page and support
it. This does not make economic sense overall.
Bits and pieces of it make good sense and are positive. There are
things that can be done constructively to make things better if we
really want to do it the right way. However, I do not believe the
government has the interest to do that.
The Liberals even claim the Reform Party supports
harmonization. I state unequivocally right now in the House, the
Reform Party is against and does not support harmonization with
compensation. Do members know what will happen a week or two
from now? The Liberals will take what I said today, because they
go by mood and instinct rather than by logic and reason, and say
``he said something, let us use it against him''. They will say ``that
member stood in the House and said he was against harmonization,
and now he is flip-flopping''.
(1220)
They forget I said ``with compensation''. A single tax instead of
two only makes sense. A single tax instead of two is better in terms
of efficiency and simplicity, but we never said anything about
driving somebody if there is a shortfall. If the combined rate still
takes the same money out of our pockets, why bother?
They have not given the transition cost alone of doing this in
those three provinces. All they talk about are the lost revenues. The
complications of a value added tax system that exist for a lot of
people will still be there. It does not eliminate all the exemptions,
the zero rated, the tax exempt and all of those complicated rules.
I put on record that the Reform Party was against the GST
replacement proposal of the Standing Committee on Finance, and it
said so. Reformers then complimented the Liberals on their efforts
in reviewing harmonization. They spent a lot of time, as did we all,
exploring that. However, in the final analysis we said we could not
concur because the way to do it is to first get their fiscal house in
order and establish a balanced budget. After they do that they can
introduce a more simple and visible form of taxation along the
lines of a proportional flat tax. That is what we recommended.
They dismissed that.
There is another distortion. The finance minister stood in the
House and said they had explored all of the alternatives. That is not
so. The one that was not reviewed, the one that was not looked into,
was the one from the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.
He, along with a number of members from the greater Toronto area,
with the support of about 20, 30 or 40 Liberals, suggested a flat tax
to simplify the tax system and then get rid of the GST altogether. It
would save the country $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion, $5
billion-up to $10 billion. Get rid of it and use a simplified tax
system.
The chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance said:
``Given the time constraints we have, we cannot explore this. It is
too massive a change and we cannot explore this alternative''.
Therefore it was dismissed. It was not reviewed. It was not
considered. The minister stood in front of Canadians and said they
1937
looked at them all, 20 different proposals. This is not so. There is
one they did not review, one which our party will pursue.
I move:
That all the words after the word ``That'' be deleted and the following
substituted therefor:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-31, an act to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 6, 1996, since
the principle of the bill does not seek to abolish the goods and services tax.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The Chair will
deliberate on the proposed amendment and will return to the hon.
member.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to sit here over
time, as the hon. member and I have. We were both rookies in
1993. I am truly saddened to listen to his diatribe this morning with
its misinformation and distortions.
The Reform Party arrived here supposedly speaking for
business, big and small, and yet when things are done by the
government which are applauded by business or by the Fraser
Institute, which it used to quote all the time, it suddenly does not
mention them any more. The Fraser Institute applauded the budget,
the subject of this implementation bill.
(1225)
Suddenly Reformers are not the friends of business. The other
day we heard them attack profits. Today we have heard an attack on
small business, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
They threw the gauntlet down and said ``how dare you tell us this
will be good for business''. In their opinion-it is always their
opinion and no one else is right-this cannot be good for business
and this cannot be good for Canada.
I am glad the hon. member opposite admitted he was a member
of the finance committee at the time we brought out our report on
the GST. He signed a minority report. I believe he was still a
member if he was not being disciplined by his party for disagreeing
with it on this or other things. Reformers supported harmonization
on the broadest possible base; food, medical devices, everything.
They wanted it because as they said in their minority report it
would effect the lowest possible rate.
It is nonsense to suggest they thought a flat tax would replace the
GST. He is quite correct to say flat tax was a huge undertaking that
would require enormous study and had the purpose of a complete
revamping of the entire tax system, not a replacement for the GST.
As for compensation, it is incredible that now the member
opposite qualifies his support for harmonization by saying ``of
course, we never thought about adjustment''.
I ask him, as I have asked him before, to comment on whether it
is inappropriate for one region of the country to offer adjustment
assistance to another region of the country for structural change. In
particular, could he comment on the state of the wheat industry, the
wheat sector, wheat farmers and the compensation they are
receiving as a result of budgetary structural change over the last
few years. Could he elaborate again, if he dare, on his suggestion
we are somehow stifling debate.
We have moved on the issue of the length of this debate only
when it became apparent from the member opposite and his
colleagues they had no intention of discussing anything in this bill
other than one segment. There are many pages to this legislation.
They have not yet commented on the CHST, on UI, on seniors. He
says all they are talking about and all that is worth talking about is
this issue.
I wonder if he would acknowledge, and I would be happy to
retract and say I am wrong, that we have been debating more than
the GST here. It would be wonderful to hear more from the
member's party and the official opposition on many of the other
important things in the budget.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I have worked with the hon. member
on the Standing Committee on Finance and I still do. I respect all
the people who try to give their best efforts here.
I am sorry if he is saddened, but it is pathetic to listen to his
diatribe. It is totally pathetic to stand up and say to Canadians that
all we have talked about is this portion.
I talked only about this portion because we were told only an
hour before proceedings yesterday that the government had a deal
with those three provinces. That is how much notice the finance
minister gave the opposition parties that the deal was in place. We
are supposed to get our act together and find out what is good about
it and bad about it an hour before, listen to the whole diatribe and
then go through it?
The member for Capilano-Howe Sound gave a complete
dissertation on UI and the problems with UI and how the
government is using that as a way to fund the deficit; $18 billion in
revenues, expenses have dropped from $17 billion down to $12
billion, and it is putting that $5 billion away into its cash flow and
using it to meet its deficit targets.
If the government only had a ceiling on UI, a $2 billion ceiling,
capped it and then lowered the rates for business and lowered the
rates for employees, it would be a tax cut. A tax cut would help
consumers and businesses and would stimulate the economy.
No, the government is not doing that. It will save that $5 billion
and apply it to the deficit. If the government did it the way it should
the deficit targets the finance minister has set out would not have
been reached.
1938
We have spoken about more than one thing. I am sorry about
losing my cool a little.
On harmonization and subsidies, what is being subsidized is not
grain. What is being subsidized is not unemployed people. What is
being subsidized is not giving money to the needy. It is subsidizing
a tax cut to three provincial premiers who will brag that they
brought in tax cuts.
When in heaven's name did we ever start subsidizing tax cuts
across the country? That is all this is. It is not a disruption
mechanism. The rate in the province dropped from 19 per cent
down to 12 per cent. In one province that is a 7 per cent drop. It is a
loss of revenue and the government is subsidizing it, plain and
simple.
(1230)
With respect to the Fraser Institute, I am sure Mr. Michael
Walker just had a weak moment in praising the Liberal budget. If
he reviews his comments about the $111 billion which the
government will have added to the debt when it exits, I would think
the Fraser Institute will change its tune pretty darn quickly.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): After
consideration, the Chair will accept the proposed amendment.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, after
listening to the member for Calgary Centre I have decided to
change my speech somewhat to include a discussion of
consumption taxes.
I also served on the committee that travelled across the country.
We talked to not just every day Canadians, but businesses and
people in policy administration.
It was interesting when we got to the maritime provinces. I
discovered the problems those governments were having in dealing
with the revenues that were being generated through their
provincial sales tax systems and what they were doing with them.
When we talk about money being transferred through taxation
systems it is important to not only consider taxation itself, but to
also consider the other side, what does it do?
In Newfoundland much of that money went toward supporting
its health care system. In your province of New Brunswick, Madam
Speaker, the health care system and the educational system are
among the systems for which province uses the money.
Industrialization has brought a changes over the years, indeed
some will say over the centuries. The maritime provinces have seen
a reduction in their industrial base. This has put great strains on
their financial resources to maintain services which are similar to
those in the rest of Canada.
The change in rates from 19 per cent to 12 or 13 per cent in some
provinces is positive in a number of aspects. We must consider that
through the process of equalization payments the wealthier
provinces are already transferring moneys to poorer provinces.
Whether they are given a subsidy or an implementation or a
structural change which allows those provinces to change those
rates for a brief period of time or whether it is transferred by way of
equalization payments, it is all the same.
This is a better system. It allows those provinces to reduce the
retail sales tax. It also allows them to move toward a more efficient
tax. What do I mean by that? A retail sales tax by its very nature
taxes business inputs. To put it simply, in my own riding, General
Motors is a big manufacturer. The automotive sector accounts for
approximately 6 per cent of our GDP. Because the province of
Ontario levies a retail sales tax, General Motors will pay that tax on
some of its input costs. For example, if it buys stationery and
adding machines for its offices, it is paying retail sales tax as it is
an end user.
As businesses are not social institutions, they transfer those costs
on to consumers. The people who buy automobiles manufactured
in the province of Ontario pay retail sales tax. They are paying a
portion of that retail sales tax when they buy the automobile.
(1235)
The province of Quebec has already harmonized its retail sales
tax system. It does not have a retail sales tax, it has a value added
tax, the GST. Through the administration of that tax, those
companies which export their products worldwide are able to take
the tax off those products. To show how ridiculous it is, within
Canada there are nine retail sales taxes and one federal sales tax.
In the province of Quebec, General Motors in its plant at
Sainte-Thérèse is able to take the retail sales tax out of that product.
In other words, it can ship cars from Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec into
the American market cheaper than a similar plant in Oshawa if only
the retail sales tax is considered. Therefore, retail sales taxes have a
very negative effect on exports. The export sector accounts for
something like 30 per cent of Canada's GDP.
The government's move to harmonize taxes is very positive. A
plethora of people are in the tax collection business. There is
tremendous duplication. The governments in Fredericton and
Charlottetown, and others, collect their own retail sales taxes.
Some are having great difficulty. The administration of the retail
sales taxes in those provinces has great inefficiencies in collecting
taxes. Some fully admit that a lot people in those provinces have
been able to escape the retail sales tax system.
It is very easy to escape the retail sales tax because it is a single
stage tax. If you do not pay it once you sneak away from it entirely.
The value added tax is a lot more difficult to escape simply because
every stage of production adds a tax. If I buy something from one
person I get a credit for the GST that has to be paid if I use it in my
business. This is not so in the retail sales tax area. A lot of those
provinces have had difficulty in the simple administration of the
1939
tax. There is no question the retail sales tax, compared to a value
added tax, is a lot less efficient tax.
What I really want to discuss today is the whole area of
consumption. That is what this budget implementation bill is really
all about. Everyone is very concerned to make the Canadian
economy more efficient and to create a degree of harmonization
across Canada.
Next Tuesday is the deadline for people to file their income tax
returns. If there is one thing that unites us as a nation, although we
might have a common dislike of the event, is the once a year
requirement to file a federal income tax return. Generally speaking,
the rules and regulations in the Income Tax Act are the same
whether you live in British Columbia, the Yukon, Quebec or in
Prince Edward Island. It is a commonality that happens across the
country.
I have encouraged the Minister of Finance and I believe he has
taken it somewhat to heart that what has to be achieved through the
harmonization process is a consistent rate across Canada of the
GST. Why would I say that? When I was in Newfoundland I was
surprised and shocked to discover that there is a tremendous
business in mail order sales. People buy things through the mail
from Ontario rather than going to downtown St. John's or
Cornerbrook to buy from a local retailer because the retail sales tax
in Ontario is 3 or 4 percentage points lower than in Newfoundland.
In other words it was a negative for the people in Newfoundland.
People were not buying their products from the local retailers but
from Ontario solely because Ontario had a lower retail sales tax.
The province of Alberta would gain the most because it has no
retail sales tax.
It shows how the country gets into these ridiculous economic
situations. It should be the end objective of the GST legislation that
all provinces come onside so the rates are the same across the
country. Then there will not be the problem of products moving
between jurisdictions or how the rates are adjusted. This is just a
ridiculous situation. People say a consumption tax is a lot fairer
tax.
(1240)
I heard the member for Calgary Centre talk about how we should
have a flat tax. I say that a flat tax is not an efficient or fair tax.
With a flat tax interest would not be taxable. The banks of the
country must really embrace the Reform Party because any interest
earned on revenues under a flat tax system would not taxable.
A flat tax would take the tax burden from the wealthiest and shift
it to the middle income earner, those people making $65,000 or
$70,000. In the Reform Party's magical world those people would
be paying more taxes than wealthy people.
The President of the United States said: ``I do not understand a
flat tax. Everybody over $200,000 is going to be paying less taxes
and those people in the middle income brackets will be paying
significantly more''. That says a lot about the Reform Party and
who it represents.
As members will recall, Steve Forbes advocated a flat tax when
he ran for the Republic nomination for president. I read an
interesting comment which I will paraphrase because I do not have
the article in front of me. It pertains to Steve Forbes.
The magazine said that the companies that Mr. Forbes owns,
Forbes magazine and others, stood to gain $3 billion from the
implementation of a flat tax. The magazine went on to say that it is
not a fair tax and is not something America wants. I was not
reading a leftist magazine. It was called Money magazine.
People who deal in this area know that the flat tax is not a fair
tax. I can only suggest that the Reform Party is representing those
who are not the common people of the country.
A lot of people think a consumption tax is a fair tax. It is a
discretionary tax. If we do not buy that new car, we do not pay the
tax.
The reason I want to talk about it is because I am personally very
concerned about the level of consumer credit in the country. The
government is also concerned about it. If we look at the budget and
the dedication to reducing the debt and deficit, it is part of the
process of getting the economy back on its feet again.
There has been an alarming growth in consumer credit. I talk
about disposable incomes. Ninety-two per cent of disposable
income in the country is now committed to fixed debt payments.
That is the cheque taken home every week. In looking at the
financial statements of the banks it does not take long to realize
how that has changed. There has been a tremendous growth in
consumer debt with our financial institutions.
Is that healthy for our country? There are some other interesting
statistics coming from Stats Canada telling us that personal
bankruptcies are at an all time high in the country. The banks will
tell us that the reason they have to keep credit card interest rates so
high, 18 per cent when interest rates have been declining, is
because of personal bankruptcies.
Which is the cause and which is the effect? Are there personal
bankruptcies because the banks have loaned all these people money
to finance personal consumption? Or is it the other way around? I
suggest that we have an alarming problem in the growth of
consumer debt.
It is not unusual for the banks to send out credit cards to all
university students, people who do not have a way to pay them.
They are getting into debt at very early stages of their lives. I was
alarmed the other day when I saw an ad which read: ``Go to Costa
1940
Rica for $85 a month''. That was the end of the message. For $85 a
month, someone can go to Costa Rica and have a good time on the
beach. That is $85 a month for another year of their life. Many
people are susceptible to that. A lot of people who are under stress
and strain today are susceptible to such escape mechanisms.
(1245)
What we are doing is compounding people's debt problems and
they will never get out of these situations. Many of our young
people think they are never going to be able to own a home because
they are entrapped with consumer debt.
Governments try to help people such as ours has done with
RRSPs in the last budget. We have recognized that a lot of people
are not able to utilize those RRSPs. In their younger years they may
be doing other things and are not able to save that money. We allow
them to transfer those credits and eligibility for RRSP deductions.
We allow them a second crack at it.
When I talked about 92 per cent of disposable income going into
supporting fixed debt repayments, that is across this country. If we
look at it intergenerationally and at people under 45 years of age,
we will find they actually have negative consumer income.
Why is this a bad thing? It is bad because most recoveries in the
economy have been driven to some degree by a prior mandate of
savings. In other words, people save money to buy big ticket items,
such as a car or refrigerator. We have allowed our financial
institutions to so eradicate the concept of savings that people can
no longer afford to buy anything.
I was interested to hear some of the statements of one of the
manufacturers in my riding, General Motors. It said that in Canada
the actual sales of automobiles is declining. The types of sales that
are occurring are for smaller vehicles which cost less money.
People are holding on to their cars much longer than they have
ever done before. The average age of a car is something like eight
years now because people do not have any money. They have spent
not only all the money they had but they also went into debt to
financial institutions to finance an automobile, a house and now
consumption.
How many times have we gone to a liquor store and watched
somebody slip a card through the credit machine? In Canada, the
average debt held on a credit card is something like $1,500. Think
about that when we say 25 per cent of the people pay it off every
month. The real average of those people who do not pay off their
cards is astronomical.
We have developed a whole culture of debt. That has not
happened before in Canada. These are alarming figures. I had an
opportunity to discuss this with the Governor of the Bank of
Canada. He too questioned whether these were not alarming
statistics.
I am bringing it here to the House of Commons because I would
like to alert parliamentarians of the real concern that not only I but
many other people are starting to have about the growth of credit in
this country. We should think about curtailing it. How do we curtail
it?
Financial institutions are regulated through the Bank Act. We
have had discussions about whether they should be selling
insurance. Now they tell us they want to lease cars. Do we want our
financial institutions to have such a hold on our economy that we
cannot create growth?
People do not have the savings in order to gain stability, and
stability is another big feature of this. People do not feel stable any
more in their own environments. They are not even sure whether
they will have their jobs next week. That is compounded by the
huge debts they have built up.
Watching the bankruptcy statistics will only give further proof
that we are pushing a lot of people into financial situations they
cannot handle. Governments have problems with debts and
deficits. An important thing we are forgetting is that generally
people also have significant debt and deficit problems.
(1250)
In conclusion, I am very supportive of the budget
implementation legislation. I am very supportive of what we are
doing here in Ottawa to get the government's fiscal and financial
house in order. I believe as our debt and deficit come down,
disposable income will start to rise. Hopefully in three or four years
we will start to see reductions in tax rates occur in this country to
free up more disposable income for the average Canadian. Then not
only will Canadians be able to save for their future but they will
also be able to invest in items to support our manufacturing sector.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, in his
speech the hon. member talked about many things and nothing at
all. He forgot to tell us that the federal government was having all
Canadians and all Quebecers pay for harmonizing the GST with the
maritime provinces. We will have to pay almost $1 billion for this
harmonization. I repeat that Quebec, when it harmonized, did not
get any compensation.
Another thing he could have talked about, because we did not
learn anything, is that by harmonizing the GST the federal
government is interfering directly with the provinces' autonomy
since they will lose full control over the taxation rate and the tax
base.
In preliminary discussions, the Bloc Quebecois had suggested to
the government that it could solve two problems at once in this
area. First, abolish the GST and give the whole field of indirect
1941
taxation to the provinces, and then obtain some form of
compensation for the federal government's losses. The federal's
compensation could have taken the form of reduced cash transfers
to provinces.
In this way, the federal government could have maintained its
financial balance and the provinces would have regained control of
their fields of taxation, therefore their autonomy. Then, we could
have done away with the Canada social transfer and each of the
provinces would have had the right and the power to manage, and
manage completely, the areas of health, education and social
assistance.
I would like my colleague to answer the following question:
Why have they brushed aside this solution which would have been
much more equitable for all Canadians and all Quebecers?
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Madam Speaker, I have heard the Bloc
Quebecois members mention many times the necessity of creating
a Canadian common market. Even in their strange world of a
separate country they see the need for a common market. The
European Union has been wrestling for decades to harmonize
consumption taxes within its jurisdictions.
The member mentions that they need their independence
because they want to create new and wonderful bridges and walls.
We are spending time here on another piece of legislation, the
agreement on internal trade, which attempts to reduce barriers
between the provinces. Why? To support commerce. Why?
Because the erection of artificial barriers is inefficient. The bottom
line is that everybody pays for that because we do not get the best
and most excellent in our economy.
(1255)
It is in the best interests of all Canadians, Quebecers included,
that we have a harmonized rate system on our consumption taxes.
We are not going to tell the province of Quebec how to spend it.
That is Quebec's choice. That is how we respect constitutionality
under federalism. To say that we want a 25 per cent rate in the
province of Newfoundland instead of 10 per cent, the bottom line is
that we cannot conduct commerce in this country, we create
artificial barriers to carrying on business in this country which is
not in the best interests of developing a unified common market.
To answer the member's question, he cannot have it both ways.
He cannot argue at one point that he wants a common market and
then turn around and say they want to fix their tax rates differently
from everybody else. It just will not work.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to verify something with my distinguished colleague,
who sat on the finance committee.
There are two points that disturb me in Bill C-31 regarding the
harmonization of the GST with provincial sales taxes in the three
famous provinces with which the finance minister has cooked up an
agreement. The first one is the 15 per cent rate. Does the hon.
member feel that the finance minister woke up one morning and
said to his wife: ``All right, it will be 15 per cent''?
At the present time, two provinces are paying almost 19 per cent
altogether in GST and PST, and Newfoundland is paying almost 20
per cent. People of these provinces are already paying these rates.
Our good finance minister probably woke up one morning and said:
``It will be 15 per cent''. To make the medicine easier to take, he
added: ``I will give you $1 billion over four years and in cash,
immediately. That will help you pay for kleenex to forget the
money not collected, 4 or 5 per cent, as the case may be''. I would
like the hon. member to give me his views on that, since he sat on
the finance committee. Why 15 and not 16 or 12 per cent?
Second, when that party was sitting here on the so-called official
opposition benches, it fought against a hidden GST and convinced
Mr. Mulroney not to hide it in 1990. At the time, you said it would
be increased, just as you are increasing taxes on gasoline, tobacco
and alcohol.
Today, you are hiding it. Of course, you will tell me: ``We will
have the sales slip''. Who looks at the sales slip? You? No, I do not
think so. I, for one, never check it. What counts is how much I pay
and how much change I get back.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Madam Speaker, why is it 15 per cent was the
question. Studies have been done on tax policy throughout the
world and I will refer to the European Union; we do not want to use
the Canadian example. Studies will tell us that consumption tax
rates in excess of 15 per cent are almost impossible to collect. I
suggest that the province of Newfoundland was probably having a
considerable amount of difficulty collecting the 20 per cent tax.
If the tax is reduced to 15 per cent, and it will also be in a value
added tax system, more revenue will actually be collected. I
suspect the tremendous amount of efficiencies in doing a rate
reduction will actually expand the tax revenue in those provinces.
In fact the exposure to the federal government will be even less
than has been suggested.
The second matter the member spoke about was the concept of a
hidden tax. I for one have always thought it was important to have
1942
the tax visible. When I served on the committee and went across
the country, I listened to Canadians. They told me over and over
again that they do not want to see it. The bottom line is we have
turned the country into a nation of bookkeepers and accountants.
(1300)
If we go to Chicoutimi and there is a dress on a rack which is
$100, we cannot figure out how much it cost when we leave the
store. People do not to deal with it.
If we want to make it a visible tax, we should make it visible
here. If we want to change that 15 per cent to 16 per cent, we should
do it in this forum so that everyone can know the rate is changing.
When we go to a gas station, we do not get out of our car to
check the metre to see how much tax was added. Maybe we should.
The bottom line is most people do not want to do it.
We are doing what people have asked us to do. That is the
democratic process.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Bill C-31 introduced by the Minister of
Finance. This bill makes me somewhat uncomfortable in light of
our basic duty, namely debating issues in the public interest and
trying to meet as adequately as possible the real needs and basic
concerns of those who elected us, without being gagged as is now
the case.
In a way, I feel bad about having to speak to such a pernicious
and insidious bill. I deplore our having to debate such a bill, which
results from a long and laborious plot orchestrated by the hon.
member for LaSalle-Émard and supported by the Right Hon.
Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice, who both represent
Quebec ridings.
I must tell you, however, that the support I received from those
around me and from many of my constituents have made this a
memorable moment in my life as a member of Parliament: acting
as the spokesman for an entire community for whom the minister is
nothing more than some sort of abstract entity.
When a family man, who turns out to be one of the many victims
of the axe wielded by this federal Liberal government, comes to my
office to ask for my help in finding work, I feel proud of what I am
doing now in condemning this insidious bill as vigorously as
possible.
The hon. minister has probably never experienced a situation
like that of the family man I just mentioned, at least not personally.
Yet, his bill directly affects hundreds of thousands of people who
are not necessarily among the disadvantaged or the poor, far from
it. This bill, a hodgepodge of tax provisions contained in the last
budget, concretely affects the middle class commonly and bluntly
described as overtaxed.
While government members applauded the minister's cosmetic
budget on March 6, we warned the people against the negative,
hidden impact of that statement, whose only purpose was to win
votes. Well, here we are. We must now discuss the absurdity and
emptiness left behind by the March 6 budget.
(1305)
The bill in question stems from the same logic that has dictated
the government's actions ever since October 1993, and it was
acting in good faith-I repeat, in good faith. In fact, the
government is enacting a whole series of legislative measures that
are so underhanded that it is actually pulling a fast one on the
public.
Watching the minister struggle with the media these past few
days, I came to the realization, with some astonishment, that all the
government is trying to do is to lull the public, deliberately playing
with abstract concepts, to make almost everyone lose interest in the
process. Who are the big losers in all this? All politicians. Such
strategies, understandably, shatter the public's confidence in its
politicians.
I have been repeatedly calling the House's attention to a recent
opinion poll in which, out of a sample of approximately 40
professions, people were asked which professionals they felt they
could trust the most, the least and not at all. You will be surprised to
hear that barely four per cent of Canadians trusted their politicians.
Although, when we see the Prime Minister, during oral question
period, arguing high and low that he did not say that the
government would abolish the GST he had condemned so strongly
and taking his red book out-which is against the rules-to read a
little excerpt that comes in real handy to get him out of this mess, it
is understandable that the percentage is not any higher.
It is a good thing that modern technology enables us to produce
videos of the 1993 election campaign, in which the Prime Minister
and member for Saint-Maurice, in Quebec, can be heard saying, in
his very colourful words: ``We hate the GST and we will kill it. We
will scrap it''. This is a strange way to scrap it. Today, he is
proposing to hide it, through harmonization, at Canadian
taxpayers' expense. We will have to pay the tidy sum of $1 billion
to try to hide the mistake he made during the 1993 election
campaign and the Liberals' mandate in the opposition, when their
friends filibustered in the other place.
Now in power, these same politicians are gagging us. The two
young Quebec scholars who recently joined the Liberal team must
not be too proud to see the government act against their principles
of justice and respect for the people. This is tantamount to saying
``we love you'', but not showing it. And it is because of prime
ministers and members like these that barely four per cent of the
population trusts politicians. Our sholarly friends were better off in
1943
their universities; indeed, the confidence rate in universities is
significantly higher.
I am not trying to criticize the government's goals to reduce the
deficit and to improve the state of public finances, quite the
contrary; these are very noble and praiseworthy objectives.
(1310)
However, I strongly condemn the method used by the
government to reach its goals. I am merely trying to show this
House the true colours of this government formed by the Liberal
Party, the party of forgotten promises, the party that has become a
master at promising changes without ever doing anything.
As you know, these blunders cannot be attributed to the
government's good faith. I often use the expression ``good faith'',
because the Minister of Finance seemingly made an honest
mistake. An honest mistake, can you believe it?
Abolishing the GST was the Liberals' favourite theme during the
October 1993 election campaign. Today, in all good faith, they
decide to keep this tax and to hide it, as is the case with the taxes on
gasoline, tobacco and alcohol products. I challenge members
opposite to tell me that, when they last filled their tank, bought a
pack of cigarettes, or got a bottle of alcohol or a case of beer, they
inquired about the amount of money they were paying in federal or
provincial taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that even you did not check that. Yet, it
would be a good thing to do.
This government, and more specifically the Minister of Finance,
will hide the GST in at least three provinces. This takes some
nerve. While they sat in opposition, the Liberals were opposed to
hiding that tax because, they said, the government would gradually
increase it. Yet, these same Liberals will turn the GST into a hidden
tax.
This really contradicts what the Liberal Party said in its red
book. But this does not seem to affect the logic of the members
opposite. Even individual promises are not being fulfilled. Indeed,
as we are speaking, the Prime Minister should normally be in the
process of replacing the Deputy Prime Minister, since she had
pledged to resign. She made that promise. Remember, you were
there. If such is the governing authority in our political system, let
me tell you that I prefer, by far, my status as a member of the
opposition to being associated with and sitting behind this Prime
Minister and this Deputy Prime Minister.
Government members should show more judgment when
developing their election promises instead of having to eat humble
pie, as the finance minister did, in shouldering the full weight of
the Liberal pipe dream when he admitted several times that he had
made an honest mistake.
Ultimately, knowing what the Liberal Party is capable of, we
could very well have accepted the notion of harmonization of the
GST and PST, had it not been for these concepts of compensation.
Unfortunately, the government only succeeded in jeopardizing
once again the fairness and the balance in this country's tax system.
When Quebec harmonized its sales tax with the GST in 1991 under
the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, it did not demand
compensation.
(1315)
Five years later, Liberals have the gall to pick the pockets of all
consumers and voters to the tune of $1 billion for three provinces,
to get them to come on board and get out of a mess they got
themselves into, in the first place.
I figure that we, in Quebec, will fork out close to $250 million
that will be paid to these three Maritime provinces led by Liberal
friends, including Brian Tobin, a former member of the rat pack
who sat in opposition with our Prime Minister and who went on to
become the premier of Newfoundland. Quebecers will pay $250
million to these Liberal friends literally to buy off these provinces,
namely Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. It seems
that the net result of this operation will have to be figured in votes
and not in terms of economic recovery. A provincial election is
expected in Prince Edward Island very shortly and then it will only
be a matter of days or months before a fourth province joins the
process.
In the end, the Minister of Finance will have bought the support
of four provinces for only $1.2 billion. That is $1.2 billion of your
money, Mr. Speaker, and the money of the new minister, who is
considered an intellectual in Quebec, by the way, as well as my
money and the money of all the people who have elected us to
represent them in this House. The worst thing of all is that the
Prime Minister is heartily approving the poor performance of his
government since the beginning of the 35th Parliament.
This is what the Liberal government of Canada stated: ``This
government has consistently acted on the principle that the state
and the people need to be able to see structural change coming and
to adjust to them''. Right now, Canadians are trying to adjust to the
broken promises of the Liberals. Many arguments are used to try to
relate all this to current events, but that usually puts the
government on the spot. It is obviously some kind of strategy.
Now for justice and fairness. This great principle does not seem
to have been included in the honour code of the Liberal Party
currently in power, at least not as far as the distribution of
adjustment assistance is concerned. As an example, a reminder,
here is one of the many erroneous, if I may so express myself in
this House, statements that were made: ``We have provided
resources to ease the adjustment in response to the elimination of
the Crow rate, $1 billion''. You are signalling me that my time is
almost up, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to tell members what a
number of my constituents said to me last week about the finance
minister. A group of citizens pointed out that the most influential
1944
shareholder in Canada Steamship Lines, our very own finance
minister, registers several of his ships in the Bahamas. Dominique
Joly, Hélène, Josée and Vincent told me that the finance minister
registered a number of his ships in the Bahamas, apparently to save
on taxes. As they told me: ``If that is a good finance minister, then
Heaven help us''. They also told me that he often bought his ships
and had them refitted in Asia, because it seems that it costs less
there.
(1320)
This is a fine sort of government. When the Minister of Finance
goes all the way to Asia to buy things, when we have, right here,
factories that can build very good ships, ships that Canadians
would be proud to build. In fact, there is a great factory in Saint
John that could build the ships needed by the finance minister.
In closing, I wonder if the Liberal MPs are proud of their
government. I can tell you that the day after that party turfed out
one of its members, with my name bearing as you know such a
close resemblance to that of the Prime Minister, I received seven
calls in the space of an hour and a half-Patrick Saint-Jacques can
confirm this-from citizens in the Ottawa area who were
telephoning my office here, in the belief that it was the Prime
Minister's office, to speak out against the way the member from the
Toronto area was treated.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International
Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my hon. colleague for
acknowledging my intellectual capacities that are recognized all
over Quebec. These are very necessary for understanding issues in
depth, and yet they have not prevented me from spending the past
twelve years in the business world, creating jobs on the
international level for Canadian companies that are open to the
world.
I would also like to say that I am extremely proud to have been
elected to the Liberal team this past March 25, although I am being
told I ought to be ashamed of it. I would like to point out to him that
I won with 60 per cent of the total vote, whereas in 1993 we got 52
per cent. That means that, even without talking about the GST, we
have improved our performance at the polls, while the Bloc has
dropped from 39 per cent to 34. I would therefore ask the hon.
member to be a little more restrained in his statements.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): He is off the topic. We were not
referring to results at the polls.
Mr. Pettigrew: Absolutely.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Come on now, this is not about
election results. Get back to C-31.
Mr. Pettigrew: Well now, I would just like to reassure my fellow
Quebecers on the adjustment formula and to explain to them most
clearly that their acceptance of harmonization of the tax in 1990
was extremely fortunate for the Quebec economy. We were
extremely happy to have that harmonization, and the adjustment
formula implemented by the Minister of Finance does not penalize
Quebec in any way. It does not penalize Quebec in any way because
only provinces losing 5 per cent of their tax revenues are affected
by that measure. We in Quebec, on the contrary, had additional
revenues after we had harmonized the tax in 1990. The formula
does not, therefore, penalize Quebec in the least, the opposite in
fact. Whether it was done in 1990 or in 1996, Quebec has benefited
from being the first to harmonize the taxes.
On the other hand, I wonder if my hon. colleague is aware that
yesterday the Quebec Minister of Finance, Bernard Landry, said
the following about the GST: ``Strictly from the taxation point of
view, this is good news, for more provinces will have a VAT from
now on''. Mr. Landry, the Quebec finance minister, thinks this is a
very good thing, and I quote him again word for word: ``This is a
very good thing, having a VAT in the other provinces around us, for
the fact that ours in Quebec is lower will be to our advantage. It
places us in a competitive position; this is good for trade and
harmonizes our economic space''. That was the position of the
Quebec Minister of Finance. I can tell you that I am most pleased
that the Quebec finance minister is supporting our efforts toward an
economy that is more competitive, more open to the world.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Frontenac has the
floor for five minutes.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Oh, that is wonderful. You are fair,
Mr. Speaker, a rarity these days in this party.
(1325)
I am grateful for the question raised by my colleague in this
House, who was elected with a 60 per cent majority. I might remind
him that a kid was elected in Lac-Saint-Jean with a 76 per cent
majority, and you in the Liberal Party poured everything-
Mr. Pettigrew: He is not a kid; he is a member.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): It is an expression from
Lac-Saint-Jean, I will have you know.
Mr. Pettigrew: Oh, is it?
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): It is. If you got out of Montreal, you
would learn some regional expressions.
I wonder if the minister would not be more proud of his Minister
of Finance if he bought his ships at home. He would create jobs and
if he registered them here, he would pay taxes here.
On the subject of compensation to the three maritime provinces
that signed on, and that were penalized because they lowered their
1945
sales tax by five per cent, why do you not leave them where they
are at right now? They are already paying 19 or 20 per cent. You are
making them a gift; they will be paying less tax. I am the one who
is going to compensate their governments, innocent that I am.
The governments of the maritime provinces would rather have a
big provincial sales tax and less income tax. That is their choice. It
is not up to us to meddle in the way a province is administered, as
my colleague for Chicoutimi pointed out. He talked of respect for
provinces and jurisdictions. We will respect them.
In 1991, when Quebec harmonized its sales tax, the QST, with
the GST, you did not give us one red cent. We do the collecting and
we split the cost fifty-fifty. It costs you $88 million a year.
In the maritimes, Ottawa will pay the whole shot. Strange idea of
fairness in this party and this government. What did you do when
dairy subsidies were cut over five years? It will mean an average of
$8,000 per farm. You, a fine representative of Quebec-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I would ask both member to
address their remarks to the Chair. The member has three minutes
left.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, could you tell him he
has done nothing to protect dairy producers? Of course, he is going
to answer: ``I am from Montreal, there are no farmers in my
riding''. He should tell his constituents that there are many
consumers among them and that they will have to pay more for
their butter and cheese. Cheese will be around 50 cents more a kilo
and butter 28 cents more a pound; but he will not say a thing. His
constituents mentioned it, he will not be seen anymore. They saw
him during the campaign, but they will not see him any longer.
Of course, Bernard Landry, now a Quebec minister, was one of
those who supported harmonization back then. He was not sitting
in the National Assembly at the time, but he agreed with Robert
Bourassa that harmonization was the way to go. It is a lot more
convenient. I was one of those who had to fill in the infernal
GST-QST forms every month. It was very costly and time
consuming, and the amount of tax was very little since my business
was not international.
This being said, when we harmonized, did Ottawa give us $1
billion? Certainly not. Quebec could get carried away and say:
``Let us raise the sales tax, the QST, to 19 or 20 per cent as in
Newfoundland'' and then several months later, it would decide to
harmonize. It seems that this would cost Quebec $1.2 billion. The
province could then tell the rest of Canada: ``Give us $1.2. billion''.
This is the way it works.
Essentially, what the finance minister did is use taxpayers'
money to buy three provinces to start with. Prince Edward Island
should follow in a few months. This will bring the number to four,
but there are many other provinces missing. In Alberta there is no
sales tax.
(1330)
Alberta will most certainly not come on board, neither will
British Columbia, or Quebec; Ontario is not interested. In Ontario,
they do not want to increase taxes, they want to lower them. These
four provinces account for close to 80 per cent of the total
population, or at least 75 per cent. This is a strange way to fe fair.
To conclude, I will remind the House that to be accepted, a tax
must be fair and simple. What the finance minister is doing is
neither fair nor simple. It is far from being fair.
The international cooperation minister did not tell me if he
checked how much taxes he paid last time he filled up his car, how
much taxes he paid when he bought a quart of liquor or a case of
beer, how much taxes there is on cigarettes. This government is
being hypocritical in attempting to hide the GST it criticized so
vehemently when it was in opposition.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure and honour to address the House of Commons today
during this debate on the budget implementation bill.
During the recent byelection in Etobicoke North I became very
aware of the value of the legacy of the members of Parliament who
served so capably in the riding in the years before me.
In particular, former Minister for International Trade Roy
MacLaren, the incoming High Commissioner to Great Britain,
served the constituents of Etobicoke North with great distinction
for four terms, beginning in 1979. I rediscovered during the
election campaign the value of hard work and integrity in
representing riding constituents because I heard so many positive
comments about Roy MacLaren as I canvassed from door to door.
I had the good fortune to work with Roy MacLaren in the riding
for five years before the byelection and it was with great pride that
I discussed with constituents his successes and the many ways Roy
MacLaren and his gracious wife, Lee, so positively impacted
people in the riding over the years.
[Translation]
My constituents have also talked to me about other great
Canadians who represented with distinction in this House the
people of York West, a riding whose boundaries were redrawn and
which was renamed Etobicoke North in 1976. Red Kelly, Robert
Winters and Alastair Gillespie are names that came back often, but
I should also mention Jim Flemming, Philip Givens and Bob
Pennock.
1946
[English]
I follow in the footsteps of so many great Canadians who have
made such a significant contribution to public policy and to public
life in Canada. It is a daunting thought and a challenge that I will
fully devote myself to. I too aspire to earn the respect and support
the constituents of Etobicoke North have reserved for the members
who have preceded me.
I thank the constituents of Etobicoke North for placing their
confidence in me. As well, I thank the many volunteers who helped
me during the election campaign. Without their support I would not
be here.
As we all know, winning an election requires the commitment of
many people in canvassing, office work, installing signs, writing
and distributing brochures, fund raising and a host of other tasks. I
was very fortunate to have had a very talented and dedicated team
working with me.
Our election victory in Etobicoke North was very much a team
effort and I am very grateful to those who worked so effectively on
our campaign team.
[Translation]
As I canvassed door to door, I met many voters who recognized
the importance of concluding the debate on national unity. I look
forward to contributing to these discussions. The people of my
riding want the matter to be settled so that we can go on to other
things.
One of the few obstacles to investment in Canada and Quebec is
the political uncertainty in Quebec. As a former Quebecer from
Montreal, I am very troubled to see that businesses and jobs
continue to flee that province.
[English]
As Minister for International Trade, Roy MacLaren worked very
hard with the Prime Minister and Team Canada to develop our
export trade potential. Missions to South Africa, South America
and Asia were orchestrated under his leadership and under the
leadership of the Prime Minister. These missions resulted in
billions of dollars in trade deals over the short period of one and a
half years.
Given my experience in international business, I know many of
these agreements moved from the concept stage to the contract
signing stage as a result of these missions. These deals resulted in
and will continue to provide thousands of jobs for Canadians.
(1335)
Equally important, the way has been paved for more business in
the future. Canada's business community is to be congratulated for
its leadership and performance in export trade, one of the real
success stories of our economy.
In Etobicoke North I plan to build on the Team Canada concept
of building export trade and, equally important, working with all
stakeholders in the community to build more jobs and a healthy
economy. This means building partnerships with industry and
labour as well as the Etobicoke city council and the provincial
government.
The constituents of Etobicoke North expect all their politicians,
irrespective of political stripe or political agenda, to work together
to improve the lives of residents of Etobicoke North. Citizens in the
riding deserve this. I am encouraged by early signs which indicate
that all stakeholders will be able to work together in a very
constructive way.
I invite the participation of all constituents in my riding to
contribute ideas on how we can create more jobs and a healthy
economy in Etobicoke North. Some individuals have already come
forward with some very excellent ideas.
I hope the Ontario government will seize the moment and
harmonize the provincial sales tax with the federal GST. No
province will benefit more from harmonization than Ontario.
Ontario could harmonize at a rate of 14 per cent and reduce the
sales tax by 1 per cent without losing any revenue. More economic
potential in the province and in my riding could be unleashed and
our businesses would be more competitive, which would mean
more jobs. In my opinion jobs are the best social program.
I realize the task at hand is not an easy one. In Canada, thanks to
the hard work of the finance minister, our economic fundamentals
are coming together in a very positive way. We are getting the
deficit under control, interest rates are low and short term interest
rates in Canada today are lower than those in the United States.
This trend is also apparent with long term interest rates. These
factors create an unprecedented opportunity for investment flowing
into the country.
In Etobicoke North we have some incredible strengths which we
can build on. We have Pearson International Airport nearby. We
have the 401 highway which runs through the riding. We have
quality industrial land, a qualified workforce and a number of high
technology companies.
We know from the extensive work done in the area of
international competitiveness that those jurisdictions which have
the most qualified and knowledgeable workforces will attract the
industries of the future, which will provide permanent high paying
jobs. In Etobicoke North we already have a head start with an
abundance of companies and workers on the leading edge of
various technologies like aerospace, advanced engineering and
health and life sciences, to name a few.
The government in the recent throne speech and budget
recognized the value of innovation. We have committed ourselves
to supporting industrial innovation and research and development.
In
1947
addition to setting a positive business climate, this is a very
legitimate and necessary role for government to play.
We need only look at international competition to realize
governments around the world support and encourage their high
technology industries. We must do the same in Canada if we are to
compete internationally. I am very pleased we are actively and
aggressively doing so.
Herein lies the opportunity for Etobicoke North. By supporting
industrial innovation in my riding we can continue to develop our
leading edge companies. I have already launched such an initiative.
I am very confident that in my riding by working together and by
working hard we can collectively build a stronger economy and
create more jobs.
I also realize the importance of the many other businesses, both
small and large, in Etobicoke North that are not necessarily high
tech companies. I pledge to work closely with them also. Given the
rapidly changing international marketplace, some of these
companies are adjusting to these new realities and face difficult
challenges also.
The initiative I have put in motion in Etobicoke North involves
bringing industry leaders in the riding together to assess our
strengths and identify areas in which we can improve. We will
assess what impediments or constraints there are to economic
growth in our riding.
[Translation]
We will look at so-called industrial clusters in Etobicoke North.
The Quebec government, among others, has greatly benefited from
this economic development tool, which led to the emergence of
Silicon Valley in California.
The city of Ottawa is a role model for all of us. For decades, it
was little more than a government town. There were other
industries, but the pillar of the economy was the federal
government.
(1340)
Look at all that has been achieved since then. We have become
Silicon Valley North. A booming industrial cluster grew up around
computer hardware and software and telecommunications, right
here in Ottawa.
[English]
We can produce the same results in Etobicoke North, not
necessarily computer hardware or software, but perhaps in other
clusters such as engineering, biotechnology, life sciences or other
service sectors.
The recently concluded open skies agreement between Canada
and the United States could open many economic doors for us in
our ridings if we have the courage and the goodwill to work
together.
We seem to have a structural unemployment problem in Canada
and throughout the world. Countries like France, Germany and
Italy are facing the same challenge. We need to reflect on what is
causing this. While I do not pretend to be a labour market expert or
an industrial economics expert, I have reached some conclusions of
my own.
We know technology is having an impact on unemployment
levels. We cannot fight this. In an ironic sense we need to
encourage it. As someone who supports the need for our natural
resource industries to add more value in Canada, I am continually
amazed by those who will not acknowledge that many value added
initiatives reduce job levels because they are capital intensive.
Often value added initiatives replace labour with advanced
technology, replacing people with machines, but pursue value
added we must because this strategy produces more wealth for all
Canadians.
Labour is priced like any other good or service, and if labour is
too expensive business shifts its emphasis to other alternatives. In
the early 1990s in Canada our productivity was low. We were
losing our international competitiveness. Since that time our
productivity has improved considerably to a point where this is no
longer an issue. Economists today are focusing on total factor
productivity, not just labour productivity, because to be
competitive business must optimize its uses of all the factors of
production, labour, plants and equipment, technology and financial
capital.
We are doing well in this regard and labour productivity is very
much a part of this improved performance, but these developments
do not necessarily produce jobs. In addition to technological
influences on the job market there are many other subtle changes
occurring that impact on this; for example, the growth in the
services sector and more part time work of all descriptions.
I believe the real impediment for job growth at this time in
Canada is a lack of consumer confidence. Consumers are not
spending. Our export growth has been phenomenal thanks to the
efforts of Team Canada, but consumer confidence is lacking. When
consumers do not spend, factories do not expand, new factories do
not get built and the service economy suffers also. Why are
consumers not spending?
[Translation]
I think the reason why consumers are not spending is because
they are unemployed or unsure they will be able to keep their jobs.
Similar factors are at work around the world. What can we do? I
think we must show the way. Our economy is not big enough to
exert much influence on that of other countries, but we can improve
the situation here at home. How can we do so?
1948
[English]
I will be concentrating my efforts in Etobicoke North. If all
members did the same in their ridings, the cumulative effect would
be substantial. What role can the federal government or an
individual member of Parliament play? Cynics would say there is
no role for us. I say the opposite. I would not have sought public
office if I did not believe I could make a difference. The same can
be said for all of us, I am sure.
Am I talking about a large interventionist role for the federal
government? Definitely not. I believe in the wisdom of the markets
but I also know that from time to time markets can fail. As a
member of Parliament I will play the role of a catalyst to bring
industry, labour and governments together in Etobicoke North. I
will make businesses in the riding aware of the support the federal
government can offer in the areas of technology and innovation.
I will also be working closely with the schools in my riding and
other excellent educational institutions in Etobicoke North such as
Humber College. Through this work I hope to support education
and skills development for young Canadians and youth
employment. Young Canadians in Etobicoke North and throughout
Canada need hope for the future. I commit myself to work with
them.
Last week I had the honour to present the Prime Minister's
award recognizing teacher excellence in mathematics, technology
and science to Mr. Larry Tracey at the Elms junior middle school in
Etobicoke North. These pockets of excellence need to be replicated
and recognized across Canada because students are our leaders of
tomorrow.
(1345 )
What role can industry play to address the structural
unemployment we are now facing? As I said earlier, I believe the
federal government can create the policy and business environment
that is conducive to business investment activity. This I believe we
are doing.
By 1997-98 our government will have achieved the initial deficit
target of 2 per cent of GDP, one of the lowest if not the lowest of all
industrialized nations. We are going about this task in a determined
and responsible way. I can say from my experience in management
and government that the pace with which we are proceeding
reflects an understanding that when we deal with budget reductions
of this magnitude, what we are really doing is reinventing
government. Reinventing government if it is to be done in a
responsible and caring way, cannot be done in one or two years.
The federal government can also assist business in areas such as
technology and innovation as I said earlier. Governments alone
cannot create lasting jobs. Only the private sector can do that. I am
very proud to have worked in the private sector and I believe I
understand the demands on business and the competitive
environment in which they operate.
Business acknowledged in the 1960s and 1970s that it also had a
social responsibility. These responsibilities first manifested
themselves in areas such as corporate philanthropy, investment in
human resources training and development, environmental
protection, information disclosure and other areas such as those.
Canadian business has responded so well to the new realities in
the past. I would ask business leaders in Canada: Are we focused
exclusively on the pursuit of shareholder value and enhanced share
prices to the exclusion of some other very important corporate
responsibilities, such as the responsibility to people and
communities? How many more times do we need to hear about a
company that has downsized, right sized, re-engineered or
restructured with resulting massive layoffs or job cuts all at a time
of record corporate profits?
How many executives today remember that when they were at
university an undergraduate degree paved the way to a job in
corporate Canada? For the younger executives the requirement
may have ratcheted up to a masters degree. Today there are
countless young Canadians who have more formal education than
that, yet they cannot find jobs.
I ask executives in Etobicoke North, and throughout Canada for
that matter, to consider the following questions: How rational and
balanced are your corporate human resource policies through the
medium and long term? How could you productively put people to
work to grow your business? As a member of your community,
could your company be doing more to give people a chance to
demonstrate their value to your business?
All of us in the House understand the business imperative of the
bottom line. I recognize that industry is not one big social program.
Many companies however are re-examining their staff cutback
policies and are looking at ways to develop and grow their
businesses. A number of business analysts have concluded that
large wholesale staff reductions have generally not produced the
winning results that companies may have expected.
The industry I am very familiar with for example, the forest
products industry, through the Forest Sector Advisory Council is
working closely with the federal government exploring ways in
which even more jobs can be created in this industry. It is
encouraging to learn also that a major Canadian bank has recently
launched a program designed to provide mentoring, business
support and loans to young Canadian entrepreneurs.
[Translation]
I am confident that businesses will rise up to the challenges we
all face as Canadians and that, like Team Canada, we can all work
together to build the future. Like public authorities, unions,
1949
interest groups and citizens, businesses must help in tackling the
task ahead.
[English]
For these reasons I will support and I urge all members in the
House to support the budget implementation bill before us.
Implementing the budget will allow the federal government to play
its rightful role in the jobs and growth agenda, building quality and
permanent jobs for all Canadians now and for the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to what our colleague from Ontario said. I think
this was his maiden speech in this House. My congratulations. I
would, however, like to comment on some of his remarks. I think
that he is right when he says that good government should be
restored, it should be. Today more than ever, we need very good
government, especially when those in power make promises that
they do not keep.
(1350)
He raised another point: economic difficulties resulting from
political instability. But he failed to discuss the problem of the debt
and the deficit, the economic raiding that has been going on for so
long in Quebec and mismanagement, proof of which we now have.
While we, in Quebec, have managed to harmonize the GST with
our sales tax without getting a penny in compensation from Ottawa,
the federal government is about to set up the same system in
eastern Canada at a cost of $1 billion.
For the longest time, and particularly since the early 1970s,
billions have been devoted to building symbols of Canadian unity,
without getting anywhere. But again, they always forget to mention
this.
There is simple explanation: Quebec is almost always 25 years
ahead of the pack. It was evident in the free trade debate and today
again concerning the harmonization of the GST and the PST.
Quebec has been asking for many years already that the federal
government's spending power be capped, duplication and overlap
eliminated and powers decentralized to the provinces. It is starting
to happen now. More and more the other provinces are asking for
the same thing. Unfortunately, Quebec has moved ahead again and
now wants economic sovereignty. Every province will eventually
have to become politically and economically sovereign if we want
this debt problem to be resolved.
I would like my hon. colleague to tell me something. Soon, by
1997-98, the debt will be $600 billion, $50 billion of which will
just be in interest charges. If $50 billion did not have to be paid out
in interest charges each year and could be used to create jobs
instead, would we not be short of unemployed instead of short of
money right now? Would the unemployment problem not be
resolved must faster this way than the way the federal government
is going about it right now?
[English]
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the member covered a number of
points.
My information is that we have been re-engineering the federal
government and the operations of the federal government for some
time and with great success. The federal government has had an
operating surplus for a few years. That operating surplus is going to
continue to grow.
I agree with the member that we need to get at the debt. As the
member knows, the only way to reduce the debt is to attack the
deficit. Until we can put our budget into a surplus position, we will
not be reducing the debt.
What we have here is a phenomenon of governments of all
description. Looking at the budget situation the province of Quebec
is in and looking from province to province, over the years we have
made the mistake of spending beyond our means. We are now
trying to come to grips with that.
The answer does not lie in reducing expenditures at a rate that
does not allow for the infrastructures of government and the
delivery of services which impact on people who are in need. We
should not try to solve a problem that has developed over 15 or 20
years in two or three years. I agree with the member that we need to
attack the debt and redeploy those resources to programs. To do
that, we need to reduce our deficit.
In terms of the deficit and the debt situation, the financial
markets basically invest capital in our country. I do not believe we
need to necessarily take all our cues from the financial markets, but
they are very important to listen to. The budget direction we are
heading in has been endorsed by the markets which is reflected in
the interest rates this country now has.
(1355)
Again I would say that the only impediment to growth and
investment in Canada is trying to bring some stability to the
politics of Quebec. Hearing Bloc members in this House from time
to time, perhaps other Canadians are as concerned as I am when I
hear how Quebec has been mistreated, the errant child who cannot
get a fair deal.
I suppose that is the mandate of the member's party, but if we are
going to try to build a country and move forward, certainly from
my perspective and political agenda this is not constructive. It does
not allow us to move forward. I would hope to hear more on how
we can build together and less on how Quebec is aggrieved from
time to time.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member said he would not have sought his seat if he did not believe
he could make a difference. Seeing as he ran for the Liberal Party,
1950
how does he feel about the fact that on Bill C-31 which he is
speaking to and which was introduced to the House just yesterday,
the government has chosen to bring in closure? In other words, it is
ending democracy. Can he justify that for us?
Surely if the member thought he could make a difference he
must have thought the Liberals were going to be democratic and
not autocratic in the way they have shown themselves to be. Does
he have any comments about that?
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the decision to institute closure is not
my decision but I do support it because to my mind our government
has a positive and constructive agenda and program to put in place.
All of us, as Canadians, expect our government to do something. If
we sit in this House and debate forever, what are we doing for
Canadians who put us in this House to try to improve things?
The Speaker: We will now move to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
1950
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to pay tribute to one of the oldest and largest fraternal
organizations in the world. One hundred and twenty years ago, on
April 26, 1876, the first Canadian Court of the Independent Order
of Foresters was instituted in London, Ontario.
Through Court No. 1, London served as Canadian headquarters
of the IOF until 1888. Since that time the IOF in Canada has
expanded to nearly 500 family oriented courts. There are more than
one million members in Canada, the United States and Britain.
An outgrowth of the Friendly Societies that originated hundreds
of years ago to help one another in times of distress, Forestry
continues these noble traditions in the community.
London's Court No. 1 has logged thousands of volunteer hours in
numerous charitable endeavours. Its members are to be saluted on
this memorable occasion.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in July 1995, the
federal government decided to transfer over 40 public servants
from the Canada employment centre located in Joliette to the one in
Repentigny.
The Bloc Quebecois condemned this illogical decision, since the
CEC in Repentigny had to rent premises to meet the needs of its
clientele, while the facilities in Joliette were already owned by the
federal government and met the requirements of the Canada
employment centre.
In the April 9, 1996 issue of L'Artisan, Public Works Canada
asked for the submission of letters of interest regarding the lease of
1,741 square metres of office space for the Canada human
resources centre, in Repentigny. Since renting this space will cost
about $115 per square metre, taxpayers in the Joliette area will
have to shell out about $200,000 more per year for lower quality
services.
We have seen better reorganizations that this.
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in an
April 15 memo, the commissioner for Canada's prisons ordered
universal distribution of bleach kits for inmates.
Each inmate will now receive a bottle of bleach and instructions
on how to properly clean needles and syringes used for injecting,
tattooing and body piercing. This is ludicrous. Injection of illicit
drugs is a Criminal Code offence. More, the commissioner's
directive states that syringes and drug paraphernalia are prison
contraband and, therefore, must be seized.
On one hand, the commission's office promotes a program
which encourages inmates to break the law and on the other hand,
the commissioner intends to arm prisons with bleach and needle
usage, both potential weapons to be used against other inmates and
prison staff.
Rank and file prison guards state the obvious. Either
Correctional Service Canada bureaucrats are incompetent or they
have lost complete and total control of the administration of
Canada's prison system, or both.
There is a drug problem in Canadian prisons. Clearly, it is time
to clean up corrections and end this ridiculous program.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, while the Reformers are counting up how many promises
the Liberals have broken over the GST and the Liberals are
counting how many times Reformers have changed their minds on
the GST, New Democrats are counting up how much the Liberal
expanded GST will cost ordinary Canadians.
The new Liberal tax is one more burden taken off the shoulders
of corporations and put on to the shoulders of ordinary taxpayers.
1951
In Saskatchewan the finance minister estimates that
harmonization would cost average families $400 million because
they would have to pick up the share of the provincial retail taxes
now paid by business.
As a result of all of this, Canada is now tied with Britain as the
two countries with the lowest corporate taxes in the G-7. The
Liberals have, in fact, kept one promise on the GST. They have
kept their promise to Canada's corporate leaders to protect them
from any obligation to fulfil their civic responsibility to pay their
fair share of taxes.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April 22-28 marks National Textiles Week in
Canada. Among those celebrating is Coats Bell, a thread
manufacturer located in my riding in Arthur, Ontario.
As we stated in the red book, Canadian firms, especially small
and medium sized businesses, must adopt an aggressive trading
mentality and a strong outward orientation to take advantage of
export markets.
Canada's textile industry has proven itself up to the challenge.
Over the past 10 years Canada's textile exports have tripled and
now amount to $2 billion annually.
The 54,000 Canadians employed by the textiles industry are
justifiably proud of their achievements. Using innovative
technology and a highly trained workforce, the textile industry is a
sure bet to contribute further to Canada's economy.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is Canada Book Day. As a self-confessed
bookworm, I am proud of the government's record in promoting
literacy, a prerequisite to full participation in Canada Book Day.
We promised in the red book to restore the national literacy
program. Not only has this been done, but the Prime Minister has
also appointed a minister responsible for literacy. Under her able
leadership, the national literacy program has been restored and
many Canadians are on their way to acquiring the literacy skills
needed to participate fully in the workplace and in society.
It takes more than government policy and initiatives to
implement this however. Tribute must also be paid to the thousands
of volunteers across Canada who show their commitment to the
cause of literacy by working with their local literacy groups.
This being National Volunteer Week, I can think of no better
time to acknowledge the efforts of the Saskatoon Literacy
Coalition. Each year, volunteers like Eleanor Charman and Ruth
Thompson, and many others, organize a fundraising spelling bee in
which I have had the honour and pleasure of participating. Thanks
as well to the contributions of small businesses like the Broadway
Theatre that housed the spelling bee.
The slogan of Canada Book Week is: ``Read a book and see what
happens''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today,
Canadians of Portuguese origin are celebrating the day of liberty.
For 48 years, Portuguese were subjected to a dictatorship that
denied basic democratic freedoms.
On April 25, 1974, the Portuguese people declared its freedom.
After a peaceful revolution, Portugal underwent a gradual
transition towards democracy. Moreover, its economic growth led
it to join the European Union, in 1986.
(1405)
[English]
Successive generations of Portuguese immigrants have
contributed to the rich multicultural mosaic of my province of
Quebec and that of Canada as a whole. They embraced our
democratic traditions and became active members of their
communities.
On the occasion of the 22nd anniversary of the day of liberty, and
as president of the Canada-Portugal Parliamentarians Friendship
Group, I wish to extend my best wishes to all Canadians of
Portuguese origin, particularly those in my riding of Saint-Denis,
and to thank them for their contributions to Canada.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the Vancouver International Airport
Authority celebrates the opening of its new international terminal
building. This event marks a significant milestone for YVR, as the
airport is known locally. In less than four years the authority has
made the airport North America's premier Asia-Pacific gateway
without government funds, subsidies or guarantees.
YVR has been an economic boon to the greater Vancouver area.
It employs 17,000 people, and that number is projected to grow by
2,000 over the next four years.
This has been a win-win situation for everyone. The consumer,
the airlines, the employees and even the federal government have
benefited from YVR's privatization and local management. All this
1952
without the scandal that has plagued the proposed sale of Toronto's
Pearson airport.
The Liberal government should take a lesson from YVR.
Privatization and decentralization work. Congratulations to the
board of directors, the executive management and the employees of
the Vancouver International Airport Authority on this auspicious
occasion.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased
to read that the Prime Minister was in Cernavoda, Romania for the
inauguration of the Candu reactor.
When I was mayor of Saint John, the citizens played a major role
in the development of that project. Thirty-eight senior staff
members from Point Lepreau II and their families from greater
Saint John moved to Cernavoda, Romania where they used their
expertise to build the reactor to the same specifications as Point
Lepreau II, the most modern and efficient Candu reactor in the
world, which is located in my riding.
Hundreds of Romanians from Cernavoda travelled to Saint John
where they were trained at Point Lepreau on how to run a Candu
reactor. Throughout this project the people of Saint John and
Quebec performed tremendous outreach in Cernavoda as they built
a community centre and a day care centre. The Church of England
built a hospital for babies born with AIDS that were abandoned.
There is a need for even greater outreach. I want to thank the
Prime Minister for being there to experience firsthand the
commitment which Canadians have made to assist in the
development of a better nation for Romanians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on April 13, 1996, the public forum held in Quebec City
on the theme ``The postal service of today and tomorrow'',
concluded that there was a need for a postal service of equal quality
for all citizens.
The government will have to make the moratorium on the
closing of post offices a permanent one, and it will have to
recognize that the management of Canada Post Corporation has a
real impact on rural development.
The government will soon receive the recommendations of the
Radwanski committee on the mandate of Canada Post Corporation.
The Bloc Quebecois reminds the Liberal government that 91 per
cent of Canadians want a universal service at a universal cost.
When the government will propose a revised mandate for
Canada Post Corporation, it will be judged based on how it
complied with the clearly expressed will of Canadians and
Quebecers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
not in defence of ACOA the agency, but in defence of ACOA the
concept.
In the 45-page report on crown financial institutions, the banking
committee of the other place runs roughshod over the regional
development agencies and, in the words of one senator, suggests
ACOA be put out of its misery. The committee has not done its
homework and demonstrates little appreciation for this agency's
work or for Atlantic Canada's current and future economic
circumstances.
The other place appears to forget its constitutional mandate to
defend the interests of the region. The status quo is not what
Atlantic Canada needs. We want our region to continue the drive to
self-sufficiency.
The Senate committee has recommended that we throw out the
baby, the bath water and even the tub. We in this House will not
stand idly by.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
members of the Bloc Quebecois are trying to convince the public
that our government has done an about-face with the GST. In
reality, we did what we said we would do in our red book in
obtaining the agreement of three new provinces in order to
harmonize sales taxes.
Quebec's finance minister is delighted that the harmonization of
taxes has now been extended to other provinces, and the vast
majority of Quebec's editorial writers are in favour of the move.
Now that we have the support of the PQ, the Bloc Quebecois is in
a tight corner. It does not want the public remembering that last
year it tabled a minority report in which it opposed a harmonized
national tax, when this year the PQ government is applauding what
we have done. The flip flop is on their side.
[English]
Four down, six more provinces to go and then we will have a
national harmonized tax.
1953
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Judge
Arbour's report could not be clearer: there was a violation of
human rights at the prison for women in Kingston.
As a result, eight of the victims have filed civil suits against the
solicitor general. The Bloc Quebecois proposes that, instead of
multiple lawsuits, the government find a humanitarian solution in
the case of these eight women.
According to one of them, the prisoners would have greatly
appreciated being believed and receiving an apology from the
government when the initial evidence was published. Instead, it
took three inquiries before they were proved right.
In addition to putting in place the corrective measures
recommended by Judge Arbour, the government also has an
obligation to recognize that it was in the wrong and to implement
immediately all the report's recommendations, in order to prevent
the recurrence of such a situation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, western farmers are angered because the Canadian Wheat
Board will not honour barley contracts in their entirety. Apparently
the board cannot sell farmers' grain with some of the strongest
prices and record low supplies.
Does the government not realize that farmers must sell their
products in order to survive? The CWB refuses to allow farmers to
ship into the lucrative U.S. market. The government uses Revenue
Canada and Customs as its personal hound dogs in cracking down
on farmers who are forced to go outside the board's monopoly.
It is never okay to break the law, but when farmers are losing
their farms and have no cash flow to plant a spring crop, the
government had better act.
Western provincial governments know that farmers are needed.
The Alberta agriculture minister and his Liberal critic realize that
the federal government has ignored farmers' concerns with their
inaction.
I urge the government to listen to these concerns and implement
no cost export licences so farmers can protect their livelihoods.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
As exemplified by the thousands who have died or are sick with
cancer, the health, environmental and economic impacts of
Chernobyl are still felt today.
In Canada, the nuclear energy industry is subsidized to the tune
of $5 billion since 1952. In addition, the auditor general reports
there is a $10 billion radioactive waste disposal problem. Canada
should move toward renewable energy production and phase out
large subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. In addition,
economic benefits could be achieved through energy efficiency
programs.
Finally, we need policies that support science and technology for
renewal energy production to ensure a safe, clean and sustainable
energy future for all Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today in honour of
Vaisakhi, the 297th birthday of the Sikh nation, which is being
celebrated around the world.
Sikhs have been living in Canada for almost a century, and over
240,000 Sikhs participate in every facet of Canadian life. Sikhs are
peace loving people who have made a valuable contribution in
various fields, including professional and political spheres, as my
presence here today illustrates. Sikhs believe in justice and the
protection of human rights for all people regardless of colour,
creed, sex or origin.
I hope fellow members of Parliament will join me in wishing
Sikhs across Canada a happy Vaisakhi by accepting my invitation
to a reception in the Commonwealth Room following question
period.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the first time I have seen the Lebanese community in Canada
so affected by the situation in Lebanon. Its religious and its civil
leaders have told me how helpless they feel and how concerned
they are for their brethren in the Middle East.
I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of the
innocent victims of the tragic events in Lebanon.
1954
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the House stood in silence.]
[English]
The Speaker: I have a request to make before we begin question
period. It is very important I know when members are going to ask
for a moment's silence in the House. I would appreciate prior
notice if it is at all possible. It disorients the statements in the
House. I would simply ask your co-operation.
_____________________________________________
1954
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister stubbornly defended the agreement
with the maritimes yesterday, by claiming to have met his
commitments, despite the fact that the Minister of Finance,
accompanied by the Minister of Revenue, apologized for being
unable to follow through on the Liberals' promise to scrap the GST.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How are we to interpret
the attitude of the Prime Minister, who dismisses his Minister of
Finance with a wave of his hand, although as everyone agrees the
minister simply acted with integrity acknowledging the Liberals'
mistake with the GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think the Minister of Finance and I are in
disagreement. The Minister of Finance is carrying out the Liberal
Party's program, as it appears on page 22 of the red book in English
and on page 20 in French.
He said, obviously, and I agree with him, that he would have
preferred we proceed more quickly. He thought a system could be
set up right away and more easily. However, we have chosen to go
the route of co-operating with the provinces.
At this point we have the agreement of four provinces, and we
hope that the other provinces will join with us, because it will ease
things for consumers. For companies and people in business, it will
be a lot easier, and we will have a harmonized tax all across the
country.
I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition should read the
statement by the Quebec finance minister, Mr. Landry, on this
subject.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on December 10, 1991, the Prime Minister said, when he
was the Leader of the Opposition, and I quote: ``People will believe
in us when we say we are going to eliminate the GST''. A little
further on, he spoke of his government: ``Ours will be an honest
government that will call a spade a spade, and people will believe
in it''.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the crisis of confidence in
his government currently brewing across Canada arises from his
own words as Leader of the Opposition and that the only way to
re-establish any sort of confidence would be to follow the example
of the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister and
apologize to Canadians?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just said we would have preferred a simpler system,
more easily and quickly put in place. This is what the Minister of
Finance has said as well.
I am not about to apologize, when I can rise in the House, pick up
a text-one I have read here seven or eight times-in which we
said the solution was a tax harmonized with the provinces, which
would bring in the same revenues, because the government cannot
afford to lose revenues right now.
This is just what we told our fellow Canadians we would do. I
make no apologies for doing what is in the red book.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, with the Prime Minister hiding behind the red book since
yesterday, are we to understand that, in future, the contents of the
red book take precedence over the words of the Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is reiterating what is in the red book,
so there is no problem. We drew up a detailed political program.
We worked on it for months and months. We chose a text we wrote
ourselves. There is no discrepancy between the red book, myself
and the Minister of Finance, because the member who worked with
me on the red book is now the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we will scrap the GST-those were the words of the
Prime Minister during the 1993 campaign. The Liberal government
has made the unilateral decision to commit more than 90 per cent
of the Canadian population to a semblance of GST reform, one
which will be very costly, far more than the $961 million called for
in the agreement.
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario
and Quebec were not consulted, but they will pay for this
outrageous cosmetic action taken in a pretence of meeting the
commitment on which the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of
Canada have reneged.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that he has gone beyond the
usual mechanisms of consultation to commit all Quebecers and all
Canadians to a politically motivated compensation payment to the
maritimes of close to $1 billion, without anyone having any say
whatsoever on the matter?
1955
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have had numerous discussions with the ministers of finance
in the other provinces concerning harmonization of the sales taxes.
We have made offers, not only to the three provinces who
accepted, but also to Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan. We have held discussions with the other provinces
to explain the reasons why the formula applied to this or that one.
We used exactly the same approach as when we passed on to
Quebec $120 million for the Atlantic groundfish strategy. We used
exactly the same approach when we passed on to Quebec $75
million after elimination of the freight subsidy. The federal
government accepted its responsibilities for a very great structural
change.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if they want to keep talking about the GST, let us talk
about it. When the GST was harmonized, Quebec did not see a red
cent. That is the reality.
What is being asked of the Minister of Finance today is not all
that difficult. He is being asked to stay on the path of integrity, the
integrity he has shown this week, in acknowledging that this
agreement with the maritimes on the GST will cost far more to
Quebecers and to Canadians than the $961 billion in compensation
projected, for under the agreement, equalization will kick in
automatically after four years, so the government's political deal
will continue to be a costly one.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member does not, unfortunately, understand how the
equalization system works. It depends on fiscal capacity, not the
taxes collected by a province, but its fiscal capacity.
(1425)
So, right at the beginning, there will be a slight drop in
equalization payments to the Atlantic provinces. Eventually, with
the growth of economic activity and with job creation, there will be
another drop. This is good for the Atlantic economy. The hon.
member is, unfortunately, in error.
I would like to quote Mr. Landry, the Quebec Minister of
Finance. From a strictly taxation point of view, speaking of the
harmonization with the Atlantic provinces, Mr. Landry said: ``This
is good news, because more provinces will have a VAT in future''.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The testimony before the Somalia inquiry makes it quite clear
that General Boyle knew about his department's plans to tamper
with, alter and destroy documents related to the Somalia affair.
This latest testimony seriously undermines the minister, who time
after time has defended Boyle in the House.
Will the minister now agree to ask General Boyle to stand down
until the Somalia inquiry determines his role in this cover-up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
covered this issue a number of times in the past couple of weeks.
I will not comment on any evidence presented at the inquiry. I
will not engage in any public debate. The inquiry is to determine
the truth of all the facts presented to it and all the evidence. It will
do this in short order.
With respect to the chief of defence staff, he certainly is doing
his job. He is doing it well and he will continue to do his job. I ask
the hon. member to allow the Chief of defence staff the courtesy all
Canadians expect, which is to allow him to go to the commission
and to give his position.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister does not want to comment. That is fine
because, quite frankly, Canadians have no confidence in anything
the minister says anyway.
The minister tried to distance himself from senior officials'
attempts to cover up Somalia documents. Yet a staff officer for the
Minister of National Defence was part of the Somalia working
group.
It is inconceivable to Canadians that the minister was not briefed
about the scheme hatched by the public affairs branch of his
department to alter Somalia documents and obstruct access to
information requests.
What did the minister know about this attempted cover-up?
When did he know it? Was he a pawn or a player?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, by the tone,
demeanour and substance of the hon. member's question he
certainly is not a player in the House for reliable questioning.
The subset of hearings over the next couple of weeks will deal
with these the questions of the public affairs matter. Every question
the hon. member has posed in the House will be answered in the
appropriate way at the commission before those impartial
commissioners. That is where Canadians expect to get the answers.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has placed himself
right in the middle of the Somalia scandal.
The minister's department altered and destroyed documents on
his watch. The minister recommended a chief of defence staff who
was, by his own admission, aware of the plan to deliberately
tamper with evidence.
1956
The minister's own staff officer was part of the Somalia
working group. It is time the minister came clean with Canadians.
The Minister of National Defence is responsible to Parliament for
these errors in judgment. Will he do the honourable thing and
resign?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was worried
because the hon. member has not asked me to resign in the last few
days. I took that to mean something.
Again I have to assert that the only thing I am in the middle of is
getting at the truth. The government wants the truth in this matter.
We have established the inquiry. We have taken our responsibility
by establishing the inquiry. We have a terms of reference which has
never been challenged, which talks in the language used by the hon.
member, ``cover-up'', ``destruction of documents''. All of that is in
the terms of reference. The commission has the terms of reference
to do the job, to get the answers. It will do it and it will do it soon.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
We learned that the chief of defence staff approved a plan to
tamper with documents critical to the Somalia inquiry. His lawyer
excused General Boyle, citing his failing memory, and I quote:
[English]
``When you are talking about something which happened many
years ago, your memory may not be as clear''.
[Translation]
Fortunately, his lawyer added: ``He now remembers''. The
documents turned over to the commission allowed the general to
recover his memory.
Considering that the military police's report that was given to the
commission exonerated General Boyle, is the minister going to ask
the military police to alter its report in the light of these new facts?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already
answered these questions, but I must point out that it is not proper
for me, as a minister, to comment on the testimonies heard daily by
the commission. It is not appropriate.
The military police has reopened its investigation in view of the
new documents which surfaced. I think this is a normal process.
[English]
The military police have reopened the investigation. Obviously
they had an obligation to this, as did the information commissioner.
All these matters will be discussed at the inquiry. That is the forum
for the answers.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, given the seriousness of the allegations regarding General
Boyle, does the minister not think that he should immediately
relieve the general of his duties, at least until the inquiry is
completed?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, I
have already answered this question and the answer is no.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 18, 1993 the Deputy Prime Minister promised Canadians
on national television: ``If the GST is not abolished under a Liberal
government I will resign''.
Today in a press conference she said: ``Making a fast lipped
comment in the middle of an election campaign should not put me
in a position to resign''.
Which way is it? If you make a promise, you make; do not break
it. Will the Deputy Prime Minister resign right now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, she has said she does not intend to resign because we are
meeting the commitments in the red book, and she campaigned on
the red book.
If we want to quote what people said in the past, after what the
hon. member for Beaver River did yesterday, I quote what she said
in 1991 or 1992: ``The behaviour in the Chamber just drives me
wild. I taught grade eight for too many years to think this sort of
behaviour is cute''. I guess she is now in grade seven.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I stand
by what I have said and I stand by what I have done. There is one
place for the red book because it simply has not been completed.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said the Liberals have kept 75 per
cent of the red book promises. That is not true. We have gone
through the numbers. Of 157 promises made in the red book, 37
have been fulfilled; 23.5 per cent. That is shameful.
1957
(1435)
On the campaign trail the Deputy Prime Minister told the voters
of Hamilton East and every other Canadian: ``I have already said
personally and very directly that if the GST is not abolished I will
resign''. It is fine that she thinks I may throw things around, but I
know one thing: the voters of Hamilton East will throw her out in
the next election. They want to know, will she resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe I was right a minute ago when I said she was in
grade seven. She does not know how to add. She should look at
page 111 of the red book. It is all there and it is very simple; all the
cuts we said we were to make and all the programs we were to
implement.
She will be surprised but she will probably have to wait until she
is in grade nine to understand.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The marine shipping industry is very important to Montreal's
economy. Today, the Conseil régional de développement de l'Île de
Montréal, the City of Montreal, the minister of state responsible for
Montreal and the Montreal Chamber of Commerce have joined in
condemning the user fee policy the minister intends to apply to
Coast Guard services.
Does the minister not agree that imposing a fee structure without
first assessing its economic impact could have a devastating effect
on Montreal's marine industry, which creates more than 14,000
direct and indirect jobs and generates $1.25 billion in economic
benefits?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I agree that all the shipping industries are very
important to the economy of Canada.
What we are merely asking is that we expect them to pay a user
fee for public facilities provided by the public at taxpayers'
expense. This user fee is reasonable. It is less than one tenth of one
per cent of the total value of the cargoes. It is less than 3 per cent of
voyage costs. It is less than 10 per cent of the services provided.
While there are some differences about how the fee should be
paid, it is safe to say most of the industries that have been consulted
and that have appeared before the standing committee, while they
do not particularly want to pay the fees, are prepared to pay their
fair share of the public cost.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): I will give the minister a
second chance to answer my question, Mr. Speaker. Does the
minister recognize that, by imposing user fees on aid to marine
navigation, he runs the risk of diverting marine traffic to ports on
the east coast of the U.S. and on the Mississippi, at the expense of
the port of Montreal, thus undermining its role as a North
American shipping hub?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are many other considerations involved. The
information at this time is that the 10 per cent recovery, which
amounts to $20 million across Canada, will not divert traffic to any
other port.
Most of our trading partners have similar fees. Is the hon.
member saying he would like the big companies not to pay the 10
per cent of the share the taxpayers actually provide when other
organizations and smaller people are paying their fair share? I do
not believe he is suggesting that.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Tuesday we witnessed the embarrassing spectacle of the finance
minister grovelling for forgiveness for the government's broken
election promise to kill the GST.
Today the Prime Minister is standing up in the House and saying
``we did not break our promise'', suggesting somehow that all
along they had gone to the electors with the promise to bribe the
Atlantic premiers with $1 billion and to create a GST super tax in
three provinces.
Who is telling the truth, the finance minister or the Prime
Minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the statements I made the other day stand. The statements made by
the Prime Minister today stand. The statements made by the
Deputy Prime Minister stand.
The government speaks with one voice. The issue is how many
voices does the Reform Party speak with?
(1440)
Let us talk about the substance of the issue. While the Reform
Party plays its little games, the Canadian people are out there
speaking. Who supports what the government has done? The
Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Retail Council of
Canada, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian
Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian Automobile
Dealers Association, and more to come in the supplementary.
The Speaker: My colleague, may I gently caution you that the
use of the word ``bribe'' when you use it government to govern-
1958
ment is close but we must not use the word ``bribe'' when
describing one member's actions toward anyone else.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
are a lot of different stories over there. I suggest there is a major
Liberal fib fest happening right now. If this whole issue is called
harmonization, then I think a lot of Canadians are starting to feel
the Liberals harmonized them real good at the last election.
We know now that the Prime Minister personally told Maude
Barlow in a private meeting before the 1993 election that he
already knew his promise to kill the GST was a sham. Is it Liberal
integrity to say one thing behind closed doors to Liberal insiders
and to say the complete opposite in order to get elected?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
never has a more cruel blow been imposed on Maude Barlow than
to be cited by a Reformer.
Rather than go on, I will read the list of support at another time.
Allow me to take the hon. member through the work we went
through before coming to this solution.
When we were in opposition we looked at a series of
alternatives. There are a number of people here who supported a
business transfer tax. I myself publicly supported a personal
expenditure tax. Once we came into office the finance committee
was set up and it looked at a multitude of alternatives.
At the same time, the House may remember we made an offer to
the provinces that would lower the rate and impose a flat tax which
was rejected. There were public debates with the province of
Ontario as to whether it would vacate the field or we would vacate
the field.
This government has left no stone unturned in its seeking of a
better alternative to what we have come up with. In the end we
came up with the alternative that we felt was the best thing for the
Canadian people, public policy and job creation. We are proud of
what we have done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of Indian affairs.
The Mohawk community of Kanesatake, which elected James
Gabriel as acting Grand Chief to replace Jerry Peltier, is now about
to hold an election and correct the appalling economic situation
caused in large part by Mr. Peltier. Unfortunately, the government's
confused and indecisive attitude is not helping them.
Having recognized James Gabriel as Mohawk negotiator for land
claims, can the minister confirm to the Kanesatake community that
he is finally ready to acknowledge the results of the February 28
election and to recognize Mr. Gabriel as acting Grand Chief of the
Mohawk community of Kanesatake?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered this
question once already.
As the hon. member knows, in that First Nation, right now there
are two people who purport to be chief. The first, Mr. Peltier, was
elected. We spent almost $50,000 to have a reputable consulting
firm come into Kanesatake for a three year period. The second
person, Mr. Gabriel, referred to by the hon. member went in by
petition supposedly a couple of months ago. At this stage I have to
get some direction from justice. We may not even have the
authority to remove Mr. Peltier.
(1445)
It was said from the meeting that he had resigned. This is not
correct. He sent me a letter saying he is still the chief. In fact until it
is sorted out either in the court or hopefully by the people in the
community, there are two chiefs in Kanesatake.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I fail to
understand the minister's attitude. Why does the minister refuse to
recognize the legitimacy of James Gabriel's election, when his
colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, does so in an April 17 letter
to Grand Chief Gabriel? Even the Deputy Prime Minister
recognizes him. Why does the minister in charge of this matter not
recognize him, too?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Bloc is
applauding what in a sense is a tragedy.
Mr. Gabriel writes to the Deputy Prime Minister and purports to
be the chief. Her staff prepares a letter responding to him as the
chief. That does not change what I have just said in this House
today or what I said in the House several months ago.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
As the exercise of reducing the size of the public service
continues, accommodating those wishing to take advantage of
early retirement and those seeking alternative employment
becomes more daunting.
Can the minister assure members, and more important, our
dedicated public servants that the government will remain vigilant
1959
in giving local managers the flexibility they need to manage the
transition in as creative and fair a fashion as possible?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
put in place a range of adjustment tools such as the early retirement
incentive, which provides a waiver of pension penalties for public
service employees who are 50 and over with 10 years of service,
and the early departure incentive, which facilitates through cash
incentives the voluntary departure of employees in those
departments which have been hardest hit by expenditure
reductions.
We have also established joint adjustment committees across the
country in partnership with the unions. We have implemented a
policy of alternates which permits a number of people who want to
keep their jobs to change jobs with people who want to leave the
public service.
All in all, we have put into place a lot of measures which
indicates that we want the downsizing to be done in a fair and
equitable manner. Everybody has recognized this is what has
happened.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister must have left off of his list of support the
provinces of B.C., Ontario and Alberta. I guess he just missed
them.
I would like the government to listen to what the Atlantic
Canadian business community is saying about the finance
minister's attempt to create harmony in the tax system. He must
have missed these quotes as well. Ernst & Young: ``There is a
quagmire here''. The Canadian Federation of Independent
Business: ``You are better off leaving the stupid thing alone''. That
is a good quote.
My question is for the Prime Minister. If this is such a good deal
for Atlantic Canada, Mr. Prime Minister, why does section 12 of
the agreement allow for an increase in provincial taxes after the
government's bribe money runs out?
The Speaker: Again, my colleague, would you withdraw the
word ``bribe'' please.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I withdraw the word ``bribe'',
Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Does the right hon. Prime Minister want to
answer? A supplementary, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary. They did not answer the first question so I will go
to a supplementary.
The finance minister on a talk show this morning said he was
bailing out Atlantic Canada. That bailout is about $1 billion. That is
$1 billion this country has to borrow in effect.
(1450 )
This government has a deepening problem with misrepresenting
the facts. Will the finance minister or the Prime Minister come
clean and admit the truth that what they are really doing is bailing
out the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and all those
Liberals who were elected under false promises?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurentides.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
On April 18, representatives of Canada signed an agreement
with Russia allowing Canada to begin importing plutonium, a
highly radioactive substance, for use as a fuel, for one thing, in
Candu reactors, which in fact the government intends to sell
increasingly outside the country.
Would the Prime Minister not agree that importing plutonium
originating in Russia is an extremely dangerous business, given the
enormous health and environmental risks associated with the
processing and handling of this highly unstable material?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we accepted the invitation from the Americans and the
Russians to see whether we could use up their surplus plutonium,
because they are about to dismantle missiles, which leaves
plutonium to dispose of.
As illegal trade in this element is also very dangerous, they have
asked us if we could consider using up the plutonium to get rid of
it. We replied that if we can do so safely, without damaging the
ecology or creating health problems for anyone, that would be a
contribution that Canada could make towards peace. Because if the
plutonium is gone, then there is no longer a risk of it being traded
illegally, among other things.
We therefore agreed to do a feasibility study. We are also told
that, in the form of MOX fuel, it can be transported with no risk.
We are now conducting studies, and if it is completely safe, of
course, we will be prepared to help with dismantling the missiles,
thus reducing the risk of nuclear war.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is sad
to note that the tokamak installation, specializing in research into
pollution-free energy, is about to be closed, while plans are being
made to import plutonium, a material that is highly dangerous to
health and the environment.
1960
Given that Canada already has problems getting rid of its
nuclear waste safely, does the Prime Minister realize that by
importing plutonium, he is solving nothing, and that, on the
contrary, he will worsen the problem of getting rid of nuclear
waste in Canada, which poses a real danger to the public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we want is to get rid of the plutonium. We want to
see it used up, and we will see if it is possible.
The Americans and the Russians came to us because we have
developed a unique technology, the Candu reactor. Other
experiments will be done in other countries. However, since Candu
uses heavy water and natural uranium, this system would be the
best to get rid of the plutonium.
Obviously, if this cannot be done safely, without damage to the
environment, it will certainly not be done, but we agreed to study
the possibility. If we can do it, the Americans and the Russians
would be very happy. In fact, the Americans are ready to pay us to
dispose of it. But if we cannot do so safely, with no harm to the
ecology, we will not go ahead.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the GST
fiasco has left a sour taste in the mouths of Canadians who now feel
betrayed by the government. The promise to scrap the GST was a
cynical purposeful campaign trick. I am concerned that the next
betrayal is looming on the horizon for seniors who will soon be
facing massive cuts to the Canada pension plan.
(1455 )
Will the Minister of Finance admit that there is simply no way to
secure the future of the Canada pension plan without taking another
5 per cent or 10 per cent of workers' incomes or radically cutting
benefits to seniors? Is his promise to protect seniors and taxpayers
as hollow as his promise on the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
two alternative options are being presented to Canadians in terms
of the Canada pension plan.
There is that put forward by the members of the Reform Party
which is to effectively abolish the Canada pension plan and turn it
into a super RRSP. That would result in pensions for the wealthiest
in the country and no pensions for the poor. We categorically
rejected that option.
At the present time a federal-provincial commission is travelling
across the country examining ways in which the Canada pension
plan can be kept whole.
The Canada pension plan obviously requires modification.
However it is not in danger despite the cataclysmic declarations of
the Reform Party. Yes, there may well be increases in premiums
and there may well be changes in benefits. However, the fact is that
this government, and I also believe all of the provincial
governments and the territories can assure young Canadians that
the Canada pension plan will be there for them.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, every time
their policies are completely indefensible, the Liberals turn around
and attack Reform.
The only member of this House on the commission, who
happens to be a Liberal member, is on record as saying that Canada
pension plan premiums will have to be doubled to maintain the
CPP. I think it is the government's intention to lead the citizens of
Canada up the garden path and into the rose garden before the
election and leave them in the stinkweed after the election, just like
it did with the GST.
I would like the Minister of Finance to confirm that we are
talking massive changes to the premiums or massive cuts to CPP
benefits.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the chief actuary has already stated that because previous
governments going back a decade did not take proper action on the
CPP, by the year 2030 if nothing is done, the premiums might well
have to rise to 14 per cent or 15 per cent. It is precisely to avoid that
tremendous burden which would be placed on payrolls that this
government has taken early action. While there will be an increase
in such premiums, it will not be of the kind projected by the chief
actuary.
On the earlier point, I apologize to the hon. member for
comparing our policies to his, but every time we do it we look so
good it is very hard to resist.
* * *
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week the Minister of National Revenue introduced 100
improvements to the sales tax system.
The notional sales tax as it applies to car sales has caused much
confusion, problems and a real sense that it is unfair. How will the
minister's sales tax changes correct this longstanding irritant to
Canadian car buyers?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Huron-Bruce raised two very
important points.
First, he recognizes that the government has just tabled a ways
and means bill that presents to the Canadian public 100 proposals
for improvements to the GST. That speaks directly to the concerns
of the Canadian public.
Second, he asked specifically about the notional import tax
credit, which is the way the tax has been collected on used cars. It
has been so complex, so confusing, so frustrating for the Canadian
public that we have changed it. From now on when a Canadian
buys a new car and has a trade-in, GST will be paid on the
difference only. That makes sense. It speaks directly to the
1961
concerns of Canadians. It is proof that the government is
committed to replacing the GST with a tax that is fairer to
consumers.
(1500)
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance has said harmonization of the PST and GST in
the Atlantic provinces will expand exports and create jobs. He did
omit bring back the cod, but it was pretty close.
The minister will recall that during the GST debate the
government of the day tabled a number of documents
substantiating its claims.
Will the minister today table the studies that substantiate his
contention that exports will rise as a result of harmonization and
that jobs will expand?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am certainly prepared to make available to the hon. member the
studies that will show what happens when one reduces the cost to
business.
Jim Moore of the Canadian Exporters Association, one of the
experts in the field, said: ``Obviously it could [create jobs] when
you are competing at a level where a 1 per cent difference on a
product can make the difference between a sale and a non-sale''.
He is basically saying it will increase our exports.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the
Canadian Manufacturers Association say harmonization will
enhance competitiveness for manufacturers and exporters as well
as create a simpler and more efficient tax system.
The bottom line from the CMA is: ``The net result of these
changes will be more jobs and an overall increase in investment
and business activity''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, the parliamentary
secretary, if he would be so kind as to tell the House what the
business for the coming week will be.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today and tomorrow we will continue debate on second reading of
Bill C-31, the budget implementation bill.
Bill C-12, the employment insurance bill, will be reported from
committee shortly, and by the end of next week we will commence
the report stage.
Monday shall be an allotted day. Since the table requires that this
be confirmed by a minister of the crown, the secretary of state for
aquaculture will want to confirm this.
I shall be in touch with members opposite concerning the
schedule between the allotted day and the commencement of Bill
C-12.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
confirm that Monday shall be an allotted day.
_____________________________________________
1961
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31,
an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on March 6, 1996, be read the second time and referred
to a committee, and on the amendment.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I quote
from the speech of the Minister of Finance on March 6, 1996 to the
House:
What Canadians want is action and they want to see real progress. These are
the standards that Canadians have set.
Seldom in our history have so many people experienced so much anxiety.
Canadians feel our very way of life is at risk.
They look at medicare and feel that it is threatened. They look at the pension
system and wonder if it will be there in years to come. They consider the
economy and worry that gale force winds of competition and change will carry
away their jobs. Canadians think about their future, our youth, and ask what
kind of opportunities will be left for them.
(1505)
These are the damning words of the Minister of Finance to the
House, from a government that has been in power now for two and
a half years. Obviously the government does not have the answers,
period.
The hon. member for Etobicoke North confirmed these issues
when he talked about unemployment and said we do not have
answers. He talked about the various issues of concern of
Canadians and continued to repeat the government line.
Unfortunately when we listen to the government line it does not
have answers.
These things are important to Canadians. I quote from page 8 of
the budget speech:
It is our view that chronic deficits constitute a clear and present danger to this
country-to our way of life and to our future.
1962
Chronic deficits put the disadvantaged at risk, because it is they who suffer
when the financial strength of government is so weak it can no longer reach out to
those in need.
Members may have noticed that in question period a few
minutes ago I asked a question of the Minister of Finance to bring
to the attention of all Canadians that the Canada pension plan is
seriously at risk. That was acknowledged by a minister in his
budget speech:
First, the CPP must be put on a sound financial footing-and done so in a way
that is sustainable, affordable and fair.
In the House we saw the Deputy Prime Minister stand and say
how she is committed to standing behind seniors and the Canada
pension plan. We have asked questions of the Minister of Human
Resources Development and he has stood up in the House and said
they stand four-square behind seniors. We have heard the Minister
of Finance repeat the same rhetoric.
When we look at the public accounts, page 1.16, we find the
government has no liability, commitment or responsibility to pay
seniors on Canada pension plan beyond the money already in the
bank.
This concerns me because the government has misled Canadians
on the GST with rhetoric from the Deputy Prime Minister and
others which has so often been pointed out in the House: ``We will
scrap the GST. We will get rid of the GST''. When we ask them to
deliver on their commitment they picked up a thing called the red
book, and I believe it is page 22 that the Prime Minister has so
frequently referred to. He says it was always that they would
harmonize, replace and change, and with some smoke and mirrors
give us something else that will cost us more.
I am concerned for seniors because while the government said
one thing before the election, it was a different thing after. While it
held up the promise of improvement before the election, it hit
people over the head with the continued GST and higher taxes after
the election. I see the same thing looming once more for the
Canada pension plan. The numbers are quite simple. The numbers
are huge but they are simple.
The Liberal member who is on the tour on the Canada pension
plan is on record as saying Canada pension plan contributions
should double and double soon, so we will not contribute 5 per cent
of our income, we will contribute 10 per cent, double. We will be
paying 5 per cent more into the Canada pension plan in order to
protect seniors and they way they are currently receiving Canada
pension.
I do not think that it is strictly a case of increasing payments to
maintain payments to seniors. I think there will be a trade-off here
and we will see increased payments and at the same time there will
be a decrease in benefits.
(1510)
That is the point I want Canadians to be aware of while the
Minister of Finance keeps using euphemisms: ``We will fix the
Canada pension plan. The Canada pension plan is in a little trouble.
Maybe we will make a little increase in the payments and adjust the
payments to the beneficiaries''.
There will be a massive increase in payments. There could very
well be a massive decrease in benefits. The sooner the Minister of
Finance says that and gets it out in the public domain for people to
decide the way they want to go the better.
I have a real fear that from now until the next election we will
see these little euphemisms: ``We will fix it. We need to have a
little more cash in the kitty. We may have to tinker a little with the
benefits''.
The point is after the next election when the Liberals think they
will be firmly ensconced on that side once more, they will drop a
big hammer on the heads of Canadians, just as they have done on
the GST where they dropped a hammer on Canadians again and
said ``no relief from taxation, pay the GST forever more''.
We will see the same thing with the Canada pension. We will see
huge increases in payments. We will see great decreases in benefits
after the election, and that is my concern. I want to get Canadians
thinking about these things now. I want them to think about them
before the next election and ask the government what it really
intends to do because these euphemisms will lead people into
thinking the government has it right when the government has it
wrong.
Part of the budget implementation rules and regulations being
brought forward in this bill give me some cause for concern also.
The bill intends to amend the Financial Administration Act, which
would provide for the termination of employment in certain cases
where government services are being transferred.
I do not really have a problem with the termination of
employment of the civil service where we are maybe transferring
programs to the private sector. It does not concern me. It happens
all the time. People in the private sector change jobs all the time.
What does concern me is the way the government plays fast and
loose with Canadian taxpayer money. Take a look at Nav Canada.
Nav Canada is some new hybrid. The Liberals call it privatization
but it is a not for profit monopoly with virtual taxation powers they
have created. They have hived it off from government balance
sheets and government records. They have created this new entity,
Nav Canada.
I think it is unique in Canadian corporate history because I have
never heard of a not for profit enterprise that has billions of dollars
1963
in revenue. When you can go to money markets and borrow $3
billion and still call it not for profit I have a problem with that.
I also have a problem with the way the government was able to
manage the transfer of employees off the rolls of the civil service
and on to the Nav Canada payroll. Somehow while these people
were working on Friday, they kept their job, the same desk, the
same telephone number, the same pencil on Monday morning.
While there may be a new name on the paycheque they get at the
end of the month, somehow we said they have lost their job and
they are entitled to severance pay. We gave the people in the
organization $200 million in severance pay and nobody lost their
job.
I scratched my head. You work on Friday, you work on Monday,
same desk, same telephone number, same pencil, same job, same
everything, but you got laid off? There was $200 million in
taxpayer money to recognize you got laid off and it does not seem
to fit.
We are now to institutionalize that or put it into legislation,
saying that is the way we want to do it. That is the least of my
problems with regard to this bill.
(1515 )
The bill goes on to say: ``In addition, amendments to that act
would provide for exceptions to appropriations so that the unused
portion of funds appropriated by Parliament does not lapse at the
end of one year''.
What is this? Is it that appropriations are no longer going to lapse
at the end of a year? Is that what the bill states? I thought the whole
parliamentary tradition was that this House appropriated funds for
a department and said: ``This is the money you are going to get for
one year and if it is not spent then it is not spent and if you need
more for next year you come back to this House and ask for it''.
The Liberals have now sneaked in some legislation which states:
``the unused portion appropriated by Parliament will not lapse at
the end of a year''. This House is losing control of the government.
The government has lost control of the management of the country.
I cannot understand why we do not have a full debate on that one
issue alone. However, what do we find? Closure.
This bill was introduced yesterday. We have closure today. We
vote on it tomorrow and it becomes law on Monday morning.
In the bill we find the tradition of hundreds of years of
Parliament having control over the government out the window
without even a mention.
This government is trampling on the rights of this House. It is
trampling on democracy when it thinks it is going to slip a few
lines into this bill to eliminate the lapsing of funds so that it has to
come back to this House every year for the money it needs to run
the government.
The bill continues on: ``As part of the restructuring of the public
service, successor rights in the form of continued collective
agreements and union representations will be introduced'', and so
on. The Liberals are going to legislate rather than negotiate with
the unions on how they are going to handle the transfer of civil
servants into the private sector. I put the private sector in quotation
marks because NavCan, by no stretch of the imagination, can be
considered private sector. It is a not for profit monopoly with
virtual taxation powers. All the government has done is taken it off
the balance sheet and off the expenditure side of the government.
No doubt the Minister of Finance is going to stand up here next
year and boast about how expenditures of government have come
down when all that he has done is drawn a line between the air
navigation and said that it is no longer part of government and no
longer part of its expenditures, even though we are still paying for
it. He is also going to boast about how he is containing government
expenditures. The point is that he is not. We have seen it time and
time again as he manipulates the numbers and calls it a success.
The President of the Treasury Board, every quarter, brings out a
booklet telling us how he has met his target of reductions in the
civil service. I know that in the next quarter the President of the
Treasury Board is going to stand up in this House and boast about
how he has once more met his target of reducing the civil service.
However, 6,500 of this reduction just moved over into NavCan.
Nobody lost his or her job. This is the type of smoke and mirrors
that we get from this government. This is what Canadians need to
know about because I do not think they really appreciate being led
down the garden path in this way.
The bill continues: ``Amendments to the Public Service
Superannuation Act would facilitate the portability of pension
values on an individual and a group basis and provide flexibility for
the extension or termination of coverage of an entity and its
employees under the act''.
Maybe there should be portability. I think we should have some
portability of all pensions. Careers are changing rapidly and many
Canadians are changing jobs more frequently. It is important that
this government address the important issue of portability of
pensions in the private sector.
(1520 )
However, it has demonstrated no desire to help people in the
private sector and every desire to legislate things for its own
benefit. By introducing under the Public Service Superannuation
Act portability of pensions allows the government to take large
chunks of the cash sitting in the public service superannuation fund
and set up a pre-funded pension plan for the NavCan employees so
that their pension plan can continue unabated.
1964
Canadians out in the private sector who lose their jobs on Friday
afternoon have to go out on Monday morning and find a job. After
months of searching they find that there is no portability of their
pension.
These are the types of social issues that the government should
be dealing with rather than the smoke and mirrors of legislation to
allow it to bully the unions, to bully the civil servants and create
these fictitious types of situations regarding the downsizing of the
government.
As I said, there is a much bigger issue concerning the pensions. I
would have thought the government would have wanted to address
it. It has not. The Minister of Finance has not. Everything has
always been focused on what can the government do to let
Canadians think it is addressing the issue when in fact it is not.
Bill C-31 was introduced yesterday. The government moved
closure on it today. How are we as parliamentarians and how are
Canadians able to join in a debate about the finances of this
country, about the management of this country, about the way the
government tries to run this country when closure is invoked after
one day? On the budget the Liberals threw out one of their own
because he stood up and voted against the government. Now they
are not prepared to even entertain debate by anyone in this House.
Otherwise we might find embarrassing problems that are buried in
this legislation. That is despicable.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
St. Albert is the Treasury Board critic and I thank him for his
presentation.
Since I have entered this House I have been disappointed with
members on all sides when they say things just for the sake of
saying them without any substance. I have had many discussions
with the member for St. Albert. He is a fiscal manager. I wonder
how he would do some of the things that are being done at Treasury
Board.
I will refer to a couple of things that the member spoke about. He
spoke about appropriations. We have this form as members of
Parliament. The Treasury Board brought that in awhile ago because
members had a way of rushing out and spending a whole lot of
money at the end of the year.
Whenever projects are started they do not begin and end at a
fiscal time. We are trying to be innovative. We are trying to get
government right. There is no way we are not going to have value
for dollar. That is the reason that there are appropriations.
The member talked about NavCan. He said these people still
have their jobs after we said we would get rid of jobs. I ask him
what he would rather do. This department is so important that it is
an essential service. It has to do with people coming into the
country in aircraft. Even when they are problems with labour, they
cannot strike because it becomes very dangerous. During strikes
they have to be there in case there are emergencies. There are a lot
of emergencies in the air with aircraft flying over a country with
military operations and so on. So NavCan is extremely important.
It was a great negotiated policy of the government. It has been
moved out of the government to an agency that is going to do a
better job. The hon. member said that small business could do a
good job.
(1525 )
He said that we brought in measures in the legislation on which
we will not negotiate. I want to say to the member that we
absolutely want to negotiate. However, we certainly do not want a
final arbitrator which will take the monetary commitment away
from this legislative body.
We are being fiscally responsible. If he were in our place he
certainly would not want to bring someone in from left field to
make a wage settlement which the Government of Canada would
have no alternative but to accept.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were going to hear real
explanations for the problems I raised in this bill.
He started off by asking what I would do as the treasury board
critic. The first thing I would not do is introduce closure on the bill
the day after it was introduced. These issues need to be debated.
That is what we are here for. That is what the government is
stopping.
He tells us about this great and wonderful negotiated thing called
NavCan. Yesterday afternoon in the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts, the Auditor General of Canada, an officer of this House,
expressed grave and serious reservations about the accountability
of NavCan. It has been hived off into some kind of not for profit
institution. It is not a crown corporation. It is some new hybrid and
we do not know exactly what it is. The Auditor General of Canada,
our watchdog on the finances of the country, has been shut out. He
does not have the authority to look at NavCan. Neither has anybody
else been given the authority to look at NavCan from an
accountability point of view. If the auditor general, who is an
officer of the House, is concerned, the House should be concerned.
That is the type of thing which the government is pushing
through without any debate. That is why I am concerned.
NavCan is a disgrace of management. I am not talking about the
employees. Unfortunately they are pawns. They were not even
given a say. The government stood up one day and made an
announcement that it was going to hive NavCan off and make it a
not for profit agency. It is a billion dollar not for profit agency. The
government turned around and told NavCan: ``Go out to the open
market, borrow $3 billion and give the government $1.5 billion to
buy these assets''. Then the Minister of Finance can say: ``Look
1965
how the deficit is coming down. I have another $1.5 billion in cash
from NavCan''.
Accountability is the word. There is no accountability in what
the government is doing. It is time it realized that Canadians will
not put up with it.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the
hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the 1996 budget follows through on the
government's commitment to reduce the deficit in a sustained
fashion. However, we should not forget that balancing the budget
must never be the sole objective.
Improving public finances should always be a means to reach the
greater goal of lowering interest rates, creating jobs and ensuring
Canada's prosperity and future. It must also allow us to continue to
work on other priorities and issues which are dear to Canadians.
It goes without saying that one of the top priorities is to maintain
Canada's social program network. These programs have made
Canada one of the most envied countries in the world. To reach that
goal, as the Prime Minister promised, we must propose a long term
funding framework for health services and social programs that
will grow, while also being stable, predictable and sustainable. To
that end, the 1996 budget provides for the setting up, over a period
of five years, of a funding framework for the Canada health and
social transfer.
This transfer, which was introduced in the 1995 budget, is the
most important federal initiative to provide financial assistance to
the provinces regarding health care, post-secondary education and
social assistance.
(1530)
Under the Canada health and social transfer, provinces enjoy
increased flexibility in designing and managing their own
programs, while medicare and other social measures are being
preserved.
Since these transfers to the provinces represent a sizeable
proportion of total federal spending, we cannot improve public
finances without reducing them, as we did in the case of all other
expenditure items. This is why funding will be reduced in 1996-97
and in 1997-98.
Following consultations with the provinces, the 1996 budget
now expands the scope of the Canada health and social transfer,
which will not undergo additional cuts. We have established a five
year funding mechanism under which transfers will increase and
the cash portion will be stabilized, to eventually increase over the
years.
It is important to note that federal equalization payments to the
poorest provinces, which also help fund social programs, will keep
on increasing. The new mechanism is based on four fundamental
principles: maintaining health care and social programs;
re-establishing the increase in transfer payments and stabilizing the
cash portion; guaranteeing stable and foreseeable funding to the
provinces; providing the provinces with more comparable funding.
Our action plan takes these principles into account. Allow me to
review its main proposed elements. The funding level for the
CHST announced last year for 1996-97 and 1997-98 will remain
stable, which means that appropriations will amount to $25.1
billion in 1997-98 and will be made up of tax points and cash in
roughly equal proportion.
The 1996 budget provides for five year legislated funding of the
CHST over fiscals 1998-99 to 2002-03.
During the first two years of the implementation of the new
mechanism, appropriations will remain at $25.1 billion. Since the
provinces' tax points will increase, the cash portion paid by the
federal government will decrease somewhat. However, total
funding, cash and tax points combined, will remain stable. It is
obvious that as a result of the CHST, global entitlements will never
diminish. Funding will not be cut.
In fact, during the three last years of this framework, total
transfer entitlements will grow each and every year at an increasing
rate, according to a formula tied to economic growth. This means
that, by the end of the five-year period, overall CHST entitlements
should exceed those of 1997-98 by $2.3 billion. For the first time
since the reduction plan was initiated in the mid-1980s, a federal
government will be taking steps to make these transfers grow
faster.
Moreover, under this framework, the cash portion of the CHST is
guaranteed never to fall below $11 billion. In fact, by the end of the
five-year period, it should begin to grow. For greater safety, the
cash floor within the transfer will be guaranteed by legislation to
make absolutely sure that cash transfers will never be under $11
billion during this time frame.
The budget also provides for a new allocation scheme reducing
disparities caused for a large part by the ceiling imposed by the
Conservatives to tranfers to three provinces under the Canada
assistance plan.
Finally, the new allocation scheme will be implemented
gradually over five years. In theory, each province's entitlement
will be adjusted periodically based on its share of the CHST and its
relative demographic weight within the country. By the year
2002-03, any disparity in per capita financing will have been
reduced by half.
Of course, this is a compromise solution and no single allocation
scheme will satisfy all the provinces. We believe however that this
is a reasonable compromise and that the five-year phasing in of the
1966
new allocation scheme will give provinces a chance to adjust and to
plan with greater certainty.
To conclude, budget proposals regarding the CHST clearly show
that the federal government is doing its share to ensure the future of
the Canadian health system and social security net and to build a
renewed social and economic union. The provinces will continue to
decide how they want to allocate federal transfers between these
priorities.
Finally, the government is taking steps to ensure that social
programs remain within the financial capability of the nation and
meet the needs of Canadians in the future.
(1535)
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the 1996 budget has and continues to meet the
government's commitment to sustain deficit reduction on the way
to a future balanced budget, but a balanced budget alone must
never be the only goal of our wonderful country, Canada.
Our government is fundamentally responsible for setting a stage,
one which provides a model for the Canadian people. Our
government is here to establish a neutral framework within which
all Canadians can work and prosper. This framework is represented
by the 1996 budget in its current implementation. There is no
question it is difficult to establish a framework which is fair, equal,
democratic and neutral and which at the same time ensures that all
Canadians will see the framework in the same light.
Our government has successfully created a plan which will
encompass job creation and progressive changes to old age
security, to Canada student loans and the Canada health and social
transfer. Today I will focus on the CHST and the progressive
changes it marks for Canadians, demonstrating the fundamental
responsibility of this government to establish a fair and equitable
framework for all Canadians to grow, to prosper and to work
together.
Fiscal progress should always be a means to greater public ends,
to lower interest rates, to more jobs and to a more prosperous and
secure future for Canada. Canadians must be allowed to move
forward on issues that are important to them instead of being held
back by fundamental requirements needed to maintain the basic
standard of living. Canadians want to be successful both on the
domestic home front and the international stage.
In order to establish this level of financial success while
maintaining public prosperity, it is necessary to follow the
established plans for economic recovery. Those plans are included
in the 1994, 1995 and 1996 budgets. They are tailored to result in
the domestic comfort and confidence levels necessary to build a
foundation for continued export and international growth.
Clearly, one of the highest priorities for the Canadian
government, needed to fulfil domestic prosperity, is to preserve
Canada's network of social programs. These programs have helped
to establish Canada as one of the most envied nations in the world.
To ensure their continued success, the Prime Minister has promised
to provide for health and social programs long term funding
arrangements that are growing, stable, predictable and sustainable.
The 1996 budget advances this promise in a new five year
arrangement for the CHST.
This arrangement dictates that there will be no cuts in
entitlements to the provinces. In fact, the entitlements will increase
in a few years. The CHST will be stabilized at the 1998-99 levels
for another two years and then will begin to grow. There will be no
cuts in the CHST beyond those announced in last year's budget. By
providing predictable funding, the government is demonstrating its
commitment to safeguarding health care and other social programs.
(1540 )
When the CHST begins to grow in 2000-01, federal transfers
will then increase for the first time since the mid-1980s. Over the
years 1998-99 to 2002-03 the federal government will transfer
nearly $130 billion to the provinces.
We established the CHST in last year's budget to fund health,
post-secondary education and social assistance. It is true that we
cut the transfer payments in that budget. Overall transfers to the
provinces were cut by an average of 4.4 per cent in 1996-97. That
was much lower however than the average of 7.3 per cent in cuts
we made to our own federal programs. We had no choice but to cut
transfers after inheriting a huge deficit and debt from the previous
administration.
Cash transfers alone represented well over 20 per cent of all
federal program spending. They had to be included in our deficit
reduction plan. At the same time, we have given the provinces the
increased flexibility they were asking for in order to design
programs that meet their own needs. It is important to note that the
federal equalization payments to less affluent provinces which also
support social programs will continue to grow.
It is also important to note the four key objectives of the CHST
arrangement: to safeguard medicare and social programs; to return
to growth in transfers and stabilize the cash component of the
transfers; to restore stability and predictability for provincial
governments; and to provide the provinces with a more comparable
funding support program.
Transfers to the provinces make up nearly one-quarter of federal
program spending. In no way could the CHST be exempt from
expenditure restraint. Over all, reductions will amount to less than
1967
3 per cent of provincial revenues. The provinces will be able to
absorb the impact as most have or are near balanced budgets.
New Brunswick for example is a province strong and successful
in its financial position, with the riding of Carleton-Charlotte
contributing significantly to the overall success prevalent in New
Brunswick. My riding of Carleton-Charlotte is vast in geography,
rural in nature but extremely industrially progressive.
Carleton-Charlotte is a riding which stood tall during the tough
economic times that were witnessed in recent years. It has managed
not only to maintain its industry but has also managed to expand in
many areas. There are also many successful industries in
Carleton-Charlotte and I would not attempt to start naming them.
However, I do believe this riding certainly deserves to be
commended on a job well done.
Carleton-Charlotte is a community, a riding that could easily
provide a framework model for the success that can be achieved by
people when they work together to maintain domestic stability and
then expand outward. This domestic stability, providing a
foundation for international recognition and expansion is what all
Canadians can work toward together as one large community.
The model or framework the 1996 budget presents is simply a
larger model of what has been accomplished in
Carleton-Charlotte and exemplifies the role of what a government
should aim to accomplish.
This government has not placed exploitation or suppression in
the hierarchy. Instead it has supplied Canadians with a neutral
model to expand and prosper.
(1545)
I commend this government for maintaining its focus on
domestic prosperity and for providing a greater means to public
ends through the new and revised plan for the Canada health and
social transfer and through the confidence that has been building in
Carleton-Charlotte and across Canada. This confidence has
resulted from this budget and the past two budgets of this
government in addition to the measures taken to get our financial
House in order for the first time in many, many years.
This is why I am pleased and proud today to support Bill C-31,
the budget implementation act, 1996.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
rhetoric goes on and on about all the confidence Canadians have. I
have been doing a lot of travelling around Canada in the last few
months. I wish I could assure everyone that the confidence is there
but it is not.
One of the reasons it is not there is that there is one thing which
never seems to be mentioned on that side of the House: the huge
debt and the interest costs in servicing that debt. It is pretty obvious
to everyone that is the biggest threat to our social programs and the
future of our country. It rests totally in what we are going to do
about that huge debt as it grows and grows and grows.
I have listened to the finance minister and he does not talk about
it. I have listened to the Prime Minister and he does not talk about
it. All the speeches I have heard from that side of the House never
talk about what Canadians perceive to be a very major problem: the
huge growing debt and the interest payments to service that debt
which have now become the largest expense the government has.
Why does the hon. member not address the debt and the interest
on it? What are we going to do about that? Why have none of his
colleagues addressed this? Have they been ordered not to talk about
it? Why do they not bring it into their speeches? Is that why there is
closure after only one day? Is it so no one else will have the
opportunity to mention this country's major problem?
I would like somebody on that side of the House to explain to me
when a deficit figure goes down at one rate and an interest figure
goes up at another rate, just exactly who are they trying to fool
when they talk about all the savings they are bringing in and that
they are going to meet their targets and all the problems are going
to be solved? I think they are leading Canadians astray and I wish
somebody would address the debt and the interest that is growing
daily and what they are going to do about it. The only thing I can
suggest is a zero budget and I have not heard anything about that.
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Speaker, first of all I thank my hon. colleague
from Wild Rose for his comments and his questions. We will
certainly try to do our best to answer them.
When this government assumed power it inherited a $500 billion
plus debt, a $42 billion deficit and a $6 billion deficit in the
unemployment insurance fund. It was extremely difficult but this
government took its responsibility and it set goals. It set goals that
created a challenge, goals that were achievable even though they
were challenging. We are meeting those goals. For the first time in
many, many years in this country goals are being met.
The hon. member mentioned confidence. Yes, confidence. That
confidence encouraged the new company CANUSA two weeks ago
to make an official announcement in Centreville, New Brunswick
in my riding that it was developing and constructing a new plant. It
will create 25 new jobs directly, indirectly a number during
construction, and more indirectly in transportation and other areas.
(1550 )
It is the same confidence that encouraged McCain Foods two
weeks ago to announce doubling the size of its data processing
department in Florenceville, New Brunswick in my riding.
Between 30 and 50 new jobs will be there for the people of my area.
1968
Sabian cymbals in Meductic, New Brunswick again in my riding
moved across the road a couple of weeks ago to its new expanded
modern technological plant, with an additional 12 to 15 new jobs
created as a result.
Briggs and Little woollen mills of York Mills in my constituency
suffered a terrible fire in the fall of 1994 and has recently
reconstructed its plant. Without confidence would these business
people have made these decisions? I think not. They are confident.
They will continue to be confident which will boost our economy
and create future jobs.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise today to speak to Bill
C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on March 6, 1996.
It is always interesting to criticize the budget tabled by the
government and especially by the Minister of Finance. Even more
so in the case of this year's budget, which shows how easy it is to
mislead the public on the government's real intentions. My
colleagues and myself have said it many times: this year's budget is
essentially cosmetic. Under the make-up, however, one can see
things for what they really are.
Bill C-31 is the opportunity the government was waiting for so it
could sneak through a series of unpopular, highly controversial
measures. I will get back to the public's reaction later.
A few weeks ago, the Minister of Finance brought down a budget
without any concrete measures, a budget designed to sweeten the
pill so that people will be more receptive to the reform of social
programs. But it is the measures proposed in Bill C-31 that will
have a real budget impact.
Through this bill, the government wants to implement, among
other things, the so-called GST reform-to which I will also get
back-and to sneak through UI measures that were originally
supposed to be part of Bill C-12 now in committee.
Among other things, Bill C-31 allows the government to go
ahead with the transfer of public service employees to the private
sector as part of the restructuring of the public service and the
privatization of certain services and to dispose of railway
equipment. In this regard, I noticed a little something in the report
that I would like to quote:
Part II would grant the Minister of Transport the power to dispose of
government-owned railway cars, or rights with respect to the railway cars, that
are used for the purpose of moving grain. It would also provide for an increase
in the maximum rates for movements of grain after at least 10,000 of the railway
cars or rights with respect to at least 10,000 of the railway cars are disposed of.
What this means is that they will dispose of at least 10,000
railway cars. In the last few months, the government has been
selling off ports, airports, railway lines, bridges and railway cars;
everything is up for sale.
Bill C-31 also makes minor amendments to the old age pension
as provided for in the budget. These are not key elements of the
reform, but simply measures affecting access to the old age pension
for recent immigrants.
Bill C-31 implements the reform of Canada social transfer. It
also proposes amendments to make transition easier. I am
confident that many of my colleagues will elaborate on this in their
speeches on Bill C-31.
(1555)
The bill also includes measures seeking to give more flexibility
to the Minister of Industry regarding the issuance of spectrum
licences, that is specified radio frequencies within a defined
geographic area. These measures do give more flexibility to the
minister, but this is nothing new. Since we got here, all the bills
introduced in this House seek to do the same. What we see here, as
in all the bills, is an increasing tendency to centralize power in
Ottawa.
So, the minister will have more flexibility and will be able to use
regulations, instead of having to introduce legislation. The minister
will be able to issue licences through a bidding process, which is
tantamount to an auction.
Bill C-31 also includes an amendment to the Canada Student
Loans Act, as well as a provision allowing the government to spend
$960 million to compensate the maritime provinces regarding the
GST reform. Let me just read the last clause of Bill C-31, that is
clause 64, on page 55:
From and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund there may be paid and
applied a sum not exceeding nine hundred and sixty-one million dollars for
payments to provinces as adjustment assistance for the purpose of facilitating
their participation in an integrated value added tax system.
I read this clause to show that a few lines in an act can have
enormous consequences. This is why I always tell people to read
the Canadian Constitution. We are always told that it is of little
value to certain people. But the fact is that a few lines in an act can
involve the spending of millions of dollars.
I also want to point out something strange. Bill C-31 includes
two things that are also found in Bill C-12, which we are currently
reviewing in committee. Part III of the bill amends the
Unemployment Insurance Act by retroactively reducing maximum
weekly benefits from $445 down to $413. This bill will
retroactively affect the unemployment insurance program, as of
January 1, 1996, which means that people will retroactively be
entitled to less benefits.
In this same Part III of the bill, the maximum weekly insurable
earnings are $750 a week, or $39,000 a year, retroactive to January
1. Unemployment insurance premiums will therefore have to be
1969
paid up to this limit. This provision is found in both C-31 and C-12.
This is something worth noting.
Why is the government trying to include the same provision in
both bills? In fact, there is no escaping that it is because it wants to
have this bill passed as quickly as possible. We saw with two
motions that were presented here today in the House that a gag has
been put on what is being done on C-12 in committee, and also that
time allocation has been brought in with respect to C-31.
Of course, we will do a thorough study of the unemployment
insurance amendments in committee and in the House. For the time
being, I would like to recall the basic positions of the Bloc
Quebecois with regard to unemployment insurance.
First of all, this bill must be withdrawn, and that is what we are
trying to do in committee. It seems that the minister is completely
exasperated with the Bloc's position. I would like to remind the
House that, when the bill introducing the GST was tabled, when the
Conservatives were in power, the present minister tabled 68
amendments. That was on April 3, 1990, not so long ago.
Sixty-eight amendments, and each of these amendments was to
abolish a clause in the bill proposing the creation of the GST.
For example, Motion No. 1 of the present minister of Human
Resources Development on April 3, 1990 read: ``That Bill
C-62-the one introducing the GST-be amended by deleting
clause 1''.
His second motion was ``that Bill C-62 be modified by deleting
clause 2''. In all, there were 68 motions to abolish all of the clauses
of the GST bill. Yet today we are accused of wanting to study each
of the motions of the bill currently in committee properly, and our
time to do so is being restricted.
The proposed reform is inequitable, for the conditions for
eligibility have been made tougher. There will be two classes of
unemployed, regular and frequent users. Third, the reform is
regressive, because there is only one contribution rate and the
insurable earnings limit is dropped to $39,000. Fourth, the reform
is does not promote job creation, for the new contribution structure
encourages capital intensive industries over labour intensive ones.
(1600)
It is understandable that, generally, small and medium size
businesses have described the introduction of these measures as a
direct attack on them, for unemployment insurance contributions
will now be payable from the first dollar earned. Before, the
deductions did not kick in right away, and also the ceiling was
much higher, at $42,000, which brought in those with much higher
earnings. Now the ceilings are being dropped again, and
contributions will be required from the first dollar earned, which
means that small and medium businesses size will be the direct
target, while big businesses, with their high capital, will be getting
allthe perks.
Although these are called pro-employment measures-the act
refers to employment rather than unemployment-we know very
well that, at the very time that companies are making the most
profits they are also making the most cuts. Numerous examples of
layoffs have been reported lately, and I shall list but a few. There
are some thirty in all, but I shall give five or six.
General Motors of Canada declared record profits of $1.39
billion, yet recently it got rid of 2,500 workers. The five biggest
banks in Canada had a combined profit of $4.9 billion, but cut
2,800 staff positions. In 1995, Bell Canada made $502 million in
profits, but reduced its staff by 3,2000 in that same year. I could
continue, for there are about fifteen cases in all. It has long been
proven that, when major employers are given advantages to create
jobs, they create no jobs at all. This reform benefits primarily the
large corporations and not the small and medium businesses, which
create the jobs in both Quebec and the rest of Canada.
We oppose this bill, as well, because the $5 billion surplus in the
unemployment insurance fund, a surplus that belongs, not to the
Government of Canada, but to the workers and employers who
contributed to it, will be used to artificially reduce the debt, which
amounts to a general garnishment of wages.
This document also contains everything on the reform of the
GST. I think there will be a lot of discussion about this in the days
to come. Yesterday morning, the Minister of Finance presented his
reform of the GST. After promising to abolish the goods and
services tax, the Liberal government negotiated an agreement with
three maritime provinces: Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. Under this agreement, it will combine the provincial
sales taxes and the GST into a single national tax. This national tax
will be at the rate of 15 per cent.
Everyone knows that taxation is higher in the maritime
provinces than it is elsewhere. Added together, the provincial tax
and the GST amounted to more than 15 per cent in these provinces.
It is therefore not surprising that they reached an agreement with
the federal government. It is to their advantage to do so. They will
come out ahead on the deal in the short term, as the federal
government is prepared to make up the shortfall of these provinces
from the taxes paid by Quebecers and Canadians by agreeing to pay
out nearly $1 billion in compensation.
Contrary to anything the government might say and to what the
member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle said yesterday, the
Government of Quebec never approved the new national tax before
us today. What the government said, and I want to make this point,
is that it is responsible for its provincial tax and that Quebec may
1970
therefore be more competitive than the other provinces. That is
what was said.
Does the federal government really think that the people of a
province like Alberta, where there is no provincial tax, will accept
such an agreement with it and does it think that the people of
Alberta, Quebec and all the other provinces that have not
concluded an agreement with it will want to pay for the provinces
that have?
This manoeuvre on the part of the federal government not only
makes Quebec and Canadian taxpayers unduly pay for something
they never asked for, but is a deliberate offensive that will
eventually permit Ottawa to take over the collection of all taxes
across Canada. During the last election campaign, Liberals,
including the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime
Minister himself, hung their case on the elimination of the GST,
and got elected on the promise they would get rid of the GST; and
now we have the government proposing a reform which is without
any doubt the most blatant breach of an electoral promise in the
whole parliamentary history of Canada.
Reactions in today's papers, especially in the English press, bear
witness to this fact; nearly all of them point out that the
government, in this matter, is reneging on its election promises. No
matter what is written in the Liberal red book, what is at stake is the
government members' word; the government did promise it would
scrap the GST.
(1605)
Under the law, there is exchange of consent when an individual
signifies expressly or tacitly his or her acceptance of the offer made
by another party. People signified they wanted the GST scrapped.
The Liberals expressly promised to scrap the GST. Perhaps they
would like to see videotapes of the statements they made during
their first election campaign; if need be, we can show them to them.
Any proposal including all the elements pertaining to the
proposed contract and indicating that it becomes binding on its
author should it be accepted is a contract offer. The Liberals made a
contract offer, they offered to scrap the GST should they be elected.
People believed their promise and accepted their proposal. The
government made a formal contract offer, an offer which was
binding but which it did not honour.
The law also says that a contract is arrived at when the
offeror-in this case the Liberals who offered, even promised, to
scrap the GST-receives acceptance, no matter the form. The
Liberals offered to scrap the GST, and people accepted to elect
them as the government. A contract was arrived at and all the
conditions for its validity were met.
Two things happen whenever one of the parties fails to abide by a
contract: first, that party is sued for breach of contract with
damages; second, it is no longer trusted by the other party, having
misled it and caused it considerable damage. Well, the people will
remember in the next election that they cannot trust the Liberals.
We have three examples. Among other things, the Liberals
promised to tear up the free trade agreement. That promise was
quoted many times by Jeffrey Simpson, I believe. They promised
to tear up the free trade agreement but, as we know, it slipped
through with the greatest of ease. They promised to kill the GST
but, as we know, they are now reinforcing it, even spending close to
$1 billion to convince some provinces to jump on the
harmonization bandwagon. They promised to recognize Quebec as
a distinct society and we now have a principal homeland of
something or other. All those promises have been abandoned.
As we heard on the news this week, my Liberal colleague-I
have just learned that he will be my deskmate in this House and I
am looking forward to it-the hon. member for York
South-Weston, who resigned from his caucus, has acted with
great integrity and earned the respect of the people in his riding,
who strongly supported his decision.
The fact that a member of the government has resigned because
he has lost confidence in his own government speaks volumes. It
must be said that the government does not write down what it says
or do what it promises in writing. It is important to remember this. I
just want to quickly go over the commitments made at the time,
which were recently quoted in the Globe and Mail. Here is what the
Deputy Prime Minister was quoted as saying in the March 11, 1996
edition of the Globe and Mail:
[English]
``I have already said personally and very directly that if the GST
is not abolished, I will resign''.
[Translation]
To this day, there have been no resignations.
Here is another promise as reported by the Globe and Mail. This
time it is the Prime Minister speaking: ``We will scrap the GST''.
There is no reference to harmonizing or to the red book. The
message was very clear.
The Prime Minister also said, on May 2, 1994: ``We hate this tax
and we will make it disappear''. For once he said exactly the same
thing in French and in English.
It is also important to remember what the hon. member for York
South-Weston said in his letter to the Prime Minister:
1971
[English]
``The Liberals were in breach of their electoral commitment. We
all know that we did not promise to simply harmonize the GST. The
promise was to scrap it and implement a fairer system''.
[Translation]
This is not what was done and this is why the hon. member for
York South-Weston resigned, as did to the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood.
(1610)
There are at least two people in this House, on the Liberal side,
who have some backbone and who remember the promises they
made. How many Liberals went from door-to-door during the
election campaign, as we all did, and promised people that they
would indeed abolish the GST, not harmonize it?
Those who did that should remember that they made
commitments, and they should seriously think about the calibre of
people such as the hon. member for York South-Weston and the
hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.
The Minister of Finance now admits he made a mistake: ``We
made promises which we failed to keep''. As for the Prime
Minister, he says: ``We fulfilled our promises''. There is an obvious
discrepancy between the words of the Prime Minister and those of
the finance minister.
I will conclude by quoting from a short text written by Jeffrey
Simpson, who relates what is going on in an article entitled:
[English]
``The height of political gall lies behind a veil of crocodile
tears''.
[Translation]
This is truly extraordinary. In this article, Mr. Simpson tells us,
in reference to the Minister of Finance, that:
[English]
``During the election campaign we were right to criticize the GST''. Among
its problems, he recalled, were overlap and duplication. That is what the
Liberals were campaigning against in 1993.
[
Translation]
And then, Mr. Simpson asks:
[English]
Is that what you heard from your friendly Liberal candidate in the election?
Did ``scrap the tax'' mean ``end overlap and duplication''? Did ``abolish'' mean
kaput for ``overlap and duplication''? We all obviously misunderstood.
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a comment and a question for the hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies.
My comments concerns the GST. As the hon. member indicated,
the GST has been harmonized in Quebec; the federal government
and the Quebec government had agreed to phase in harmonization
over a six-year period. What the member did not tell this House
however it that Quebec would not have qualified for adjustment
assistance since revenues resulting from harmonization alone have
increased in Quebec. Harmonization has generated additional
revenue for Quebec, while Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia
do not qualify.
We will recall that the premier of Quebec, the hon. Lucien
Bouchard, was a member of the cabinet that instituted the GST and
that he was the one who advocated harmonizing Quebec's sales tax
without any financial compensation.
It is also important to note that the federal government is still
paying Quebec for administering the tax on its behalf. In recent
years, payments averaging $100 million a year were made. Also,
Quebec like the other provinces regularly receives adjustment
assistance from Ottawa, including stabilization payments, supply
management envelopes and regional development funding. In
many cases, Quebec receives much more than the other provinces.
My question is as follows. In his remarks, the hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies mentioned Bill C-12, which he
described as regressive legislation. He used the word regressive. I
would like to know if it is regressive to move from a system based
on the number of weeks worked to one based on the number of
worked hours in a bill on employment. Let me explain. Who works
15 hours or less in Quebec and Canada? The most disadvantaged
members of our society, those who cannot find permanent
employment, generally women. Under the old system, people
could hold two jobs and work 30 or 40 hours per week during 30
years without ever qualifying for employment benefits.
If the hon. member could give me an answer, I would like to
know if legislation that gives 500,000 workers, including 125,000
in Quebec alone, access to employment insurance can be called
regressive.
(1615)
I would also like to know if raising employment benefits by 18
per cent for every family household in Quebec and Canada earning
less than $26,000 and helping the most disadvantaged members of
our society can be called restrictive or regressive measures?
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, if the bill as it stands did what my
colleague claims, I would be in agreement with him. But the facts
1972
are otherwise. One could ask oneself whether he has really
understood the proposed reform. Whether the thousands of people
now protesting in Quebec, especially seasonal workers, and those
adding their voices from the Atlantic provinces and Acadia, have
all not understood what my colleague seems to have understood.
What is happening now is that those who work will have to
contribute right from the first hour, but when it is time to draw
benefits, they will have to have worked a certain number of hours
to be eligible. I think that it was the Canadian Labour Congress-I
will find the article for my hon. colleague-that recently did an
exhaustive study of this question. It claimed that two thirds of
Canadian workers-it did not look at Quebec, just Canada-two
thirds of Canadian workers would not be eligible for
unemployment insurance benefits as the bill now stands.
In fact, and that should give everyone an idea right away, there
was a $5 billion surplus in this fund and it is being used to balance
the government's books, when that amount does not belong to the
government at all. It belongs to the workers and those who have
contributed to it. This practically amounts to garnisheeing
everybody's wages.
We will see if my colleague is right, to what extent people are
happy over the coming months when the implementation of this
reform begins to make itself felt. I am certain that he will be
surprised to see the outcry of protests and the people appearing in
his office to complain.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague,
the hon. member for Saint-Léonard-Anjou, has referred to
credibility. At the present time we have a flagrant example, which
casts doubt on the credibility of our institutions. When political
parties are going after votes, making promises, and referring to a
program, but then do a complete about face as soon as they are
elected, it seems to me that this is unacceptable.
This is also why MPs lack credibility in the eyes of the public at
this time. The latest polls indicate that MPs have about 15 per cent
of public credibility. In my opinion, this is the main reason for the
lack of trust in MPs: they do exactly what the Liberals did during
the last campaign. They do exactly what the Liberals did during the
implementation of the GST, which was proposed and implemented
by their Conservative predecessors.
Then they did everything in their power, they set up strategies,
they went at it hammer and tongs, scaring the public. For example,
the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said on
December 15, 1990 that the GST represented fear and suffering.
People will say anything to attract votes. Today, we are in the
process of accepting what is more or less the original Conservative
plan.
What I mean by that is that the public has had it with MPs who
say one thing one day and a do completely different thing the next.
So this is my question for my colleague. Does he believe that what
the Liberals are doing at this time, and what they did during the last
campaign, will add to or take away from MPs' credibility?
(1620)
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague for
Longueuil for his question. I would, however, remind him that I am
the member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies and not for
Saint-Léonard-Rivière-des-Prairies.
My colleague noted that, quite recently, polls were giving us 15
per cent credibility. I think, in the past week, we must have dropped
to five per cent. That is a partial answer to my colleague's question.
In fact, the government made all sorts of commitments before its
election, stentorian commitments shouted from the
rooftops-especially the Prime Minister and his promise to tear up
the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement is in effect
today, and most of the time the government is not very successful
at defending the rights of Canadians. More often than not, despite
the fact that our rights have merit, we lose to the Americans.
The government and, in particular, the Prime Minister, had
promised to eliminate the GST. We are in fact reinforcing it and
right off we will be spending $1 billion for three provinces alone, in
order to put a process of harmonization, which will never work,
into effect.
We also remember that the government and the Prime Minister
himself promised distinct society recognition. It will never happen.
We know very well. Even the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, present here today, had promised to use every means
possible to obtain this recognition. He is the same man who said a
few months ago, before this promise was made, that the more
Quebecers were made to suffer, the more the sovereignist option
would diminish. He said that in Toronto. So here we have a member
from Quebec, paid by Quebecers to defend their interests, who
comes to Ottawa to make Quebec suffer. This says a mouthful
about transparency.
_____________________________________________
1972
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the House leaders' meeting of earlier in the week, I
believe you will find unanimous consent for the following.
1973
I move:
Pursuant to its mandate in relation to the comprehensive review of the Young
Offenders Act, phase II, and specifically, to observe how the youth justice
system operates in practice, that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs, six members, four from the Liberal Party including the chair, one from
the Bloc Quebecois and one from the Reform Party, be authorized to travel to
Toronto, London and Windsor, Ontario, from May 5 to 10, 1996 in order to hold
public hearings, visit sites, young offender facilities and programs, and meet
with officials and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
1973
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31,
an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on March 6, 1996, be read the second time and referred
to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my
time with the member for Cumberland-Colchester.
It is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-31, the budget
implementation bill. We recognize the impact worldwide
developments have had on every Canadian over the last decade.
Globalization, financial pressures, new technologies and other
factors have put real stress on Canadians. Canadians have already
stated in many ways that they want a strong, dynamic government
which will meet the challenge of these sweeping changes. In other
words, it is time government gets it right, providing the necessary
services and programs in the most effective and efficient manner
possible at the most affordable cost.
The government has committed itself to four key priorities: to
redefine the government's roles and responsibilities, to redirect
resources to the highest national priorities, to provide Canadians
with more modern and accessible quality delivery, and to achieve
affordable government.
The government undertook a review of all its major federal
programs and services and reassessed what the government does
and how it can do it better within the available resources.
(1625 )
The results of this exercise are integral to the major shifts the
government has undertaken in conducting its business, not just in
direct service delivery to Canadians but in the internal processes
and systems that support the delivery of these services.
The expenditure management system is one major initiative that
all departments have implemented in the last year. This means that
each department is operating in a businesslike manner and is
assessing competing priorities and reallocating resources to where
they are most required. Outputs are transparent, measurable and
precise.
Departments are also ensuring they have stronger, more flexible
administrative structures to deliver the government's programs and
services to Canadians in a fiscally responsible manner.
The changes the president of the treasury board has proposed in
the budget implementation bill are intended to put in place the
foundation that will support the government's priorities. Allow me
to go through some of the directions the government is undertaking
in the bill to get government right and to respond to the needs of all
Canadians.
The government has mapped out three key priorities in serving
national needs: alternative service delivery, compensation and
collective bargaining, and pension reform.
To provide alternative ways of delivering services to Canadians,
we will introduce service entities, special operating agencies and
other organizational mechanisms to support the delivery of client
focused quality services. Nav Canada, for example, has been
created to make it easier to deliver air traffic control services.
Similar steps will be taken for food inspection services, national
parks, revenue collection and in other areas as the need arises to
meet the best interests of Canadians in the most affordable manner.
The government will undertake other such alternatives on a case by
case basis.
The legislative amendments introduced in the budget
implementation bill will now permit the government to put into
place the administrative mechanisms necessary to ensure a smooth
transition to alternative service delivery.
For instance, changes are proposed to the Canada Labour Code
as well as the Public Service Staff Relations Act to permit the
introduction of successor rights. This means unions will continue
to represent their employees and collective agreements will
continue to be enforced until the term of the agreement expires as
affected employees move from public service employment to other
employers within the federal jurisdiction.
We are also implementing amendments to ensure transitional
organizations have the tools they need to operate efficiently,
effectively and affordably. For example, we will amend the
Financial Administration Act to allow multi-year appropriations
where organizations require the flexibility to plan their operations
for service delivery over more than a one year period.
1974
However, this is an enabling clause only and Parliament retains
the right to approve when and if multi-year appropriations are the
best business approaches to meet the specific organizational needs.
These are the directions the government is taking to support the
evolution in how it does business for the next century.
Alternative service delivery will affect public service employees
currently working in these areas. As a fair and equitable employer,
the government believes it must treat these employees in a fair and
equitable manner. To this end, the government has embarked on a
series of negotiations with bargaining agents to ensure the
transitional period is as smooth as possible for employees.
Agreement was reached with most public service unions on the
transfer agreements that will apply to employees affected by the
creation of alternative service delivery organizations.
The amendments will also allow us to put in place fair
arrangements for all employees affected by such transfers. They
will permit us to implement enhanced arrangements that some
unions successfully negotiated on behalf of their members. The
government is committed to working with the public service unions
and believes that a negotiated agreement is always the preferred
option.
(1630)
The second key priority area concerns compensation and
collective bargaining in the public service. All collective
bargaining in the public service came to a halt when the
government implemented the Public Sector Compensation Act in
1991. I am certain the nation supported this radical but necessary
change.
However, six years have passed since this legislation came into
effect. For five of these six years, the public service employees
have received no increase in their salaries, a most significant
contribution by them to Canadians in achieving the government's
objective of fiscal restraint.
However, a more fiscally responsible government does not mean
an unfair government to its employees. We all recognize that while
the government can be a catalyst for change, it is our employees
who are the agents of such change. To this end I am pleased to
announce that the Public Sector Compensation Act will expire as
originally scheduled in February, 1997. We will be able to return to
collective bargaining at that time.
The government is amending the Public Sector Compensation
Act to reinstate performance pay and annual increments to those
employees for whom they were suspended when the government
introduced the wage freeze.
In negotiating the terms and conditions of employment for
employees with unions over the next three years we will suspend
binding arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. We cannot
risk awards being made by independent arbitrators who are not
accountable to Parliament for the government's fiscal
responsibility to Canadians.
Binding arbitration will continue for employees of the House of
Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service. Their respective legislation prohibits
strikes and requires the use of binding arbitration. However, in
these cases the arbitrators will be required to take into account the
wage settlements that have been reached for comparable
occupational groups within the public service for which the
Treasury Board is the employer.
The bill would also provide authority for a 2.2 per cent wage
increase for non-commissioned members of the Canadian Armed
Forces. This measure will correct the disparity in wages that
existed before the wage freeze between members of the armed
forces and public service employees.
The final priority of legislative amendments centres around
pension reforms which provide individual and group employees
with greater portability and meet the standards of the Pension
Benefits Standards Act. In this area the government will revise the
Public Service Superannuation Act to allow for employee pensions
to be protected and to be portable to other organizations. This will
be the case whether the individual or group is transferred to a
separate organization. Portability will be enhanced by a two-year
vesting and lock-in provisions.
I will tell the House about a number of other government
priorities. The government will take measures to re-engineer its
many organizations to deliver more quality service while being
fiscally responsible to the people of Canada.
We will modify the Financial Administration Act to make
changes with respect to group insurance plans in the public service,
for example, the health care plan. This will permit the government
to fund and manage the group insurance plan for employees. It will
also be more consistent with general insurance practices in the
private sector.
I will mention a few of the many public service undertakings.
The changes we are proposing, particularly in the areas of
alternative service delivery, compensation and collective
bargaining and pension reform will set the foundation for providing
more value and quality in service delivery to Canadians. As the
President of the Treasury Board said on April 24 in his introduction
to this bill: ``These measures will help us secure a financial future,
get government right-
1975
(1635)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I hesitate at the best
of times to interrupt anyone, but when an indication is given to the
Chair that members are splitting their time, although 10 minutes
may not seem very long, in fairness to other members awaiting an
opportunity to speak on the same bill, I feel I must.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
know what the member thinks of the present the federal
government just gave the three maritime provinces.
We know it will give close to one billion dollars to these three
provinces. It was mentioned that harmonizing the GST will cost
more to the maritime provinces involved. Right now, as far as I
know, the provincial taxes in the maritimes are between 11 and 12
per cent. They are the highest in Canada. In Quebec, the sales tax
used to be 9 per cent, now its is 6.5 per cent.
Could it be, by any chance, that this gift of one billion dollars to
three maritime provinces is to compensate for what they are losing
due to UI cuts? Is this a way the government found to compensate
them for their UI losses? This seems to me a rather obvious
coincidence.
The two ministers from New Brunswick were having a great deal
of difficulty making people swallow the UI reform. It seems that
they are being rewarded or compensated so that the two senior
ministers from New Brunswick can be better perceived by the
public.
In any case, for us in Quebec, there is something we find
unacceptable. It is estimated that Quebec will have to pay $250
million in compensation. We are going to give close to one billion
dollars to the maritime provinces.
Of course, this $250 million is not directly part of the one billion
dollars. However, we know that when the government's revenues
are down, and when the time comes to transfer money to meet its
responsibility with regard to health care and post-secondary
education, among others, we know that the funds it will transfer
will be less the money it will give the maritimes.
We are well aware that in Quebec we will experience losses
amounting to at leat $250 million because of this. I would like to
know what the member thinks of all this, of this nice present to the
maritime provinces.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would like to ask the
hon. member for Longueuil whether he intends to make a comment
without answering the hon. member, otherwise, in the little time
left, I will allow him to answer the comment already made.
Agreed?
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, the jury is still out on the UI issue.
We are reforming it. I do not believe the measure undertaken by the
government with regard to what he called gifts has anything to do
with UI.
When the UI fund is underfunded the money has to be found by
the government. It is strange that we are trying to restructure it and
other members think we should spend the money in some other
way.
(1640)
With regard to the member's other question, the government
looked at 20 alternatives to the replacement tax. The
accommodation it came up with was the best one. There is some
dislocation with regard to these provinces. They have a small
population base. We are still a country and we still have
equalization payments. Provinces that do better under these
circumstances have an obligation to transfer some of their funds to
get the other provinces going.
The government is trying to get government right. We believe
through the moves we have made that we will have more jobs and
be more competitive. We will wean those provinces off that money
over a period of time.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to add my voice to those of my
hon. colleagues to strongly endorse the budget implementation bill
before us today.
In the next few minutes I will focus on one key theme of the
budget. The focus will be on youth, on what government is doing to
invest in Canada's future through education and youth employment
programs. Everyone knows the government is committed to deficit
reduction and the positive spinoffs of lower interest rates and
economic growth. At the same time, we must have the vision to
sustain our social programs and build a future for our youth.
There are some areas in which additional funds must be invested
while we cut back in others. One such area concerns the youth of
Canada. Young people are Canada's most important resource but
sadly youth unemployment is about 50 per cent higher than the
national average. Young Canadians are not looking for handouts,
but for a chance to lend a hand. They need enhanced educational
opportunities and an extra hand up to attain their very crucial first
jobs.
There is no question about the importance of education. It is the
underpinning of this country's progress and accomplishments.
Everything we have as a country and as individuals rests on the
skills, abilities and talents that have been developed and polished
through education.
In today's changing world, education is a lifelong endeavour.
During our time in this House we continue to learn more about the
1976
Canadians we serve, about their needs, their expectations and their
hopes for this country's future.
It is for Canada's young people that education holds a very
special place. The greatest asset a person has is his or her own
self-resourcefulness. No one can take your education from you.
What they learn now they will use for the rest of their lives. During
their lives they will see that the Canada of the future, how it lives,
how it works and how it interacts with the broader world outside its
borders, will change and grow beyond anything we see today. It is
education that will take our young people there.
All of this is well recognized by the government and with this
budget we are taking durable, meaningful steps forward. One
significant step is the new learning package. It delivers real help to
Canadian students. The education tax credit is being raised from
$80 to $100. The limit on the transfer of tuition fees and education
amounts to those who support students is being raised from $4,000
to $5,000. The annual limit on contributions to the registered
education savings plan is being increased from $1,500 to $2,000,
while the lifetime limit is being increased from $31,500 to
$42,000.
We are also helping parents who are full time students. Single
parents and family parents who both attend school will be allowed
to deduct child care expenses against all types of income. Parents
who attend high school full time will also be allowed to claim this
deduction. These new measures will deliver an extra $165 million
in tax assistance over the next three years to students and their
families.
The new money in the learning package tells only part of the
story. It supplements the considerable sums we already target to
students. I am sure hon. members are familiar with the Canada
student loans program. Currently we budget some $556 million to
this program, money that will allow some 360,000 students to
negotiate over $1 billion in loans this year. To help students, this
year's budget announced the removal of the 10-year ceiling that
was imposed on the repayment schedules of students who
borrowed money under the Canada Student Loans Act.
Under the new rules lenders will have more flexibility to match
the repayment period to the financial reality of borrowers. Not only
will this measure help the students who borrow the money, but it
will also benefit the government as we will not have such a high
default rate on loans.
(1645)
These changes follow on major reforms of the Canada student
loans program made last August. At that time the government
announced that it would provide special grants for disabled and
high needs students and expand interest relief for borrowers who
encounter difficulty in repaying their loans. Loan ceilings were
increased and the efficiency of the program was improved through
new arrangements with the financial institutions. Under this
arrangement it is the lenders who take on the risk and the costs of
loan defaults.
Formal education is a necessary foundation that all students
seek, but there is something equally important that complements it
and that is work experience. I am sure hon. members understand
fully the challenge involved in making the transition from schools,
colleges and universities to the workplace. Given the difficulty that
this transition represents in today's fiercely competitive job
market, which is evidenced by the youth unemployment numbers
that I mentioned earlier, the government had to take action.
Before the 1996 budget the government had already earmarked
some $705 million over the next three years for programs to
promote youth employment. These include Youth Service Canada,
Youth Internship Canada and the Student Summer Job Action
program. Now we are doing more. Funding will be increased with
$315 million of new money reallocated from other areas of the
budget. Some of this reallocated funding will be used to facilitate
summer employment. Government support will double to $120
million for this fiscal year. This action recognizes the value of on
the job experience to students, not to mention the money it
provides to help them with their education.
Most of the remaining money will be used to assist young people
who have left school to find jobs. Individuals with lower levels of
education will be a special target group, and to fully fund and to
fully understand the particular needs and difficulties they face.
When the new funding for the learning package in youth
employment is added to the existing employment programs, the
total support for the next three years will be more than $1.2 billion.
When I was a young girl growing up in rural New Brunswick in
the 1950s, few young women went to university. Most were
encouraged to get married. It was almost like a career. I was always
an eager learner and I can remember my mother saying to me:
``Diane, do not get too smart or no one will want to marry you''.
That was a particular and prevailing attitude of the times.
I went to university and I am still enrolled today in the masters
program at St. Mary's University at Halifax. I encourage young
women and young men to look at education as the greatest asset
they will ever attain. You can never have too much of it, it will be
the greatest gift that you ever give yourself and it will last a
lifetime.
I recognize this and as a working person all my life I am still
being educated through a lifelong process. The government
recognizes this. Education is a foundation for all successful
employment and for successful citizens.
I have a young man in my constituency who encountered drug
and alcohol abuse throughout his education at university. He was a
failure and dropout. He came to see me in great disgrace in his
community. Having been considered a complete failure by family
1977
and friends he asked for my help to get back to school. My message
to him was: ``I will help you when you are prepared to help
yourself''.
Over the past two years he has called on me every few months. I
am so pleased to say that these last few months he has taken control
of his life, he is back on track and he is now enrolled in an
education program in the Halifax area.
If I do nothing else through this next period as a member of
Parliament, I will feel very satisfied that I have been able to
encourage and help one young person take control of his life and
get back on track to get his education. It is education that opens the
doors to successful young people who become successful adults not
only in the workplace but as mothers in our society, as providers, as
givers in the community and as very successful Canadians that will
take this country into the 21st century.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on this bill. I am discouraged that closure has been
moved on it.
(1650)
There are so many important things that need to be mentioned. I
would like to mention a few, based on some of my travels over the
last year, talking to ordinary Canadians all across the land. Most
Canadians really do not understand a lot of the details of budgeting.
Certainly I do not. However, they have been asking questions. I
would like to relay some of the messages I have heard.
First, the one thing of which Canadians are certainly aware is the
huge debt. They feel it is the one thing that is tearing the guts out of
our social programs. It is hurting our agricultural programs and it is
hindering the country in a number of areas.
I have been waiting to hear a Liberal member address the debt,
but I never have. All I hear is a lot of rhetoric and glorified stories
about what a wonderful thing the budget is. However, they never
talk about the debt which will continue to be a serious problem.
When the finance minister read his budget he said: ``When we
came here the deficit was at 6 per cent of GDP. Then it was at 5 per
cent. Then it was at 4 per cent. Then it was at 3 per cent. Next year
the deficit will be at 2 per cent of GDP''. The crowd opposite
cheered. Of course, most Canadians were not sure what they were
cheering about. If he had said: ``When we came here we were $450
billion in debt. Then we were $500 billion in debt. Then we were
$550 billion in debt. Then we were $600 billion in debt. Now we
are moving to $650 billion in debt and before we reach 2 per cent of
GDP we will be pushing nearly $700 billion in debt,'' that would
have made sense.
Instead of talking about the deficit going from $40 billion to $35
billion, to $30 billion, to $25 billion and then to $20 billion, he
should have said that our interest payments have gone from $30
billion to $35 billion to $40 billion to $45 billion and that we are on
our way to more than $50 billion, that would have made sense.
People could understand that.
They would question: How can we do that? How can we afford
that problem? When our deficit is decreasing at a pace and our
interest on the debt is increasing at a pace, and the pace is fairly
level, all Canadians are saying: ``Why do we not get the deficit to
zero in order to stop paying interest?'' The debt would stop
growing.
That is what Reformers have been saying since we arrived. Let
us do that. Let us stop that growth. It is tearing the country apart. It
has brought us to the point where the biggest expenditure we have
is the one which services the huge debt.
I am going to talk about the things people understand when we
are sitting on the tailgate of their truck, in their barnyard, in their
small store and in a small community.
We see different reports that come from different sources, such
as the Canadian Taxpayers Association and other groups which
look at government spending. They will be asking these kinds of
questions: Why are we spending so much money? Why do we do
that?
We look at the waste reports which my colleague from St. Albert
so capably put together.
(1655 )
Many of the people in my riding of Wild Rose wonder why we
are giving grants to businesses such as Beyer, Brown and
Associates. Who is that to get half a million dollars? What about a
real estate company getting $15,000?
Breakwater Books Limited, Big Bill's Furniture and Appliance,
Sears, Canadian Wine, Walch's Family Foods, Navy and Army
stores, on and on it goes. It is grant after grant after grant to these
businesses.
They have a hard time understanding why businesses in Wild
Rose are not receiving any of these grants. ``What is the story
behind that,'' they ask. There is no answer. Why does this kind of
spending continually go on?
People keep looking a little farther. It is too bad you are not my
age, Mr. Speaker. You would really appreciate this one: $116,000
on a committee on seniors and sexuality. Boy, it makes me feel
really good now that I am getting old to know a committee would
get that kind of money to study seniors and sexuality.
There is page after page of lists of grants given to do this and
that. Pretty soon one starts adding it all up and find it comes to
millions of dollars.
1978
That is what the people in the countryside are talking about.
They are asking: What is going on? Where do we have that kind
of spending? What is happening? Why is it that you can come to
the House of Commons and hear people denounce us because we
are politicians?
Recently Alberta radio station CHQR-770 took a poll on what is
your favourite occupation and for whom do you have the most
admiration. Politicians were right beneath lawyers. We were way
down the list.
It was not until I came here that I found out part of the reason.
There is a great deal of difference between being a politician and a
leader or a statesman. When the minister of human resources
stands, as he has done on a number of occasions, speaking about
the million children who are living in poverty in our country, it is
cause for concern. What are we doing about it?
We hear different reports about the crimes being committed in
cities where we have many street kids and many difficulties. We
hear about 11, 12 and 13-year old girls who are being arrested for
prostitution. There are pimps being arrested and, of course, they are
let off the hook with a minor charge. You hear these things. You
know the costs involved. We wonder as we sit in this House and
talk about them. In the meantime, we spend money like there is no
end of it. We waste it on the things I mentioned such as golf courses
and grants.
It does not make sense to Canadians. It does not make sense to
me. What is even worse is when politicians are sitting here, with
the leader sitting on the other side of the House, driving up here in a
limousine with a driver, going around with your nose stuck in the
air because you have a highfalutin position in this place. You are
not willing to cough that up, nor are you willing to join some of us
who gave up our MP pensions because that might help with some
of those costs and bring things into line.
When we start talking about those issues, they immediately get a
bit concerned because the people opposite do not want to talk about
that. Not one time has the waste or the lack of support for the things
that would help us start fighting crime been mentioned.
They talk about poverty being a reason for crime. Let us do
something about it. They talk about the problems in the streets.
Look at the penitentiaries. A number of things are happening there.
We want people to be released. That is the idea. They are going to
come out.
We provide them with programs such as cognitive skills. They
come out with a paper saying that they have cognitive skills but
that does not get them a job. They walk out of the prison with $80
in their pockets. The paper says that they have cognitive skills. It
does not mean a thing.
Two or three days later, they are back in jail. They are back in
trouble. Why are we not doing something about that? Why do we
not redirect some of our money to fight the very things which cause
those things to happen? Why do we not train some of these people
to become useful workers?
(1700)
We can incorporate these cognitive skills into any program if we
know what we are doing. We can help these people so that when
they do get out crime will go down. When crime goes down, boy,
talk about saving dollars. We do not want crime happening in this
country because it really does a good job of supporting our legal
system. It does not do anything for justice but it sure keeps our
lucrative legal system going.
Let us train them. Let us create some discipline. But what do we
do? Last year we spent a million dollars to make sure everybody in
prison had cable TV. Maybe that is too much. Then of course
$180,000 was spent to provide condoms in men's prisons
throughout the country. I am having a difficult time with that one.
Then of course there is this bleach project. We have to make sure
the prisoners' needles are clean so we are going to spend a lot of
money to give them clean needles. Why do we not go into our
prisons and put an end to the drugs? Why do we not have the
political will and courage to go into these places and put an end to
it? Then when those people came out of prison they would be
rehabilitated from the very problem that got them in there in the
first place. Why not spend money on training them?
Why do we not look at the idea of putting more police back on
the streets where we can help kids? We could give them a little
more authority to work with the kids rather than having to follow
the little book right to the letter. Put more police out there. Oh, but
that costs more money.
I have an idea. Let us not register the rifles and shotguns. Let us
take that $85 million, using the justice minister's own figures, and
hire another 2,000 police. If we used the auditor general's figure of
$1 billion, then we should not hire 2,000 police, we should hire
20,000. If that is going to help prevent crime it will mean a great
amount of savings to society as a whole. It will mean a great deal to
the morals and values of our communities.
When I was a school principal if any violence broke out at the
school and it looked as if things were getting a little carried away,
the last thing I would do would be to give them blackjacks and
clubs. That is what the government is doing with bleach projects,
condoms and all these other things. It is telling the prisoners that it
is okay and we will make it better.
None of this makes sense to normal Canadians. I hope I am
normal. Sometimes I wonder myself when I walk out of here. I
walk out of here and I hear people like that member from
Saskatchewan who just clapped over there. That same member
would sit in committee and say that our schools are the same as
1979
they were 40 years ago. Hogwash. Forty years ago chewing gum
was the major problem in schools. Today it does not evencome close.
I sit in the justice committee and watch them interview people
from the field of education. The final decision was that schools are
no different from when we attended. What a bunch of baloney. The
government is not recognizing the problems that are coming up and
how to deal with them. Instead, the government tries to feed the
problem by allowing this to go on. Not one government member
will give up their limousine to help. Not one of them will give up
their pension. They will hang on to that. Why not redirect that
money into problem areas and help solve these things? It does not
make sense.
When I was in the school system there were ivory towers there as
well. I was given a budget every year and was told to spend it. At
the end of one year I had $2,000 left in the physical education
budget. I was told I had to spend this money or I would lose it. I
said I did not need it in the physical education budget but I needed
some math books or something else. I was told no, I had to spend it
or lose it. That was the mentality at that level of government and it
exists here.
Not too long ago some CIDA workers told me that there was
$200,000 which they could have turned back into the federal
government coffers but they were ordered by those in the ivory
tower to spend it. That does not surprise me. It is what happens at
every level of government. They figure out some trip, take the
bureaucrats and away they go.
(1705)
I challenge members of the House to stop being politicians and
think about being statesmen. Start looking at some things they can
sacrifice or do to help the causes and let us see where it goes.
Change the attitude to one where they are here to serve the people
instead of the other way around as it appears because they have to
have this or that or go here or there. Those are the kinds of things
people in the communities of this land do not understand and I have
a hard time understanding them as well.
We can stand here talking about the millions of starving children
who are living in poverty and not do anything about it for two and
one-half years. Well, there are opportunities to do something. We
just have to have the political will and the political courage to do
so.
Instead the arrogant Liberals sit over there with their pompous
little attitudes and let it be known that they are in power and they
are doing what the people wanted them to do. Well, I am not
finding that to be the case. I did not find that to be the case when I
travelled through Manitoba a week ago or in Saskatchewan the
week before that or when I was on the west coast or in southern
Ontario. I did not hear the same messages I am hearing from across
the way.
I am not sure how I will be received when I return to Wild Rose
next week. I will tell my constituents that I know what kind of
people they are. If there was a huge flood and a region needed help,
they would be the first to cough up some dollars and give a lending
hand. No doubt about it, they would help.
Mr. Harvard: Sounds like Winnipeg to me.
Mr. Thompson: If farmers needed something in an area because
of a serious problem, Canadians would be there to help, just like
the ones in Wild Rose.
I can hardly wait to tell them: ``I know all of you need tax relief.
That is what everybody in Canada would like to have, but you are
not going to get any this trip. What you are going to do is give tax
relief to another region of the country through this new GST
harmonization''. I am not so sure they are going to accept that as
being a good cause.
I am really anxious to find out what my constituents will have to
say about members from the other side of the House who say it is a
shame that Alberta does not pay a sales tax. We happen to be pretty
proud of the fact that we were able to manage things without a sales
tax. To hear the comment that it is a shame that we do not pay a
sales tax in Alberta is a pretty sad statement.
An hon. member: I never said that.
Mr. Thompson: I hear the member from Saskatchewan across
the way saying that he never said that. I never said that he did. I can
guarantee him that it came from that side but it does not make any
difference.
I know that Alberta is not looking too kindly upon this whole
idea of harmonization. I know that for a fact. We will wait and see.
In conclusion I look at these waste reports that come out and then
I look at the work the Canadian Taxpayers Association is putting
together expressing that it does not understand how these dollars
find their way to strange places. It is just not understood at all. And
the best we can come up with is another target that even I could
make if it was a two-foot high jump.
This target making is a farce. Get after the problem. The budget
does not do it. It is a fuzzy, warm, feel good budget. Be happy, I
guess.
(1710 )
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been talking about a tax,
about a particular manner of handling a tax, and about its effects in
Alberta, Saskatchewan and other provinces.
It is always interesting to hear a Reform member refer to
taxation but never refer to Reform's so-called budget which it
presented, the taxpayers budget. The Reform members' idea of
1980
dealing with matters in Canada is to deal with matters like the
elimination of multiculturalism funding. They would eliminate
regional development groups such as western economic
diversification, an organization that for many western areas of the
country has resulted in a dynamic expansion in industry and
secondary processing. They recommend the elimination of regional
groups in other parts of the country.
The Reform budget also includes a reduction in senior citizens
benefits, reductions in unemployment insurance benefits,
reductions in funding to post-secondary education, reductions in
health, reductions in the Canada assistance plan, reductions in
equalization, total cash transfer reductions to provinces totalling 24
per cent, which is over and above what I have already referred to.
Has the hon. member ever tried to correlate the cuts, the drastic
slash and burn in the Reform budget to what he is discussing here
today?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, slash and burn is not true, except
for the hon. member's pension which he will someday be eligible
for. We would certainly slash and burn that. We think parole boards
are unnecessary. We would probably slash and burn parole boards.
We could do with better correctional services. We would slash and
burn a few other places where dollars are wasted. The member
could count on that.
As far as multiculturalism is concerned, there are a number of
things in our budget. We set priorities. The priorities were pretty
well listed. It just so happens that multiculturalism is something we
believe should be funded by the communities that are affected. I do
not believe the communities object to that. We do not object to
multiculturalism but we say we are at a time now when some of the
nice things to do are not affordable. They will have to be paid for
by some means other than tax dollars.
As far as seniors are concerned, we said from the beginning, and
our budget says it loudly and clearly, that one of our highest
priorities is to make absolutely certain those who are most in need
will have their needs addressed. That is loud and clear in our
budget. That idea came from many senior citizens in my riding who
said they did not know why they were being given something that
was just clawed back and they would just as soon not have that
happen.
As far as the transfer payments are concerned, what has
happened as a result of this government is worse than what would
have happened under the taxpayers budget over three years. I
challenge any of the members over there to go back to square one
and take a good long close look at what those transfer payments are
doing.
The member talked about post-secondary education. Perhaps I
was mistaken and there were not thousands of young people on our
lawns protesting what was happening by this government in that
area. Maybe I was elsewhere at the time.
I do not quite understand where the government is coming from.
It is already a known fact that what it has done is worse than what it
would have been under our plan.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member opposite familiar
with the name Michael Walker? He has something to do with the
Fraser Institute, an institute often referred to by the Reform
members.
There was an article in the Globe and Mail on March 14, 1996. I
remind the hon. member that Michael Walker, one of their great
folk heroes over the last two years, had this to say about the budget
which he so roundly criticized:
In regarding the government's latest budget, commentators have missed
some of the most aggressive fiscal action in the country's history.
The federal government is going in the near term future to be able to boast
that it has the lowest borrowing requirements of the G-7 countries. Total
government deficits in Canada will total less than in any of the G-7, and by 1998
the total financing requirement relative to the gross domestic product will be
less than half the comparable U.S. figure.
Far from being a bore-
(1715)
or worse, as this member suggests
-this budget was a turning point in Canadian fiscal history. We may well
chart a dramatic turn in our fortunes to March 1996.
This is tough talk from Michael Walker, one of the hon.
member's heroes.
I wonder if you might like to comment on how Michael Walker,,
who has been so tough on us over the years with respect to our
budgetary plans, could have this much praise for a budget you think
is so terrible.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind members not to
directly refer to one another but to make their interventions through
the Chair.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with Michael
Walker. I am familiar with the article the member mentioned to me.
I was wondering at the time I read the article that although the
deficit figures and all these targets were mentioned why the whole
idea of this huge debt and the interest payments were not
mentioned. That is the same question I have been asking all day.
Why are government members not talking about the debt? Why
are they not talking about the interest payments on the debt which
is growing far beyond what they ever thought it would?
1981
They are very fortunate. So far things are working well in terms
of being able to meet these targets. However, when we run into
that kind of huge debt I really wonder if anybody has anything
in place or any plans at all, including Michael Walker-and I
would like to ask him one of these days when I see him-if all
of a sudden there is a downturn for whatever reason. It could be
caused by something south of the border which would cause
interest rates to suddenly jump.
With a huge debt like this a downturn could be the very disaster
we do not ever want to see. The only way to avoid that kind of
disaster is to stop the debt from growing.
The government under its plan is continuing to let the debt grow.
I cannot understand why any economist or anyone with more
knowledge than I have, and believe you me there are plenty-
An hon. member: What do you want to cut?
Mr. Thompson: Your pension, for one.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sorry, but this
concludes the period of question and comments. We also move to
the next stage of debate, having concluded five hours of debate.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that question to be raised tonight at the time adjournment is as
follows: the hon. member for Davenport, the environment.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I always consider it a privilege to
rise in this place on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West.
We are supposed to be dealing in this debate with Bill C-31, an act
to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
March 6, 1996.
My constituents elected me back in 1988. My colleague from
Winnipeg St. James and I were colleagues back in 1988 and we sat
on that side of the House in opposition. Whenever an opportunity
came along we were not shy on words or prepared to take off on the
government on the plan it had.
(1720 )
In those days we had pretty good evidence in our hands; precise
statistics, precise numbers, precise policies that the Liberal Party,
in opposition from 1988 to 1993, could attack the Tories on. We sat
over there, we made our arguments and they were solid.
I will drift away from Bill C-31 only because I cannot let the
comments of the hon. member for Wild Rose get by. First he says
``pompous attitudes''. I do not see any pompous attitudes coming
from this side of the House. I see red books being thrown across the
floor. I see members over there getting up and calling other
members liars, getting kicked out of the House and that kind of
thing, which is outrageous.
I remember an election promise from the Reform Party that it
would do things differently in the House of Commons, that there
would be a certain attitude, a new way of doing politics in the
House. There would be a new decorum in the House of Commons.
I did not understand that it meant the decorum would get worse. I
assumed it meant the decorum would get a little better in the House
of Commons.
Then the hon. member for Wild Rose says: ``I am not sure, but
blah, blah, blah. I do not know much about that, but blah, blah,
blah. That is all fuzzy and feel good to me, blah, blah, blah''. You
cannot talk in generalities.
Mr. Thompson: Shut up. I do not like you either.
Mr. Keyes: There we go. There is the decorum again. The hon.
member for Wild Rose says ``shut up''. That is the kind of thing
that should not go on in this place. We have a history to respect
here. We have to stand in our places and appreciate that for decades
before us men and women were elected to the House, thankfully
more women today than there were in the past because of the
contribution they make to the House. This kind of attitude cannot
go on in the House.
Mr. Thompson: Blah, blah, blah.
Mr. Keyes: Blah, blah, blah-exactly the kind of comment I
would expect from Wild Rose. I would appreciate it if he stuck
around to hear this because it is important.
My constituents have been calling me as of late. They are talking
about how the member for Hamilton West voted for the budget.
There was a guy from this party who stood up and did not vote for
the budget, no sir. We all know what happened to him.
Here is why the member for Hamilton West, yours truly, voted
for the budget. I voted for the budget because of its deficit
reduction plan. For example, the budget delivers on the red book
commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP, down from
6 per cent when we took office, something we promised to do,
something that has been accomplished.
By 1998-99 program spending will be reduced to 12 per cent of
GDP, its lowest level in 50 years. Canada's financial requirements
will be the lowest of the G-7 nations.
An hon. member: How much has interest come down?
Mr. Keyes: You see, Mr. Speaker, I guess good news hurts. I
continue with more good news on the budget. Our balanced and fair
approach has to be recognized, a far cry from what we have been
hearing over there of let us get that budget down to zero, and the
sooner the better.
I have asked the member for Wild Rose what he would cut. What
social programs would have to suffer as a result of their mad desire
to reduce deficit and thereby the national debt to zero? Canadians
from coast to coast would endure pain never felt before if those
1982
kind of programs were implemented to reduce the deficit in an
unfair and callous way. There is no question about that.
What else does the budget do? What did the member for
Hamilton West and the majority of members on this side of the
House vote for in the budget? How about no tax increases of any
kind? What about a secure, stable, growing system of federal
support for medicare? Medicare, I say to the hon. member
opposite.
(1725)
The provinces will receive post-secondary education and social
assistance through the Canada health and social transfers. There
will be no further cuts in transfers to the provinces. We have
announced a firm funding commitment for a five-year period
beginning 1998-99.
Do colleagues on this side remember when we were in
opposition how the Tory government would make its promises and
then make adjustments in the following budget and in the budget
after that? There could be no opportunity for future planning for
any of these organizations because they did not know what the
federal budget would look like from year to year.
We will change that. That is a promise we made. They will have
the opportunity to see a commitment for stable and firm funding
for a five-year period, which will enable them to make their plans.
For the first two years of the CHST it will remain constant at $25.1
billion. For the next three years it will increase.
What about restoring confidence in the old age security system
by creating a seniors benefit designed to help those most in need?
That was a government promise. That is another reason the
member for Hamilton West voted for the budget. As promised,
seniors will continue to receive the benefits they now receive,
despite the crude and scaremongering remarks made by members
of the third party during question period on this day.
I voted for jobs and growth. We have allocated money for new
investment in three priority areas, one of which is youth, I remind
the hon. member for Wild Rose. He was up on his feet saying: ``We
are not doing anything for youth. I am not sure what we are not
doing, but we are not doing anything''. We are doing things for
youth.
Areas critical to future jobs and growth are technology and trade.
The hon. member for Wild Rose was complaining about that, but it
is there in the budget.
What about the provision of an additional $165 million over
three years to help students and families with increased costs of
education?
It is unfortunate the hon. member opposite says government
members are doing this in a pompous fashion. Maybe our chests
are sticking out a bit because we are proud of what we are doing on
this side. We are actually accomplishing things and meeting goals
we promised we would meet when we ran in the 1993 election.
With a book in hand we said this is what we promise to do. The
majority of those promises will be met. We will be able to go door
to door in an election campaign and say this is what we promised to
do.
I know the media will be out there. It will not outline our
accomplishments, maybe comparing the accomplishments of this
government with the last. It will not say this is how much the
government has done. The media will see the glass not as half full
but as half empty. It will recognize the 10 per cent or less the
government did not do. That is a crying shame.
Canadians are winning. It is a Team Canada approach. It will
happen. It will happen now. We are proud of that and we are proud
of the budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will talk
briefly if I may about our institutions and democracy as well,
which have just become much less credible.
All these government members did when in opposition was
condemn the GST. They coined words, lashed out against it, but not
only did they not scrap it, they are now harmonizing it and creating
inequities between the provinces in the process.
I had prepared a long speech. Unfortunately, I have only two
minutes left. Let me just tell you that I find the attitude taken by the
government in this debate most regrettable. It will do considerable
harm to ours institutions' and our democracy's credibility.
Mr. Speaker, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for
Argenteuil-Papineau, I move:
That the amendment be amended by adding after the word ``That'' the following:
``as promised before and after the October 1993 federal election''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment to the
amendment is in order. When we resume debate, we will proceed to
the next stage and consider the amendment to the amendment, as
moved by the hon. member for Longueuil.
[English]
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.
_____________________________________________
1982
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
1983
That, in the opinion of this House, the flag on Parliament Hill be lowered to half
mast on April 28 each year to commemorate the National Day of Mourning for
those killed in the workplace, a policy that is permitted under paragraph 13(d) of
the general rules for flying and displaying the Canadian flag and other flags in
Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present for debate
Motion No. 73 which calls on the House to express its will in
support of flying the flag on Parliament Hill at half mast on April
28 each year to commemorate a national day of mourning for those
killed in the workplace.
I point out that this important day, April 28, is only three days
away. I cannot think of a better opportunity for parliamentarians to
see immediate and direct results of our work here in this Chamber.
Should we agree today that the flag should be flown at half mast
then this weekend it is possible that our will shall be done.
I do not have to tell any member of the House that this is a very
serious issue. Deaths in Canada from traumatic injury in the
workplace are approximately 1,000 every year. If the number of
deaths which occur from industrial diseases are added in, which by
the way are not measured by Statistics Canada or Labour Canada,
then the number of deaths jump to between 6,000 and 10,000 a
year.
On the job injuries recorded by provincial workers compensation
boards run between 80,000 to 100,000 a year. Of course the
numbers do fluctuate from year to year. They are probably
dropping right now, not because the workplace is any safer but
rather because of the general drop in employment.
For all intents and purposes, on average one Canadian worker
out of every thirteen is injured at work. Unfortunately, close to
17,000 workers between the ages of 15 and 19 are injured each
year. Young people within our economy who we expect so much of
in the future are finding themselves injured in the workplace due to
circumstances beyond their control.
(1735 )
We have to understand that worker health and safety means
money to the economy and our communities. Time lost injuries
rose 1.4 per cent from 1993 to 1994. At the same time, Canadian
workers were increasing the number of hours they were on the job.
Experts tell us that longer hours lead directly to deteriorating safety
standards.
This even is noticeable on the farm where many farm safety
programs are run every year to alert people to the fact that long
hours during seeding and harvest can sometimes lead to injuries in
that workplace. Obviously the experience there carries over into
the industrial workplace as well.
In 1993, workers compensation boards in Canada paid out $5.2
billion in benefits. That shows this means money. With the
addition of indirect costs, such as training replacement workers
when a worker has been killed or injured on the job, loss of
productivity, damage to equipment and materials and lowered
morale, the annual total cost of occupation injuries to the Canadian
economy could be closer to $10.5 billion every year.
Members should recall that April 28 is already the national day
of mourning. Royal assent of this act of Parliament took place in
February 1991. Members will realize that I am not asking for April
28 to be declared a national day of mourning. It has already been
declared a national day of mourning by Parliament. I am simply
asking that in recognition of the day that the flag on Parliament Hill
be lowered to half mast on April 28.
For the last six years there have been some attempts to have the
flag on this building lowered to half mast to ensure that there is a
visual representation of this important day. Over the years there has
been a small problem in achieving that goal and that is why this
motion is before us today.
Just to back up for a moment, we should thank a former NDP
member of Parliament, Mr. Rod Murphy of Manitoba, whose
private member's bill did lead us to this official declaration of a
day of mourning. Mr. Murphy worked very hard to get this
legislation passed in 1991. Now that it has been passed, we have
the responsibility and obligation to take the inevitable next step.
I also want to mention that April 28 was chosen as the day of
remembrance because it was the day that third reading took place
for the first comprehensive workers compensation act in Canada.
That first workers compensation act was proclaimed in Ontario on
April 28, 1914.
The movement toward the official national declaration began in
1984 when on behalf of all Canadian workers, the Canadian Labour
Congress executive council formalized the matter and began to
work toward the national declaration which was finally achieved in
1991.
The aim of the day of mourning is to remember our commitment
to fight for those in the workplace, as well as to mourn for those
who have died.
It should be noted that the reason for this motion today is that
despite the intention of Parliament to recognize the importance of
the day, those who interpret the rules or protocol for flying the flag
tell us that it cannot be flown at half mast unless we specifically ask
for it.
I researched the issue and studied it closely. I have looked at the
official protocol for flying the flag and discovered that according to
the general rules for flying and displaying the Canadian flag and
other flags in Canada, the flag can be lowered to half mast if we
collectively ask for it to be done.
1984
Let me just read from the protocol rules so that all members
of the Chamber and the public watching will know exactly what
I mean. Originally published by the Department of the Secretary
of State, the document is called ``General Rules for Flying and
Displaying the Canadian Flag and other Flags in Canada'' .With
regard to half masting, section 13(a) of the protocol reads in part:
``subject to (c) and (e) or special instructions listed under
(d)''-which I will come to in a moment-``the flag on the Peace
Tower of the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa is flown at half mast
on the death of-''. The protocol goes on to list a number of
individuals for whom the flag can be flown at half mast, for
example, the death of the sovereign or a member of the royal
family, the Governor General, a member of the Senate or a
member of the House of Commons, et cetera.
(1740)
However, section 13(d) of the protocol says: ``Flags flown at
federal buildings and other locations are also half masted subject to
special instructions on the death of-some other person whom it is
desired to honour''. That is the specific section I refer to in the
motion before us.
The key words are the flag can be flown at half mast ``on the
death of some other person whom it is desired to honour''. We in
this Chamber would be proclaiming that ``some other person''
could refer to those who were killed in the workplace.
Therefore, I ask that Parliament recognize this important
distinction. If the Parliament of today agrees, we would have a
declaration which would result in a visible illustration of our
feelings.
There are many examples throughout the country of how worker
health and safety has been overlooked or abused. It is very
important that as members of Parliament we express the feeling
both verbally and visually that lack of worker health and safety
protocol can no longer be condoned.
In this regard I have also followed the public inquiry into the the
Westray mine disaster in Nova Scotia. With every news report of
that inquiry, my resolve to deal with this issue increased. The
Westray story shows us in a most unfortunate but dramatic way that
everything the deregulators and the right wing in this country tell
us about business can result in loss of life.
When an industry is deregulated and the people responsible do
not take these matters seriously and do not act quickly on health
and safety issues, people in this country can die. In fact, they have
died. As those numbers at the beginning of my presentation today
indicate, too many workers in Canada lose their lives in the
workplace doing the jobs that we want to have done because they
increase the productivity of our economy.
I look at other news and view the world around me with this in
mind. I cannot help but notice a lot of other things that affect this
issue. I see in the quest for deficit reduction and in reaching
international trade agreements, a constant move toward less
government regulation, less involvement of government inspectors
within workplaces and less enforcement.
Many workers, hammered by the constant threat of job loss
through plant closures, privatization, restructuring and layoffs, are
reluctant to speak out against unsafe working conditions simply
because they are afraid of losing their job or losing the jobs of all of
the people they work with. We must ensure those people feel
comfortable with saying this is an unsafe workplace, we have to do
something about it. Government has to be prepared within a more
regulated system to step in and say: ``This has to be improved. We
cannot afford to allow these unsafe conditions to continue''.
(1745)
In this regard, Canadians need to continue to work together to
gain better protection in the law. We have to be better informed
about what presently exists. I want to quote briefly from Rod
Murphy's comments in the House of Commons in October 1990
when he first introduced the motion that made April 28 the national
day of mourning. Mr. Murphy argued that economic progress in
Canada could not be achieved at the expense of the health and
safety of workers and that by recognizing the day of mourning we
were reminding ourselves of that fact regularly.
Mr. Murphy said: ``I am sure that hon. members will agree with
me that we are no longer in the era of the beginning of the industrial
revolution. We no longer accept sweatshops. We no longer accept
child labour and we can no longer accept unsafe working
conditions for our citizens. We must all take the steps we can to
promote safer working environments. We believe that the health
and welfare of our people matters a great deal to all of us. Let us
ensure that on April 28 every year we prove that''.
As members can see, it is not a day of celebration. It is a day to
look around to see what we can do to ensure that those who have
died or who have been injured in the workplace have taught us the
appropriate lessons. What can we be doing to reduce the number of
people who die or are injured in the workplace? What can we do to
ensure that our workplaces are safer? We can answer those
questions as we look at the workplace with those questions in mind.
If we know that April 28 is the day of mourning, we can think
about it. If we do not know the significance of April 28, if we or our
friends in the media notice that the flag on the Peace Tower is
flying at half mast, we may ask why. By answering the question as
to why the flag is flying at half mast, more people will understand
and perhaps will be motivated by the purpose of the day of
1985
mourning. That is why it is not only important but also useful to fly
the flag at half mast this Sunday and on every April 28 thereafter.
In this regard and in concluding my remarks today, I ask
members to give their complete attention to this issue and to
support it if they can. Perhaps at the end of the allotted hour today
we could by unanimous consent pass this motion as presented.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in the debate
on the hon. member's motion calling on the government to lower
the flag to half mast on April 28 each year to commemorate the
national day of mourning for those killed in the workplace. I say to
the hon. member that the Government of Canada very much
respects his views on this matter and fully acknowledges that
workplace deaths and injuries are a senseless tragedy. I personally
congratulate the hon. member for bringing this matter to the
attention of the House.
Having said that, the government shows considerable
compassion and concern for the health and safety of Canadian
workers. There is considerable evidence to that effect. Our federal
occupational safety and health regulations and those of our
provincial and territorial colleagues are among some of the very
best in the world.
Because of those regulations, Canada is highly regarded in the
international community. Other nations have drawn on our
expertise to develop their own safety and health regimes. We can
attribute a good deal of this success to our approach, which is based
upon the internal responsibility system. It is a regulatory
framework similar to provisions contained in the International
Labour Organization convention 155 which deals with OSH
regulations.
(1750)
This system recognizes that an employer has the right to manage
his or her enterprise in an effective manner. At the same the
employer has the responsibility to protect the safety and health of
his or her workers. The internal responsibility system also
recognizes three fundamental rights of workers. They are the right
to participate, the right to know, and the right to refuse dangerous
work. These longstanding concepts are the foundation upon which
the occupational safety and health system is built.
It is not only the employers who have the responsibilities. Under
the internal responsibility system Canadian employees have a
responsibility. The responsibility is to follow safe work practices,
to use personal protective equipment when required, and to report
unsafe working conditions to their employers.
At the same time, the foundation upon which the system
functions can be seen in the roles of federal, provincial and
territorial authorities. It is their responsibility to help ensure
compliance, to monitor and to audit how both parties fulfil their
responsibilities and to address matters of non-compliance. In other
words our occupational safety and health system has three partners:
employers, employees and government. All three have rights as
well as legal responsibilities to ensure a safe and healthy work
environment.
Here is one fine example of what can be achieved when partners
with a vested interest work together. Hon. members are likely
familiar with the workplace hazardous materials information
system, more commonly known as WHMIS. WHMIS is the result
of collaboration between federal, provincial and territorial
governments. It is the result of these governments consulting over
several years with industry and labour and what a result it is.
I mentioned a moment ago that we are world leaders in
occupational health and safety. WHMIS is the most advanced
information system of its kind in the world. WHMIS has enabled us
to establish a uniform identification system for dangerous
ingredients in the workplace. It ensures that hazardous materials
are adequately labelled by suppliers who must use standard criteria.
That is not all. Through the communications component of
WHMIS, workers learn how to handle hazardous materials safely
and employers are given the information they need to train their
workers in the proper use of hazardous materials.
For employees to participate effectively in developing clean and
safe work environments, they must recognize what is going on,
understand changes that occur and grasp a plethora of information.
WHMIS plays an important role in achieving these objectives. It is
an information system Canadians should be very proud of.
Nevertheless, just because we have developed a dependable
occupational safety and health system, that does not mean we are
resting on our laurels. Not at all. In its own way the government is
fully supporting the noble intent of this worthy motion brought
forward by the hon. member from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
We are currently reviewing the Canada Labour Code including
part II which contains the federal occupational safety and health
requirements. This comprehensive review began in 1993. A
tripartite committee comprised of knowledgeable individuals from
labour, management and government is considering more than 200
proposed changes brought forward by representatives from these
three groups.
The overall aim of the review is to modernize the code and
ensure its continuing efficiency. The context in which the review
has been carried out reflects the changing role of government, that
is, less intervention and more emphasis on the responsibility of
employers and employees to manage safety and health measures in
the workplace.
1986
Again, the theme of productive partnerships runs through the
review. Proposed changes will facilitate greater co-operation
among partners in the workplace to resolve occupational safety
and health issues. I am pleased to inform hon. members that the
review is proceeding on schedule.
(1755)
In summing up, I would like to outline for my hon. colleagues
the strategic directions in which the federal government is now
embarking with regard to occupational safety and health.
We are striving for greater co-operation among federal,
provincial and territorial governments with regard to occupational
safety and health.
On compliance, we are strengthening the internal responsibility
system by promoting greater employer responsibility for
occupational safety and health and ensuring that workers and their
representatives are able to become more actively involved in
protecting their safety and health.
On information, sound decisions can only be based on a clear
understanding of the issues. We are supporting effective ways of
providing OSH information, education and training to employers
and employees. We are promoting greater awareness of
occupational safety and health across the country.
It is important to monitor effectiveness so we are developing
performance indicators to assess the outcome of implementing
occupational safety and health standards nationwide. We are
actively participating in improving the standardized framework to
collect, to code and to classify information on workplace injuries
and illnesses.
On partnerships, productive collaboration is the key to sound
results. To that end we are striving to maximize the effective
involvement of everyone concerned with occupational safety and
health decision making. That includes the most efficient use of
limited resources and valuable expertise.
I empathize completely with the tragedy of workers who have
been killed or injured on the job. I commend the hon. member for
bringing safety and health concerns to the attention of the House
and the general public. I can think of no issue that rates greater
concern than the safety and health of Canadian workers.
The federal government is committed to preventing occupational
accidents and injuries and to strengthening internal responsibility
within workplaces. I assure the hon. member that the federal
government will continue to move in that direction.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the speech of our friend, the
parliamentary secretary to the minister. I also want to make it clear
that the Bloc Quebecois supports the hon. member's motion. It is
not enough to wish to review the Canada Labour Code, as the
government pledged to do. As a society, we must strive to achieve a
balance between legislation and symbols.
The NDP member is asking us to remember that people who
were working in a workplace that was not as safe as it should have
been lost their lives.
Let me tell you about a personal experience. Before becoming an
MP, I was executive assistant to the current Quebec minister of
employment and consultation. Barely one week into my new
job-and still very much excited about it-I met a mother whom I
will never forget. I had never seen her before. She was in her early
forties. A single mother, she told me that her 18 year old son-he
could have been your son or the parliamentary secretary's
son-was dead.
He had died at work. I clearly remember that he worked on
Notre-Dame street, for a company that builds frames for paintings.
He was driving a lift truck. This was in January. On the way to the
shipping department, the lift truck tipped and the worker was
killed.
This is not a rare occurrence. I got interested in this issue
because, in Quebec, we asked for a coroner's inquest. An inquest
was held and we realized that the whole issue of handling and
driving lift trucks in the workplace needed to be regulated. If these
regulations had been in place earlier, working conditions would
have been safer and Mrs. Poulin's son would probably still be with
us.
(1800)
The parliamentary secretary says that the government will
proceed with a review of the Labour Code. This is fine and we are
looking forward to participating in this exercise. How should a
potential revision of the Labour Code prevent us from making a
highly symbolic gesture and expressing in very practical terms our
solidarity with workers who have been killed on the job?
I think some effort must be made, mathematically, to try to
understand this phenomenon, because, once again, it is not
exceptional. It is all very well to be in a society with labour laws. It
is all very well to be in a society with occupational health and
safety committees. It is all very well to have part II of the Labour
Code, which governs the whole area of occupational health and
safety. The figures remain very disturbing indeed.
I looked for a more in-depth analysis of the type of accident and
of the sort of people at risk or who lose their life at the workplace,
and I came up with the following figures. Every five working days,
in other words every week, in areas of federal jurisdiction, because
this is what we are talking about, a worker dies. So, in this
particular week, there is a statistical chance a worker who got up
this morning and went to work will die, because he is in an unsafe
workplace or because of a whole lot of other factors. However, the
1987
fact remains that, in Canada, in 1996, once a week a worker will
lose his life at the workplace.
Every two minutes, again in Canada, in federal jurisdiction, a
worker is injured. Obviously the extent of the injury varies, but the
fact remains that, every two minutes, in Canada, in businesses
under federal jurisdiction, a worker is injured. As a result, 57,000
workers are injured or killed in accidents every year.
Is it too much to ask ourselves as members of Parliament to
make a gesture, to remind ourselves that we, as parliamentarians,
have not made every effort, taken every step so that we can rise
today and say that there are no work accidents in Canada, that no
one has died because of a disregard for safety in the workplace.
As the hon. member from the NDP pointed out, it is not only a
matter of life-although it is, of course, our first concern. Work
accidents also have an impact on a country's economic health.
According to the Department of Labour, which is headed by the
hon. member for Saint-Léonard, a total of $100 million-which is
a substantial amount of money; it is not an epiphenomenon or
marginal reality-is paid in compensation to workers who cannot
earn a salary as a result of an accident. We must do something
about this.
There is another figure I find interesting: reducing by one day
the average amount of time lost per accident in an area of federal
jurisdiction-this should be of interest to the President of the
Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance-could save $2.6
million a year in compensation costs.
Of course, one of the merits of the motion tabled by the member
from the NDP is that it makes us realize we still have some way to
go to make the workplace totally safe.
(1805)
It also reminds us that people lose their lives while trying to earn
a living and that, as a society, we cannot tolerate such a situation.
One of the means suggested to us for showing that we will not
tolerate it to keep it fresh in our minds.
One of the means of keeping it in our fresh in our minds is, of
course, through some visible sign. It has great significance for a
country-as you know, in this country there are many nations-it
really means something to have a flag at half mast. Flying a flag at
half mast means that, instead of an isolated action, we are inviting
people collectively to remember.
And what we have to remember is that still in Canada-although
in the past too there were people who lost their lives while trying to
earn a living, even before the days of industrialization-still in
1996, not a week goes by, according to the Department of
Labour-not the NDP member, not the Bloc, not the CSN, not the
FTQ, but the Department of Labour, under the direction of the hon.
member for Saint-Léonard-not a single week goes by without a
workplace death.
There are financial repercussions to all this. The estimated
amount of payments to injured workers, not unemployed workers,
is $100 million. This reality of work related accidents and fatalities
affects the private sector particularly, yes, but it also affects crown
corporations and the various federal departments.
I have a few figures to submit to you concerning the reality in the
federal workplace. According to the Department of Labour, every
50 working days, one worker in a crown corporation or a federal
department dies. Every nine minutes, one worker in a crown
corporation or a federal department is injured. This means an
annual total of 12,800 workers involved in accidents, sometimes
fatal ones. This amounts to $23 million.
Twenty-three million dollars is exactly the amount of the deficit
in the government's current operating account. Twenty-three
million dollars are paid out in benefits to replace lost income as the
result of accidents. In total, this represents 239,000 working days
lost due to accidents.
Have you ever considered that, in Canada, the greatest cause of
days lost at work or of lack of productivity at the workplace is not
strikes. It is in fact accidents on the job that, once again, in too
many cases mean people lose their lives.
We support this motion. This does not prevent us from
mentioning for the benefit of our listeners that we are not starting
from scratch. Part II of the Labour Code sets out employers'
obligations. It provides very clearly that employers must ensure the
health and safety of their employees.
It also provides that employees are not to handle dangerous
products and are to advise their immediate superiors of any
situation that might compromise workers' safety.
We must remember, nevertheless, despite these clear provisions
in part II of the Canada Labour Code that-and we must not forget
this; I cannot say it often or long enough-every week in Canada a
worker dies as the result of an accident on the job. The costs are
very high in economic terms, and we as parliamentarians must do
everything in our power to put a stop to this situation.
One particular way, as the member is proposing, is to remember.
One way to remember is to lower the flag to half mast-a very
powerful symbol.
(1810)
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
motion before us today calls for the flag on Parliament Hill to be
1988
lowered to half mast on April 28 of each year the commemorate a
national day of mourning for people killed in the workplace.
I am pleased to speak in support of this initiative. I commend the
hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for bringing it
forth today.
There probably is not anyone in the House who has not known
someone who has been killed on the job. While driving through my
constituency a few weeks back I came across a procession of
people who had gathered at the site of where a friend of theirs, a
taxi driver, had been killed. While on a call he was struck by
another vehicle. The road conditions were icy at the time. Those
people put up a large cross at the site of the accident. They covered
the cross with flowers and left it there. As far as I know it is still
there.
I suppose they did this for various reasons. One was to
commemorate this person who was simply doing his job and who
met with a very untimely and costly accident. Another reason
would be to remind other motorists who travel along that route that
they have to be ever vigilant.
I am sure that is what the member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake is trying to accomplish today. I commend him for that.
Before being elected to the House in 1993 I was a farmer. As a
matter of fact, I still am. Generally I suppose people would assume
farming is a very placid way of life, a laid back lifestyle with not
much danger involved. However, farming is the most hazardous
occupation in Canada.
From information provided to me by the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture based on a survey done by the United States and
adjusted to the Canadian agricultural population, the average death
rate among industries is something like 11 per 100,000, but the
farm death rate is five times higher. It is 55 deaths per 100,000.
That surpasses mining with around 50 deaths per 100,000.
Construction is in the neighbourhood of 37 per 100,000.
Between 1990 and 1994 in my home province of Alberta there
were 82 farm fatalities. Farming also has the dubious honour of
topping the list with the highest incidence of disabling injuries of
all industries in Canada with 58 per 100,000.
In my youth I spent some years trucking. It may not be well
known, but truckers will take evasive action to avoid collision with
other vehicles to the point that they put life and limb on the line, so
to speak, to avoid collision with other vehicles. In so doing,
truckers have often avoided a vehicle full of people but they have
paid very dearly. They have driven off the road, upset their vehicles
or collided with approaching vehicles and paid with their lives.
(1815)
When we are asked to reflect on the loss of life in the workplace
we automatically think back about four years to May 9, 1992 when
Canadians from coast to coast watched heroic attempts to rescue 26
trapped coal miners from the Westray mine in Plymouth, Nova
Scotia. Twenty-six Canadians lost their lives in one of the worst
workplace disasters in recent memory.
The conditions at the Westray mine that led to the explosion are
currently the subject of an inquiry. One of the questions being
asked is whether or not health and safety laws had been enforced.
I take exception to my colleague from The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake who suggests that private enterprise
makes conditions unfavourable or unsafe for workers. If we look at
the more socialized countries, their workplace death rates are
nothing to brag about either. While I agree with the general thrust
of the member's bill, I admonish him for dragging that kind of
politics into it.
The federal government is on the right track in some areas. It has
put these jurisdictions under provincial control. I believe that is a
move in the right direction. There is probably unnecessary
duplication and overlap by provincial and federal jurisdictions. I
would encourage this government to divest itself of areas in which
it is not needed and to turn these areas over to the provinces where
they may be administered better than they are now.
Workers in federally regulated industries are bound by the
provisions of Part III of the labour code. Provinces have their own
laws for occupational health and safety which differ from place to
place. As I said, the federal government should take the initiative
and divest itself of those areas.
The Canada Gazette of April 17, 1996 outlines the government's
plan to extricate itself from setting the minimum wage rate which
is a step in the right direction. More effort is needed to harmonize
federal-provincial labour regulations.
For the past year a review of Part I of the labour code has been
under way and amendments are expected this fall. I hope a review
of Part II and Part III will soon follow. Yesterday we debated the
possibility of severance pay for older workers, an issue brought
forward by my colleague from the Reform Party. The debate
indicated that Part III could use some review. As a result of my
colleague's efforts, the subject matter has been referred to a
committee. I am sure we will make some headway in that area.
Preliminary statistics for 1994, which is the last year available,
show that there were 709 workplace related fatalities in that year.
Seventy-four of those occurred in my province of Alberta. Whether
workplace fatalities claim one life or twenty-six, they are
devastating not only to family and friends of the deceased but to
their co-workers and employers as well.
1989
(1820)
Workers make this country productive. We have to do our utmost
to ensure that workplace health and safety standards are not
compromised. Lowering the flag is not only a symbolic gesture. I
am sure, as I said at the beginning, that what the hon. member
intends to accomplish is to provoke thought and to bring about
prevention.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first let me commend my friend from The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his initiative in putting down this
resolution. It is a very good one. I am pleased to rise, as did my
colleague from Hillsborough earlier and others in the House,
including my friend from Wetaskiwin, to give support to this
motion.
In the riding of Burin-St. George's, which I have the honour to
represent, there is a very picturesque community by the name of St.
Lawrence. It takes its name from the fact that it sits at the very
mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
That town has a sculpture, which serves as a monument to two or
three sets of events. It is a marvellous sculpture done by the
Bulgarian sculptor, Luben Boykov, three or four years ago. It
stands in the town square.
For those of us who understand biblical references, though never
described this way, it is in effect the good Samaritan sculpture.
There is a person reaching out for help at the bottom of the slab,
which represents a steep incline, and there is somebody offering
help.
I do not do justice in describing the sculpture but basically,
physically, that is what it is. It commemorates a couple of sets of
events: one has to do with wartime. That in itself is a very moving
set of events in which many American servicemen were rescued by
miners at St. Lawrence and the nearby town of Lawn in 1942.
The sculpture was placed there not only for that reason, but for a
second important reason. It has to do with mining. The sculpture
known as ``Echoes of Valour'' casts in time the mining disaster, of
which many Newfoundlanders, indeed many Canadians, will be
aware.
Let me read an excerpt from a description of the ``Echoes of
Valour'' sculpture as it relates to mining. It makes reference, first
of all, to mining beginning in this community around 1870. It has
gone on in the 100 years since then.
Here is a description:
Drilling was done with a dry hammer, which meant that dust was forever
present, clogging a miner's nostrils, eyes and mouth. The dust and smoke was so
thick that one could not see another miner until you walked right up to him. The air
was so thin in certain parts of the mine that a cigarette could not be lit because fire,
which requires oxygen, would immediately go out as attempts were made to light
the match. Many miners were getting sick, having great difficulty breathing.
Some were hospitalized at St. John's with tuberculosis.
In the 1950s, miners started dying at a very young age. Dr. Cyril Walsh
detected a high rate of lung cancer and brought it to the attention of the
provincial Department of Health. This spirited a national concern, but it was
already too late for hundreds of miners who had been exposed too much, too
long to the radon gas, which causes lung cancer.
St. Lawrence today has lost a generation of men from mining, leaving a town
void of grandfathers. This sculpture stands as a tribute and a memorial to their
hard work and dedication as they sacrificed their own lives to ensure a
comfortable lifestyle for their wives and children.
That tragedy, which went on for many years, is, in
Newfoundland folklore, the epitome of what can happen when
things go wrong on the work site, when the bottom line becomes
more important than the lives of the people producing the product.
(1825)
If I had the time today I could take members through a long
litany of how the company knew for years what it was inflicting on
those men and turned a blind eye, looked the other way.
Today when people go to that town in St. Lawrence not only will
they see the sculpture but they will meet dozens and dozens of
widows whose husbands are prematurely in the graveyard because
of company policy and a complete disregard for worker safety.
Today that sculpture, as a result of a decision a couple of years
ago, is the official symbol for the industrial safety organization
across Newfoundland. On this coming Sunday afternoon I am
pleased to say I will be in St. Lawrence, standing beside that
sculpture with people from all across the province as we once again
mark the day of mourning for the people who have lost their lives at
the work site.
Nowhere in the country is the impact of lost workers felt more
deeply, more emotionally and more profoundly than in that town of
St. Lawrence, that picturesque settlement on the south coast of
Newfoundland on the Burin Peninsula.
Today that is why I, on behalf of my constituents, can rise with a
heart and a half and give support to the resolution from my friend
from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. We have not done enough
for these people. We cannot bring them back but we can at least
signal the contribution they made. We can at least once again flag
the tragedy that is really ours because of the lack of attention to
worker safety over the years.
In flying that flag at half mast let it be a reminder of the lives that
were lost and a standard and a beacon for us to resolve as a society
that we will not let again happen what happened to people like
those miners in St. Lawrence.
1990
If we had time we could talk about Westray. I know the inquiry
is ongoing and so we should not be prejudicing anything that goes
on there, but I do not think one needs to be Einstein to figure out
the bottom line there was also more important than worker safety
in too many cases.
We must see to it that kind of thing does not repeat itself. If we
are worth our salt in the Chamber we will not only go out and
exhort people to put flags at half mast on Sunday in memory of
those people but we will use that as a reminder that we have to do
even more in symbolic terms and in tangible terms.
If we can resolve as a society to do that, these people will not
have died completely in vain if they can, through the effort and
inspiration they give us, improve the lot of others who go to work
sites which are not as safe as they ought to be.
I am delighted to support the resolution.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am overwhelmed with the amount of
support members have given to this motion. It begs me to ask, now
that the debate is closing, that you may find it in order to seek
unanimous consent that the question be put so that the members
who have spoken in support of the motion have the opportunity to
express that support in a vote. Then perhaps we will be able to see
the flag flying at half mast three days from now in illustration of
our will in support of these individuals.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion from the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
(1830 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provoded for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
1990
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on page
64 of the red book of the Liberal Party published in 1993 we find
the following promise:
Our first task will be to conduct a comprehensive baseline study of federal
taxes, grants, and subsidies, in order to identify barriers and disincentives to
sound environmental practices.
Last December when we reported to the House, the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development did
hold hearings in keeping this promise and made numerous
recommendations to the government for the 1996 budget.
One positive result was that the budget contains measures for
beginning the process of putting renewable and non-renewable
energy sources on equal footing. That is a good step in the right
direction.
At the time of the committee's hearings experts in the field of
sustainable development told us one year would be sufficient for
completion of such a study and warned against stretching it over a
longer time.
Another reason for the year timeframe is that soon we will have
in place a commissioner of the environment and sustainable
development in the auditor general's department. In 1998 the job of
this person will be to review each department's sustainable
development strategy.
If this baseline work is done now departments would be able to
incorporate the relevant findings into their sustainable
development strategies. In addition, this work would provide a
benchmark to judge progress toward sustainable development
objectives in individual departments.
The environment committee recommended the finance minister
appoint a small group of outside experts, supported by senior
federal officials taken from the departments of the environment,
finance, natural resources, agriculture and transport, among others.
This working group would be chaired by a recognized and credible
expert in sustainable development matters charged with the
authority to make definitive recommendations on behalf of the
working group. This approach to the baseline work would provide
substantive proposals plus transparency and legitimacy in the eyes
of the public.
I ask the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Finance if the government will launch the comprehensive
baseline study now so as to be completed by September of this
year, as recommended by the environment committee, or will it be
the turn of the century before we see any results?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon.
member for Davenport who is held in such high regard by many in
the House, given his interest and expertise in areas concerning the
environment.
As the Minister of Finance indicated to the House on March 26,
the government initiated work on a baseline study of taxes, grants
and subsidies in 1994. At that time the government established the
task force on economic instruments and disincentives to sound
environmental practices which made recommendations.
1991
The 1994 budget announced measures to encourage energy
conservation and encourage contributions to mine reclamation
funds. The 1995 budget announced measures to encourage
charitable donations of ecologically sensitive land. The 1996
budget announced tax changes which establish an essentially level
playing field between certain renewable and non-renewable energy
investments.
The 1996 budget also indicated the government's intention to
consult on tax and other measures to improve the treatment of
energy efficiency investments and on the feasibility of extending
the tax treatment of mine reclamation trust funds to other sectors
such as waste disposal sites and reforestation.
In addition, Technology Partnerships Canada, launched in the
recent budget, will encourage the development and
commercialization of environmental technologies in partnership
with the private sector.
As the Minister of Finance indicated to the House on March 26,
the government is actively reviewing the proposals of the
standingcommittee concerning further work on the baseline study
and will be reporting shortly on how it intends to continue the
important work which has been initiated
The government also appreciates the work of the standing
committee, its chairman and all members of the House on this
important matter.
On a personal note, I hope this will be before the year 2000.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24.
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)