36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 179
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 11, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of motion
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1005
| BANK ACT
|
| Bill C-67. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-474. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-475. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| PROGRAM COST DECLARATION ACT
|
| Bill C-476. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1010
| CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND SAFETY BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-477. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| PETITIONS
|
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| National Anthem
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Grandparents
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1015
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Poverty in Canada
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Motion
|
1020
1025
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1030
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1035
1040
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1045
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1050
1055
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1100
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1105
1110
| Amendment
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1115
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1120
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1125
1130
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1135
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1140
1145
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1150
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1155
1200
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1205
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Mr. David Price |
1210
1215
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1220
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1225
1230
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1235
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1240
1245
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1250
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1255
1300
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1305
1310
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1315
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1320
1325
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1330
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1335
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1340
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1345
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| RBST
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| TEACHING
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1400
| DANIEL REHAK
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| HERITAGE WEEK
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| THE LATE SHAUGHNESSY COHEN
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
1405
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| GEORGE BROWN
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| BILL C-55
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| WATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| THÉÂTRE DU RIDEAU VERT
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1410
| THE LATE YVON DUFOUR
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| JOB CORPS PROGRAM
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| WASTE REPORT
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| DONALD CALNE
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| TAXATION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1435
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EXPORT OF CANDU REACTORS
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
| HUMAN CLONING
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
| SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1445
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1450
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| POVERTY
|
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1455
| FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| UNEMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1500
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| THE LATE HON. ARTHUR RONALD HUNTINGTON
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1510
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1515
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Poverty in Canada
|
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1520
1525
| Mr. John McKay |
1530
1535
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1540
| Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
1545
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1550
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1555
1600
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1605
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1610
1615
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1620
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1625
1630
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1635
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1640
1645
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1650
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. John Herron |
1655
1700
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1705
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Corrections and Conditional Release
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Poverty in Canada
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1710
1715
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1720
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1725
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-247. Report Stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Motion No. 1
|
1735
1740
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1745
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1750
1755
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1800
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1805
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1810
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1815
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| Mrs. Elinor Caplan |
| Motion No. 2
|
1820
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1825
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
| The Environment
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 179
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 11, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means
motion to amend the Income Tax Act, and I ask that an order of
the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
These amendments deal with permitting the new foreign bank entry
regime for Canada, the so-called foreign branching regime, a long
awaited measure. I am also tabling background notes.
* * *
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments which were recently made by the
government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (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 10
petitions.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential
amendment to another act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1005
BANK ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act, the
Winding-up and Restructuring Act and other acts related to
financial institutions and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-474, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation
Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, the operations of Canada Post have been
somewhat suspect for a number of years. There is suspicion among
people that it is using the money it brings in from regular mail
to subsidize other aspects of its operation, for example its
courier service and electronic mail, and to drive its private
market competitors out. In Calgary we had people who went ahead
and had their own mail delivery service called T2P overnight. I
think we can deliver better service with Canada Post by allowing
competition so people can see what other options there are out
there.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-475, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking
and entering).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce my
private member's bill in the House today. This bill would
establish a minimum two year sentence for second or subsequent
convictions of break and enters on dwelling houses. I am proud
to state that I have the support of the justice ministers of
Alberta and Manitoba. It is my hope that this private member's
bill will receive support from my colleagues so we can
effectively address this national problem. Canadians view break
and enter crimes as more than just property crimes. They view
them as crimes against the person.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PROGRAM COST DECLARATION ACT
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-476, an act to provide for improved information
on the cost of proposed government programs.
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill is a second attempt on a bill
that was brought up in the previous parliament which went as far
as the committee stage. This bill attempts to empower the House
in the sense that it requires all legislation and new programs
introduced by the government to be costed. That costing or the
anticipation of that cost is then scrutinized by the auditor
general. It essentially allows us as legislators to understand
the basic costs of new programs.
1010
More important, it allows us as legislators to go back to our
constituents and to explain to them how much new types of
government programs are costing.
I do not believe there are very many people in the House or in
the country who do not demand greater accountability for
government. That is what this legislation would do.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND SAFETY BOARD ACT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-477, an act to amend the Canadian
Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and
the Canada Labour Code as a consequence.
He said: Madam Speaker, with the extreme growth that has taken
place in interprovincial and international road transport in the
last few years, there is a gap in safety regulation with respect
to very large vehicles.
Any accident involving them right now is investigated only by
the province in which the accident took place unless the
provinces makes a special request to the Transportation Safety
Board to become involved in the investigation.
This bill would require that the Transportation Safety Board
have authority over any accidents occurring with large trucks and
buses in interprovincial or international transport.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
on behalf of a number of Canadians, including some from my own
constituency of Mississauga South, on human rights.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that
violations of universally accepted human rights continue to be
rampant around the world, particularly in countries such as
Indonesia.
The petitioners also acknowledge that Canada is internationally
recognized as a champion of human rights in the world.
The petitioners therefore call on parliament and the Government
of Canada to continue to condemn such violations of universally
accepted human rights and to seek to bring to justice those
responsible for such abuse.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present on
behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey, in particular from the
areas of Leith, Chatsworth, Kemble and Owen Sound, a petition
requesting a change in the national anthem.
The petitioners would like that the second line read “True
patriot love in all of us command”.
GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure to present a
petition on behalf of many Canadians with regard to access for
grandparents to their grandchildren.
The petitioners request parliament amend the Divorce Act to
include a provision as supported by Bill C-340 regarding the
right of spouses' parents, the grandparents, to have access to or
custody of children.
There is currently legislation in several provincial
jurisdictions, including Quebec and Alberta, that allows
grandparents the right to see their grandchildren.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
a petition signed by many Canadians calling on parliament to
amend the Divorce Act to include the provision as supported in
Bill C-340 regarding the right of spouses' parents, the
grandparents, to have access to or custody of their children.
1015
MARRIAGE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have three petitions to present today, all on the same
subject matter, from Canadians in Pincher Creek, Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta and various smaller communities in the province
of Nova Scotia.
All of the petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an
act to amend the Marriage Act (Prohibited Degrees) and the
Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can
only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions signed by constituents of Stoney Creek who
feel it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage, as it
has always been known and understood in Canada, be preserved and
protected.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—POVERTY IN CANADA
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the
government should take steps to alleviate the burden of poverty
in Canada by encouraging self-sufficiency and self-reliance, and
to that end, should increase the basic Income Tax credit to
$10,000, index the tax brakets and index the Child Tax Benefit.
She said: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will
be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for
Madawaska—Restigouche.
We have decided today to put a matter of national urgency before
the House, a matter that cannot wait any longer. I am referring
to poverty.
Barely a few days before the next federal budget is tabled, I
consider it entirely appropriate to hold a public debate on this
national scourge, which continues to be one of the main
obstacles to equal opportunity in Canadian society.
I would like right off to establish the parameters of the debate
I am initiating today with the aid of a historic reminder. On
November 24, 1989, this House witnessed a rare act of solidarity
on a matter of national urgency, the unanimous passing of a
resolution expressing a common desire to eliminate child poverty
in Canada by 2000.
Despite this desire, clearly and—I said it and I repeat
it—unanimously expressed, there are today 564,000 more children
living in poverty than there were in 1989. In fact, the rate of
child poverty rose from 15% to 21% during this period.
In other words, this means that one child in five is exposed
daily to the cruel consequences of misery and poverty. The
reason these children are living in such conditions is that
their parents are among the 20% of the Canadian population who
live below the poverty line.
These alarming figures have moved me on numerous occasions in
recent months to beg the Minister of Finance to make children a
priority in the next federal budget, among other things by
indexing the national child benefit in order to ensure that
families receiving it maintain their purchasing power.
I have reminded him of how vital it is to invest right now in
the well-being of our children, so that they may develop to their
full potential and contribute to Canadian society later on.
Yet every time I have tried to get a commitment from him, or
from any other minister of the Liberal government, I have had to
settle for a nicely recited litany, always the same one, of
nothing but columns of figures. All these statistics are, of
course, aimed at singing the praises of this government and how
well it has done in improving the economy and creating
employment.
1020
Instead of openly admitting the deplorable situation in which
some of the children of this country are living, and instead of
assuming their responsibilities by putting their shoulders to
the wheel in order to correct this national aberration, the
members of the government are content to issue glowing reports
about the excellent health of our public finances. Yet they
cleverly forget to point out that, in order to attain that
excellent health, they have given up providing a social safety
net for Canadians. They also cleverly neglect to mention that
this race toward economic recovery leads to an even more marked
deterioration in the living conditions of those whose financial
situation is already precarious.
The director of Repas Granby et Région Inc., a social advocacy
group in my riding, recently informed me of the dramatic impact
this insane pursuit of economic recovery can have sometimes.
When I hear him tell the story of this single mother who must
sometimes resort to prostitution in order to support her
children or that of a welfare recipient who committed suicide
upon learning that her benefits had been cut, I understandably
cannot applaud the government's approach to putting its fiscal
house in order.
I think therefore that it is appropriate to mention an important
fact, which has been overlooked in the government's rhetoric.
In its two terms, the government opposite will have chopped more
than $10 billion from social transfer payments, yet it continues
to portray itself as the champion of the young, the old and the
unemployed and of social programs.
However, the Prime Minister was nowhere to be seen yesterday
morning, when victims of his so-called sound management rallied
on Parliament Hill to condemn his vision of wealth distribution.
I was there, along with my leader, the right hon. Joe Clark, and
my colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I can
tell you that the government's triumphalist statements about its
good management of public affairs are not very well received by
this bitter and desperate constituency.
On behalf of these and of all Canadians who bear the brunt of
this government's economic policies every day, I urge my
colleagues not to give up.
These people, who came to Ottawa to express their anger and
despair, need our vigilance and support. They are a living
reminder of this government's economic failure. In spite of what
the Prime Minister and his government colleagues may say, they
failed miserably in their most basic duties by letting some of
their fellow citizens become so impoverished that they have to
do without food and shelter.
I am not the only one who is running out of patience with the
government's indifference.
The Prime Minister should ask young people if they are happy to
wait, to hear nice speeches, to see their debt reach excessive
proportions, and to find out that post-secondary education is
becoming increasingly inaccessible.
Young people are not any more gullible than us. They know that
it is the Liberals who contributed to the gradual and systematic
erosion of our public education system. Again, the Liberals'
wealth redistribution record has been absolutely dismal.
Since 1989, the year which I used in my introduction as our base
year for this debate, average family income in Canada has fallen
by roughly 4%. It has gone down, not up.
Yet, the Minister of Finance claims that the economic
fundamentals are right, that unemployment continues to go down,
and that inflation is below 1%. Despite all that and despite the
fact that the economy, as the minister says, is doing better,
the question is: Better for whom?
It is certainly not better for the average Canadian family,
whose income has gone down by 4% in recent years. It is not
better for the children I met this morning at a school in the
national capital region, where we served breakfast. These
children, who were shamelessly abandoned by the state, must rely
on charitable organizations to start their day with some food in
their stomachs.
1025
It is definitely not better for families on welfare, which must
face a daily reality that most of us cannot even imagine.
In my riding, the co-ordinator of the Association coopérative
d'économie familiale de Granby recently told me about the
anguish experienced by these families toward the end of a month,
when the fridge and the cupboard are empty, or when spring
heralds the arrival not of flowers and birds but of the letter
they will receive from Hydro-Quebec demanding that they pay the
arrears accumulated during the winter, otherwise power will be
cut off.
This may all be very new for our well-fed and well-lodged
ministers, but it is nothing unusual in the lives of a growing
number of our fellow citizens.
The proof is in the number of food banks, which have almost
tripled in Canada since 1989. According to the Canadian
Association of Food Banks, the number of communities relying on
this service has risen from 180 in 1989 to 508 in 1998.
I must confess I have long been puzzled by cabinet's
indifference to the national tragedy I have just described.
After all, this is the same government that signed the
Copenhagen accords in 1995, committing it to take concrete
action to improve the living conditions of the poorest of the
poor in Canada.
I would almost have to conclude that this attitude on the part
of government members indicates a flagrant lack of compassion
for the more unfortunate members of our society.
That would certainly confirm the popular belief that
legislators, the very people with the power to change things,
are often indifferent to the basic needs of those they
represent. But I am an optimist by nature and I refuse to
believe that the government will not listen to reason.
Time is running out. Something must be done. The issue of
poverty must be addressed without further delay. Canadians want
a proactive government that will get moving and do whatever it
takes to put an end to the national disgrace of poverty in this
country.
Solutions exist.
All that is lacking is the willingness to do something. One of
the things the government could do is to remedy the inequality
of taxation practices and not tax low wage earners to death. It
could also encourage self-sufficiency and self-reliance by
increasing the basic income tax credit to $10,000 and indexing
the tax tables and the child tax benefit.
On behalf of our society's most disadvantaged members, I call on
the government to show leadership and compassion.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Would the House give its consent to revert to the
presentation of reports from committees under Routine
Proceedings?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to revert to Routine Proceedings?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the member for Shefford. If my
memory serves me correctly, this is not the first time we have
debated this issue in the House and I congratulate her for
bringing this issue once again before the House for debate.
I have been very concerned about the issue of bracket creep
which is more or less what she is talking about. I do not want
to play cheap politics, but I was taken aback when she said that
she and Joe Clark were outside yesterday with the poor on
Parliament Hill. I thought: Where was Mr. Clark in 1984 when
legislation was introduced which created bracket creep?
This problem was created by that party. That party, in its
wisdom, said it was not going to index anything unless it was
over 3 percentage points. She is absolutely correct that since
that time low income families of the country have been devastated
by a constant erosion of their incomes.
1030
Worse than that, this party has created a poverty trap which
people cannot get out of. In other words if someone is making
something like $10,000 or $15,000 and wants to make an extra
dollar, the marginal rate of tax is 50%.
Her motion talks about assisting self-sufficiency. I agree with
her that we have to something about it, but she should not stand
and say that she and Mr. Clark were very concerned about the poor
people outside this door the other day. Mr. Clark was sitting in
these very chairs as a minister when that legislation was passed.
I always hear about the great wonderful things we should do.
How much will it cost? Has she done her homework? Can she tell
me how many taxpayers dollars it will cost to implement the
message she is talking about today?
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Madam Speaker, I am very sensitive to my
colleague's comments, and I also think he is sensitive to the
issue of poverty. However, his remarks today concern a period
of full blown economic crisis. The federal government did what
had to be done at the time.
Since 1993, however, the economy has recovered, and the
government still continues to overtax employees at hugely
excessive rates. It cut over $10 billion in social transfers.
It made bad choices.
We are here today to debate, and not necessarily to toss the
ball back and forth.
We have to find solutions now. We have to stop talking and find
ways to help these people. The things that happened in the past
are in the past, and there are reasons why they happened.
Today, let us take the time to find ways to help people who are
suffering now.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, I would first
like to congratulate my colleagues from Shefford and
Madawaska—Restigouche.
For the past two years, my colleague has shown concern about the
situation of the poor and the disadvantaged, and I think that
this is a very important matter. I was smiling, because my
colleague from the Liberal Party was talking about the situation
in 1984, when the Liberals had just increased the debt eleven
fold, from $18 billion to $200 billion. We doubled it in nine
years, for reasons he is familiar with, namely debt service.
I would ask my colleague, given that the fight against poverty
concerns taxation, if there might not be one time measures to be
taken. One of the greatest growth sectors of the economy are
the soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless. Right now,
there is no program to help these two types of agencies, which
need funding urgently.
I would like to ask my colleague whether she thinks the upcoming
budget could contain a specific program to support these two
types of agencies, which are helping the most disadvantaged.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my
hon. colleague from Chicoutimi, who shares my great concerns
about poverty, for his words.
I agree there ought to be programs to help these people. As I
said, food bank use has nearly tripled. There are, I believe,
some things that need to be done on this score.
I could give a number of examples in my riding of people whose
income is not enough to cover housing and clothes, and when the
end of the month is approaching, there is nothing left in the
cupboard to eat. Something must be done. Food is a primary
need.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam Speaker, first
of all, I wish to thank my colleague from Shefford for agreeing
to share her time with me so that I might speak to the House on
this motion.
It is a motion of vital importance to me. There is no doubt
that a lot of statistics will be recited to us today, some more
disquieting than others. In my own riding, nearly 20% of
families were low income families in 1995. That same year,
close to 50% of single people were in the low income category.
1035
In other words, the problem of poverty is not only an urban one.
It does not manifest itself only in major centres. Poverty is
a scourge in all regions and in all communities in Canada. We
have a duty to address this problem in a concrete manner. We
could spend weeks and months throwing up our hands at the huge
scope of the problem, but that will do nothing to help the poor
of this country,
The motion we are presenting today offers some really down to
earth solutions which would make a big difference to many low
income individuals such as the elderly, young people and
children, single mothers, low wage earners, and many others.
[English]
The issue of poverty is very complex, which is why we know very
little about the true state of poverty in our country. As a
country we have not developed an effective way to identify and
measure poverty. We have not identified all the causes of
poverty and we do not have an effective and complete strategy to
eliminate poverty. That may be a tall order, but unless we take
specific first steps poverty will continue to grow.
The House has always been full of good intentions. In 1989, 10
years ago, members of the House gave their unanimous support to a
motion which sought to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty
among Canadian children by the year 2000. A mere 10 months away
from this critical date, the rate of children living in poverty
has grown by 500,000, from 1 million in 1989 to 1.5 million in
1999. This is a true shame and a national tragedy.
I would like to quote one parliamentarian who spoke in the 1989
debate:
I never hear the Minister of Finance talk about the real deficit
of this country, which is those one million kids in poverty. That
is the real lack of investment. That is the real tragedy. That
is the greatest deficit we face. That is the problem, and there
is nothing being done to address that kind of issue.
The person I have just quoted is the current foreign affairs
minister of the Liberal government. I look forward to hearing
his comments today to find out if he is proud that many more
children go hungry every night because of his government's
policies.
The growing rate of poverty has become an international
embarrassment for Canada. Last December a United Nations
committee chastised Canada for its inaction in this domain. The
1998 report of the United Nations Committee on Economics, Social
and Cultural Rights is less than flattering and Canada has a long
way to go to meet the covenant obligations.
The UN report pointed out that since 1994, in addressing the
budget deficits by slashing social expenditures, Canada has not
paid sufficient attention to the adverse consequences of the
enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by the Canadian
population as a whole.
It also notes that the absence of an official poverty line makes
it difficult to hold federal, provincial and territorial
governments accountable for their obligation under a covenant.
There has been little or no progress in the alleviation of social
and economic deprivation among aboriginal peoples. In all but
two provinces the national child benefit is in fact only given to
children of working poor parents instead of all children of low
income families as it was meant to be given.
1040
[Translation]
A reading of the UN committee's report leaves us with the
impression that, in recent years, poverty has become an even
more serious problem in Canada. Our country boasts about being a
champion of human rights, co-operation and compensation. This
means the international community should see us as a country
that is trying to eliminate poverty.
However, based on our Prime Minister's recent actions, it looks
like the tarnishing of Canada's international reputation is no
big deal for this government.
Reports such as this one serve two main purposes. First, because
they tarnish our international reputation, they motivate us to
take quick action to solve the issue and thus limit the damage.
Second, they make us see the point of view of outsiders who have
no direct interest in the affairs of our country. Consequently,
these reports are generally quite objective, honest and fair.
Most people are prepared to talk about poverty and are concerned
about the poor. Unfortunately, when the time comes to act, they
usually decide to use their time and energy for other purposes.
To merely talk about poverty does not help alleviate the problem
at all. If we really want to eliminate poverty, we must
immediately take concrete action.
[English]
There is only one way to eliminate poverty and it is by placing
more money in the hands of Canadians. The government can do this
through lower taxes and tax exemptions, better education and the
creation of an environment that will stimulate economic growth
and development.
In the motion we have proposed today we have identified but a
few simple steps that would go a long way toward helping poor
people. We suggest that the government should increase the basic
income tax credit to $10,000. It should index tax brackets and
index the child tax benefit.
There are many other measures that could be undertaken and I am
sure we will hear many other suggestions today from all parties
in the House during the debate.
No one party can lay claim to the best solutions to eliminate
poverty and no one party can appropriate social conscience to the
exclusion of all others. Within our chosen parties we are
individuals who serve the people that live in our communities.
The people in my riding want us to act to better the lives of
many of our neighbours, our friends and even strangers we have
never met. I for one look forward to listening to my colleagues
in the House in the hope of having a non-partisan and productive
debate on this burning issue.
As I stand before the House I am reminded of the words of John
Donne, a 16th century English poet and clergyman who wrote the
following:
No man is an island, entire of itself
Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
If clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less.
Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in man kind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
The bell is tolling for all of us in the House.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I say at the outset that I agree with the sentiment of the motion
before the House today on poverty. It is an extremely important
issue. It is an issue that puts our children particularly as
having the first call on the resources of the nation, and with
that I agree.
With regard to the specifics of the motion I do not agree.
I want to quickly share why I do not agree on each of the points
and ask for the member's comments.
1045
The first item is with regard to increasing the basic amount,
the non-refundable tax credit from the current $6,456 up to
$10,000. That action would in fact be a benefit for all
Canadians right across the board. It would be a tremendously
expensive proposition and certainly would not focus dollars.
Therefore I am not in favour of across the board increases.
Second, indexing the brackets would simply only benefit those
who are currently making over $30,000 a year. Again it misses
the target. The target is not those making more than $30,000 a
year. We all know it is something much less.
Finally, with regard to the child tax benefit, there is no
question that is one that specifically does go because it is
income tested to our lowest income Canadians. An indexation of
that in the current year would only generate an additional $14 a
year to a family. That itself is absolutely insignificant
compared to the cost of the other matters the Conservative Party
is raising today.
All of the things his party is proposing have nothing to do with
real poverty. Given that, would the member not agree that the
important element in addressing poverty is first to define real
poverty, not relative poverty, and to establish ways in which we
can focus and target our resources to deal with real poverty in
Canada? Real poverty is what they were talking about in 1989,
food, shelter and clothing, and not what they are talking about
today on child poverty, when they say that child poverty exists
when children cannot go to a birthday party because they cannot
afford a good enough gift.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, before I answer that
question I would like to propose an amendment to the motion, that
the words—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid
at this point the member is not permitted to propose a motion.
The member may answer the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer the
question.
[English]
As far as measuring real poverty, yes, there is a problem with
that in Canada. I do agree we have to find a way to measure the
real percentage of real poor people in Canada. With the way it
is now measured with the LICO, the low income cutoff, we know and
Statistics Canada knows that it is not the right way to measure
it. Yes, we must identify first of all what the real rate of
poverty is.
As far as tax exemptions, we have spoken about the $10,000 as
proposed by us today. It is certainly a first step. I do not
see where a government can charge taxes to people earning under
$10,000. It is absolutely ludicrous to even think that people
earning under $10,000 have to pay taxes.
I would like to note something here. The 1990 Liberal caucus
task force, which was co-chaired by the finance minister,
recommended: more funding for affordable housing in provincial
transfers; new federal-provincial programs to assist working poor
with housing costs; holding a national conference on the
homeless; increasing the funding of housing co-ops; looking for
new ways to use housing co-ops; making surplus crown lands
available below market value for low income housing; encouraging
public-private partnerships to build affordable housing; and
eliminating substandard aboriginal housing by 2000.
Those were recommendations made by the current finance minister
in 1990. Like so many other Liberal promises, all of these
remain unfulfilled.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, since this government first
came to office, the overall level of the tax burden and
especially how it impacts the most vulnerable in our society has
been a major consideration in our budget deliberations. This year
is no exception.
I would like to thank the hon. member for raising an issue that
is not only timely but also is of considerable importance and
relevance to our underlying success and stature as a nation.
It provides an appropriate opportunity to highlight actions that
our government has taken in budget after budget.
1050
Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are on
record as saying that our government is committed to reducing the
tax burden on Canadians. The 1998 budget gave concrete proof of
this commitment and that this commitment is real, with over $7
billion over three years to the benefit of 14 million Canadians.
Both the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance have made it
clear that our priority within tax reduction is to give first
place to those who are in the greatest need, those in poverty or
those with low incomes and especially families with children.
Here again our budgets have given proof to this priority through
real performance.
For example, in the 1998 budget we acted to increase the amount
of yearly income that low income Canadians can receive on a tax
free basis by $500. That took 400,000 Canadians off the federal
tax rolls completely.
Even more important in my mind has been the work we have done
with the provinces and territories in the development of the
national child benefit system. Our goal is to ensure that
children are always better off when their parents leave welfare.
That is why the 1997 budget announced an $850 million increase in
our support to low income families through the Canada child tax
benefit. That was followed up in the 1998 budget with measures
to provide an additional $850 million increase in the child tax
benefit, $425 million in July 1999 and $425 million in July 2000.
Taken together, these measures benefit about 1.4 million Canadian
families with 2.5 million children.
Let me make one thing clear. Our government recognizes
completely that such measures are but steps, though important
steps, in a much longer journey. We make no claims that we have
done enough in the battle against need and hardship, but what we
have done is what we could afford to do. This is the reason that
while I respect the intent of today's motion, I cannot endorse
its sweeping menu of action.
We have to remember that just five years ago this nation was
burdened with a deficit of $42 billion. Interest payments on our
surging debt were consuming about 33 cents of every tax dollar.
Our fiscal follies were exacting a painful price. It was
measured in interest rates that were too high and job creation
that was too low. That is why our government has constantly
balanced our commitment to tax reduction and our priority to ease
the burden on low income Canadians with another equally binding
commitment, that is, before all else to get the government's
books back in balance.
What is important to understand is that these two binding
commitments are not in conflict. They actually reinforce each
other. The proof of this is also very visible today. The surest
form of sustained assistance for Canadians in need is the
opportunity to earn a better living, and that means jobs. The
surest way for the government to obtain the revenues to better
assist Canadians in need is through real economic growth, the
type of growth that is helped by low interest rates and marked by
growing employment.
We were not going to achieve these things if we were to continue
as a nation to borrow against the future. That is why we took
tough consistent action to put an end to government that lived
beyond its means. Our success here is also a matter of record.
In the fiscal year 1997-98 we eliminated the deficit for the
first time in over 25 years and we committed ourselves to
balanced budgets again this year and in 1999-2000. It was not an
abstract achievement. It has helped to position us so that
despite a difficult global economy, Canada is still recording
moderate growth. More importantly, this January our unemployment
rolls fell to 7.8%. Yes that is still too high, but it is also
the best performance since June 1990. In other words more
Canadians are working than we have seen in almost a decade. That
is the best way, the most sustained way to hit poverty head on.
It was our fiscal success that made it possible for last year's
budget to begin the process of broad based tax relief so many
Canadians desire. We were able to undertake investments such as
the millennium scholarship fund, an investment that will help
thousands of young Canadians obtain a higher education.
1055
I emphasize once again that there is much more to be done but we
will not do it in a way that jeopardizes the sustained advances,
fiscal and economic, that have been hard earned by Canadians.
That is why we did not and still do not have the luxury of moving
toward the menu of actions the hon. member opposite is
suggesting.
The world economy is still volatile. Private sector forecasts of
Canadian economic growth have been consistently ratcheted down
over the last nine months. While there have been some positive
indications currently, the time is much too soon to make the kind
of tax reduction commitments that are being suggested in this
motion which we would pay for year after year after year.
Yes we will continue our process of expanding tax relief as the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have stated, but we
will also place continuing value on prudent planning and fiscal
forecasts.
We dare not repeat the error of the hon. member's own party when
it was in government of relying on rosy forecasts today that
deliver economic turmoil and fiscal failure in the years that
follow. No, we will continue our balanced approach because it is
the approach that helps the most Canadians in the most need in
the surest way. It is the approach that best ensures our
government can continue to provide real assistance where it
matters and in a way that can be sustained. Let me remind the
House that this targeted approach to helping those in need has
been a constant in budget after budget.
We know that charities are vital partners in the battle against
poverty. That is why in our very first budget we lowered the
threshold by which charitable donations begin to earn the 29% tax
credit. We know that taking targeted action to boost assistance
to students and to people trying to improve their economic
condition by upgrading their education helps address poverty.
In conclusion, it is hardly strange that our government's record
of tax relief may not be as dramatic or all encompassing as some
opposition members say they would like it to be. It is always
easy to spend money when one is not answerable to the future
consequences.
A responsible government has to address more than just good
intentions. It also has to face hard facts and deal with real
risks. That means facing up to continuing fiscal constraints and
dealing with the real risk of economic volatility.
The most important fact of all is that this government has
proven year after year and budget after budget that a balanced
and moderate approach delivers the results that Canadians want
and that Canadians deserve. These results are positioning all
Canadians for a more secure future whereby we can continue to
deliver genuine gains for Canadians in need, rather than just
pontificate politically as we just heard from the party opposite.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, I
would urge that the parliamentary secretary not reduce this to
pure partisanship. This issue requires all parliamentarians to
work to ensure that this issue is addressed because poverty and
particularly poverty affecting children is something that all
parliamentarians should take very seriously.
My question for the parliamentary secretary relates to the
employment insurance fund. The fact is that EI premiums are a
regressive tax on the poorest of Canadians. Somebody making
$39,000 per year in Canada pays the same amount of EI premiums as
somebody making $300,000 per year. It is grossly unfair in that
regard.
The changes made by this government to EI benefits has hurt
significantly. The draconian changes have savaged benefits for
instance for seasonal workers. In my riding 4,580 people
qualified for EI in 1994. That was reduced to 3,130 in 1997.
I want to read from correspondence received from one of my
constituents. I want the parliamentary secretary to hear this so
that he has some awareness of how his government's changes in
employment insurance have affected people living in rural Canada
and the rural poor.
This is one letter I received:
How do you expect people to live on $200 per month for food,
clothes, fuel, lights. Try to run a vehicle when the nearest
town is 40 miles away. The government has never fought for
seasonal workers. Seasonal workers need fairer treatment. How
do you think small businesses, stores, farms can deal without
crop pickers, without road work, without forestry workers,
without strawberry pickers and planters, blueberry rakers, what
about landscapers and roofers?
1100
The changes made have impacted significantly, particularly rural
Canada, and have created a sense of poverty that is egregious and
unacceptable in our country. It is time we stand up and take off
our ideological blinders in the House. It is time to do what is
right and either reduce the EI premiums such that more Canadians
can go back to work or take that fund for what it was designed, a
fund to benefit those people who paid into it. It is absolutely
grossly unfair that the EI fund which was designed to benefit the
poorest of Canadians is being taken now by this government to pad
its books to look better for the finance minister's records. It
is no good to have a country that is in the black when Canadians
are in the red.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, for the benefit of the
hon. member I will repeat what I said when I first stood up. I
indicated that the raising of this issue was not only timely but
of considerable importance and relevance to our underlying
success in stature as a nation. If the hon. member would like, I
would certainly take the time to provide him with a transcript of
what I had said.
With respect to his comments on EI, one only has to remember not
too long ago when the Conservative government was here in Ottawa
when it did nothing but increase EI premiums, devastate the
economy and increase poverty in this country. That government
did nothing but have employment insurance premiums going up,
unemployment going up and the economy going down. And this hon.
member has the audacity to get up and talk about what this
government has done in a negative way. January was the seventh
consecutive month in which employment increased. There has been
an average increase of about 57,000 jobs per month over those
seven months.
We all know the issue of poverty is an issue we would like to
deal with. Every parliamentarian in this House would like to
deal with poverty but most parliamentarians in this House
understand that whatever it is we do as a government, we must do
it in a measured fashion. On one hand he talks about doing
something on the benefit side while on the other hand he talks
about ripping seven or eight billion dollars out of the bottom
line to deal with his EI premiums because he thinks it is going
to create jobs. When I speak to small business people they say
“reduce my EI premiums and I will hire as many people as you
like”.
Small business is concerned about the relevance of the economy.
That means interest rates, a growing economy and growing
opportunity which is what this government is providing.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is an
honour to stand in the House of Commons, this place of debate on
the behalf of Canadian people, to debate this Progressive
Conservative Party motion.
It is important to be aware of what that motion actually says. I
will address a technical problem in it shortly. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
steps to alleviate the burden of poverty in Canada by encouraging
self-sufficiency and self-reliance and, to that end, should
increase the basic income tax credit to $10,000, index the tax
brackets and index the child tax benefit.
It is interesting to me when the word poverty is used. We
always characterize Canadians as caring. That is what we are in
this country. That is one of the great benefits of being a
Canadian. That is one of the things that makes me so grateful to
be a Canadian, that we can help one another.
1105
I suppose the first question is who is in need of this. Hence
this statement. We want to address the problem of poverty. We
want to alleviate poverty. Second, what is the method whereby
one does that?
I would like to address the question of the definition of
poverty. I believe I have stated this in this House before but
it bears repetition. I think it is very important.
Our eldest son spent some time in different countries working
with Christian relief organizations. I remember the time when he
was in southern Sudan where there was a lot of poverty and
famine. Brent communicated back to us “We are having great
success where we now are. When we first came there were 150
children every day dying of starvation. We have reduced that
number to 60”. He then put into brackets “of course, by
Sherwood Park standards,” a town near where we live, “we have
not yet reached the goal”.
I think it boggles our minds. It wrenches our hearts to think
of moms and dads and family members burying their children
because they have died from starvation. That is true poverty. I
sometimes think maybe as a country we are very selfish because of
the definition we use for poverty when there are children around
the world who literally are starving to death because there is
absolutely no food. I have seen these pictures. I am sure that
all members have seen them, little children with the distended
abdomens swelling from starvation. It is very sad.
I believe that not very many children in Canada actually die of
starvation. There may be some but I believe it is very few. Of
course, if there are any, that is not acceptable. Surely in our
country, the richest country in terms of resources, an eager
population willing to work, we can provide for every one of our
citizens so that they do not live in poverty but rather have
sufficient food, adequate clothing and adequate shelter.
I taught mathematics for 31 years. One thing I always resisted
was a statistical application to marks in my classes. I always
set out standards. I said to my students “When you graduate, I
want you to have competence”. When I taught surveying students
I said “You will not survive as a surveyor if you do not have a
mark of 70%, 80% or 90% in trigonometry because that is the basic
building block of your program. I expect you to get more than
70%. I will not fail one-fourth of you because you are in the
bottom quarter of the class”.
Yet that is part of the statistical measure that we use in
Canada to define poverty. I simply question the integrity of
that measure.
One of the measures used is that any child living in a family
whose income is less than one-half of the median income is living
in poverty. If our median income in Canada for a family is
$56,000, which I think is close to the number, that means anyone
with a family income of less than $28,000 is living in abject
poverty.
Yet I know many people who earn $18,000 a year who have families
and children. They do not consider themselves living in poverty.
They have adequate food, clothing and shelter. So I think we
should be intellectually honest.
We should exercise integrity in our definition of poverty, always
remembering there are people who are having trouble making ends
meet. There is no doubt about that.
1110
It goes without saying, it is inevitable that living in a
country where every penny earned is subject to taxation, where
the governments confiscate 55% of everything earned, there is not
enough left for us in order to alleviate poverty. We are causing
the poverty. Think of how many millions of people who would not
have a problem of poverty if we stopped taking that money.
There is a technical error in the bill. I am sure the PCs did
not mean this, that they wanted to increase the basic income tax
credit to $10,000 since that is about 10 times what it is now. I
move:
Replace the words “increase the basic income tax credit to
$10,000” with “increase the tax free threshold to $7,900”.
I have two reasons for this amendment. The income tax credit is
an income tax term which basically relates to the amount of money
returned to families based on their taxable income. There used
to be a basic exemption, a certain amount of income on which we
did not have to pay income tax. That amount is now nominally
about $6,400 for an individual and a little less for a spouse.
The tax credit given on the income tax is actually $1,098. I am
sure the PCs did not mean to increase the tax credit from $1,098
to $10,000. That is unreal. The amount I propose is a more
realistic figure. Instead of having about $6,400 exempt from
taxation, it is about $7,900. It is still an increase and the
basic personal credit would be increased to $1,300. That is the
wording of it and I am sure that the members of the party that
proposed the motion today will agree with this amendment since it
clarifies what they want. It brings it to a more realistic
number and basically should settle the issue.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The debate is on the
amendment.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the member pointed out there is a flaw in the motion and
he has moved an amendment correct that flaw.
The member for Mississauga South pointed out that the two other
aspects of the motion would have very little effect. Limiting
bracket creep to all incomes means that it would affect all
Canadians and it would have very little effect on the
impoverished. The member for Mississauga South also pointed out
that the recommendation with respect to the child tax benefit
would result only in a net benefit of about $14 a year.
A motion like this really is a partisan motion because it is not
so much the content of the motion or whether the content of the
motion is worthy or practical.
It is a motion that is designed to put us in the situation where,
if we voted against it, it would appear we were voting against
combating poverty.
1115
I hope the member and his party will examine this motion on its
merits and show courage when they vote, and not support it simply
because they are afraid to be branded as being against combating
child poverty. They should treat this motion for what it is
worth, and it is not a very practical motion.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I think it is an eminently
practical motion, as amended. I believe it is high time that we
start leaving more money in the hands of families so they can
avoid poverty, instead of driving them into poverty.
There are many businesses which end up declaring bankruptcy
because of the high levels of taxation. They lay off their
people and they land in poverty. If we had a tax regime that
would allow them to thrive and survive, then we would have less
poverty.
I have seen people who are jobless. My family used to serve
soup in the evenings to homeless people. We used to minister to
them. We provided basic food to them. The best thing possible
that we could do for them would be to provide them with a job.
How does one do that? It is not by overtaxing Canadian
businesses, families and individuals and then having a huge army
of bureaucrats to distribute the money. The answer is very
simple. Leave that money with the people. They will drive the
economy because they will have money for food, for housing, for
shelter, for clothing and for some of the luxuries of life. That
is what drives the economy. That is what provides jobs. These
people now, in much greater numbers, would have jobs. Meanwhile,
we would still have a greater income, even at lower rates,
because more people would be employed and the economy would
thrive. With that additional money we could generously provide
for those who because of physical and other problems cannot work.
I know those people too. I have friends who are unable to work.
I wish I had more money in my pocket so I could help them
directly. I have done that from time to time. However, the
taxation level is such now that after we pay our bills we have
scarcely anything left. It is unfortunate.
The way to handle this is through organizations. Yesterday we
talked about the homeless. There are many private organizations,
such as Habitat for Humanity, which more efficiently handle
limited resources in providing homes for the homeless than does
any government bureaucracy. That is what I am talking about.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, did
the member actually say that some Canadians may starve, but not
many? Does he actually believe that the homeless have chosen
somehow to be homeless? Does he believe that there are not
children who are going to school hungry in the mornings? Does he
recognize that in constituencies like mine there are families of
four making less than $10,000 per year, living in squalor?
Perhaps it is easier for him. Based on statistics, he has a 9%
poverty rating in his riding. But for those of us who represent
ridings with significantly more poverty this is a real issue. It
is very easy for someone in the House making around $100,000 a
year to pontificate about Adam Smith, but there is a lot of
poverty out there and there are a lot of people who need our
help.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, yes, I am aware of the fact
that there are some people who are hungry. However, I do not
believe—and my words were specific—that they are starving to
death. That is what I was talking about.
I insist—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member's
time has expired. Resuming debate the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
1120
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
beg the indulgence of my fellow colleagues. Could I, by
unanimous consent, finish my sentence?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there agreement
for the hon. member to finish his sentence?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
For those families who actually have children who are hungry,
let us provide a government regime of whatever means to provide
for those children. We think the best way is by providing them
with jobs, which come from lower taxes.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
revert to Routine Proceedings in order that I may table the third
report of our special Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of
Regulations.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
seeking unanimous agreement. Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
wish to thank the hon. member for Shefford for this opportunity
to debate an issue as important as poverty, and children living
in poverty in particular.
I must congratulate the hon. member for Shefford, who has done a
wonderful job on this issue. Ever since she was elected to this
place, she has had a thought-provoking input. To her credit, she
also made representations at various levels to denounce the
alarming growth in poverty, especially among children.
Like the hon. member for Shefford, we have noticed that the
poverty situation is critical.
There are at least 5 million Quebeckers and Canadians living in
poverty today. Since 1989, poverty has grown by approximately
45% in Canada. That represents a substantial deterioration of
the situation.
You will recall that 1989 is the year when Canada signed the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since 1989, not only have
we not managed to reduce child poverty in this country, but the
number of poor children has actually increased by 500,000. In
1989, we had 1 million children living in poverty, with parents
who were themselves living in poverty; today their number has
grown to 1.5 million.
The situation has worsened particularly since 1993, when this
government took office.
There are three reasons for the spiralling poverty of parents
and children in Quebec and in Canada, all of them attributable
to the policies of the Liberal Party and of the Minister of
Finance, who loves to tell us about his record surpluses. What
he fails to mention is that his pockets are full because those
of the public, particularly the poor, are emptier.
Since it first came to power in 1993, this government has
deliberately set out on three courses of poverty creation.
First, it has increased taxes. Since the Minister of Finance,
the member for LaSalle—Émard, brought down the first Liberal
budget in 1994, individual and corporate taxes have gone up by
$34 billion.
Of this $34 billion, over $20 billion comes out of the pockets
of individual taxpayers. People pay $20 billion more in taxes
today than they did before the Liberal Minister of Finance
brought down his first budget.
Corporate taxes have increased by over $14 billion since 1994
and this has led to pockets of poverty. When corporations are
overtaxed—as they are by the Minister of Finance—they do not
create enough jobs, nor do they make the contribution to the
community's prosperity that they should. This is the first
problem created by this government that has led to an increase
in poverty.
The second is the cuts in social transfers to the provinces,
particular those for social assistance, post-secondary education
and health.
1125
With his 1995 budget, the Minister of Finance inaugurated a
regulatory mechanism for his various transfers to the provinces
for social programs.
Every year, the provinces have $6 billion taken from them, to
finance social assistance in particular. Social assistance is
an anti-poverty program which helps those in greatest need.
Since 1995, this government has set in motion a totally
hypocritical policy which means that, year after year, without
any need for the Minister of Finance to make any announcement,
$6 billion is taken away from the provinces, in part to finance
social assistance, all the anti-poverty programs, and health.
By the year 2003, some $40 billion will have been drained off by
this government to finance social programs. After all that we
have the Minister of Finance standing up, hand over heart, to
talk about poor children. This is shameful. This is hypocrisy,
pure and simple. This Minister of Finance ought to be ashamed.
He would like to bask in praise for his success in improving
public finances, but this success has been achieved at the
expense of the most disadvantaged, at the expense of middle- and
low-income taxpayers. He deserves no congratulations. He ought
to be ashamed of his part in destroying the legacy of his
father, a man who was a great builder of social programs in his
day.
The third deliberate action by this government that has had an
effect on poverty is the creation of an employment insurance
plan that is so Manichaean and so removed from its initial
objectives as to have only 36% of the unemployed in 1999 benefit
from it. That is a shame. And if it does not amount to
throwing families and children deliberately into poverty, what
does it do.
At the moment, only 36% of the unemployed receive employment
insurance. That means that 64% of the unemployed, who should
receive benefits, are marginalized on the labour market, forced
to take welfare and impoverished by this government.
Therefore, we have three primary sources of poverty arising from
a term and a half of Liberals in office and an unscrupulous
Minister of Finance cutting wildly everywhere it hurt the most,
that is, in the pockets of the public already hit by poverty and
struggling with every month end. Then they come bleating about
poverty and talking about returning the money the provinces had
cut. Are they hypocrites or what? They are the ones who cut
the funds to the provincial governments to pay for health care,
social welfare and antipoverty programs and now they come crying
over the fate of the poor.
The Minister of Human Resources Development even wrote a book
during his term of office. I have criticized that enough, it
would be overdoing it if I did it again today. He was going on
in his book about the most disadvantaged when he was the artisan
of the marginalization of whole families.
Thousands of children are living in poverty because of him. He
bleats on in his book, when he should sit down in his office and
redo the entire employment insurance program. He should propose
something reasonable, which does not exclude the unemployed from
a plan intended to help them.
On the subject of these three sources of poverty, we in the Bloc
Quebecois have presented our proposals on several occasions
since September, following our prebudget tour of Quebec. The
first time was before the Standing Committee on Finance. The
second was when we tabled a minority report in the context of
the prebudget activities of the Standing Committee on Finance.
And finally, the third time was when we held a press conference
in December to identify our budget expectations.
Given these three deliberate measures that have pushed people
toward poverty, the motion should have asked the government—and
I say this with all due respect to my colleague—to, first of
all, improve access to employment insurance, because that
program no longer makes any sense. The EI program systematically
puts families on the street and increases poverty.
Second, the motion should have asked for an increase in
transfers to the provinces. Not one quarter or one half of what
should be given, but the whole amount taken from the provinces
year after year, that is $6 billion annually until the year
2003.
Third, we agree with the Conservative Party that tax tables
should be indexed. Clearly, these tables should be indexed.
1130
Our three suggestions are within the budget limits that a
responsible federal government must set for itself. If we look
at the anticipated surpluses for this year and next year, our
three proposals are fully within the limits of the federal
government's financial authority.
We are asking the government to improve access to employment
insurance by providing up to $6 billion. We are also asking it
to set aside another $6 billion for transfers to the provinces.
This makes a total of $12 billion, to which we must add $2
billion to index the tax brackets. We arrive at a grand total of
$14 billion, while this year's surplus is expected to be around
$15 billion.
By contrast, the Progressive Conservative Party's proposals,
including those made in its minority report, in December,
largely exceeds this anticipated surplus. I wish to point that
out to the hon. member for Shefford. When one makes proposals,
one must evaluate them thoroughly and, based on an initial
assessment, it would cost $21 billion to implement the proposals
made by the Conservatives. This would largely exceed the moneys
available for this year and next year.
I also want to say something else.
With all due respect to my colleague from Shefford—as I said
earlier, this does not apply to her as she has been doing a
wonderful job of fighting child poverty—I cannot help but feel
a little uneasy with a motion like this one coming from the
Conservative Party, especially since it was a Conservative
government that de-indexed the tax tables in 1986 and redefined
the statistics on child poverty so that, on paper at least, it
would appear that things were looking up, while in fact they
were not.
I am also a little—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to have to
interrupt the hon. member, but time has run out.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Could I have the unanimous consent of the
House to finish my sentence?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, to conclude, while I salute the
work done by my colleague from Shefford, my uneasiness comes
from the fact that the measures that plunged the people of
Canada and Quebec into poverty in the first place were
Conservative measures. I would simply ask her to take note of
this fact and perhaps accept on behalf of her party the blame
for its past actions.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Madam Speaker, I wish to
thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for the
kind remarks he made at the beginning of his speech.
As for what was done back then, I would remind him that we were
in a major recession at the time and had to take certain
measures accordingly. I will say nothing further.
I have a question for the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot about
the UN committee's report, released in December 1998.
In its recommendations, the committee expressed its concern over
the fact that, in all the provinces except New Brunswick and
Newfoundland, the national child tax benefit intended for all
children of low income families only went to children of low
income parents holding down jobs, because the federal government
allows the provinces to deduct the full amount of the child tax
benefit from the social assistance received by parents.
The committee recommended that the child tax benefit program be
amended so that provinces may no longer use it to reduce social
assistance.
I would like to have the hon. member's opinion on this.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, as I was saying earlier, I have
a lot of respect for the hon. member and her work. My initial
remarks, good ones, carried through to the end. I did not
betray my thought, even though I took a shot at her party and
past actions.
That said, there are a number of ways to reduce poverty. We
chose three targets, because the government has acted and can
act rapidly on these three, which are the primary source of
increased poverty over the past five years.
I do not deny that a review of the child tax benefit could help
children but, if we analyze the situation, we can see that the
government exacerbated the situation in three ways.
First there was a tax increase for middle income families. Many
of them were pushed into the low income bracket because of
government taxes.
Second, accessibility to employment insurance has dropped to 36%.
It seems to me that the effects on poverty of working to raise
this 36% average back up to the 80% of a few years ago would be
direct, effective and unbiased.
1135
Third, we cannot cut $40 billion by the year 2003 from transfer
payments to the provinces for social programs without that
having an impact on poverty.
We have taken this approach because we know that the federal
government can address these three parameters starting with its
next budget. I do not, however, deny the UN recommendation, and
once again I say to my colleague that she is doing a good job,
and I hope she will keep at it.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I
listened to the dialogue between the two members it occurred to
me that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot did not answer the
question so I will repeat it for him because obviously he did not
hear it. It must be the only reason that he would not reply to
it.
The question was whether provinces should be allowed to claw
back the increased tax benefit zeroed in on tax credits for child
tax credit.
This is very appropriate because that is exactly what Ontario
has done. As we know through some of our discussions on the
social union, this is where we lose the whole concept of our
policy even though we in our good intentions in this House may
well say we should increase the tax credit to ensure that money
gets into the hands of low income families. It means nothing if
the province turns around and says that under its social
assistance system that is additional income entering the
household and therefore it will reduce the social assistance
payment.
How does the member want to address it? Will he answer the
question or not?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, such
statements denote a lack of judgment, because of course the
provinces have fewer means, after they have been pushed to the
wall, after funds have been taken from them. All the surplus
the government has accumulated has had two sources, the
provinces and the unemployed.
Since the provinces have their backs to the wall because of the
federal government's actions, the hon. member ought to look in
his own back yard and look at what the government has done and,
as a responsible MP, get his Minister of Finance to change his
attitude. The minister is more concerned with his success in
connection with the record surpluses than with the plight of
Canada's poor.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak
on the motion brought forward by the member for Shefford.
Any time we have an opportunity to speak on issues about poverty
and what is happening in the country it is important that we do
that. I thank the member for the work she has done and for
bringing forward this motion.
I begin by talking about this kind of motion and the kinds of
debates we have in the House because it speaks to the issue of
needing to look at the record of what has happened. Unfortunately
the reality is that for the last two decades poor Canadians have
heard again and again many promises about reducing unemployment
and eliminating poverty in Canada. But the reality is that none
of those promises has been fulfilled, not by the Tory government
when it was in power and certainly not by the Liberal government
since 1993.
The reality for poor Canadians is that they are sinking deeper
and deeper into poverty and more and more people are facing
unemployment, facing part time work, low wages, underemployment,
shrinking welfare rates and poor bashing. That is the reality of
what is going on in Canada.
I will take the issue of the record and the credibility of what
it is we do as political parties and talk about what happened
yesterday on Parliament Hill because certainly the media today
are full of news stories of how Mr. Clark was jostled in the
crowd and that he went there with good intentions to speak to
people but poor Mr. Clark, look what happened to him.
I was there yesterday at that rally.
1140
I saw what happened and I saw the reaction of people. First, it
was not a little nest of two or three people who decided to take
on Mr. Clark and give him a hard time. It was 200 or 300 people
who were outraged that he came unannounced, uninvited to that
rally basically with a media entourage to take away from the
rally.
If Mr. Clark had genuinely wanted to find out how people were
feeling, if he wanted to understand what people were experiencing
he could have gone to the Bronson Centre the night before,
Tuesday night, where people had arrived on buses and where people
were sitting down in the cafeteria eating their supper.
He could have gone in quietly, talked to people and said “I am
the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. I want to find
out what your concerns are”. But he chose not to do that.
It was a media show that arrived with Mr. Clark. I talked to
many people in that rally. The reaction they had to Mr. Clark
was absolutely genuine because they were angry. They understood
what the record was.
People do not forget. The rally was not a rent a crowd. It was
not people who professionally demonstrated. These were people
who are hurting, who are homeless, who are poor. They came to
Parliament Hill to meet with the Prime Minister and were turned
away.
The reaction that Mr. Clark got was no surprise to me and no
surprise to anyone who was there. If he did not understand that,
if he did not understand the reaction he got, then he does not
understand much about this issue. That is very important for the
record. Poor Mr. Clark, he got a rough time.
As far as the motion goes, it is basically supportable even though
we will not be voting on it.
The issues we have to address are not just tax credits. What we
have to address is a systematic problem of chronic poverty and
unemployment in this country.
What we have called for in the New Democratic Party is for the
government to set real targets, achievable targets for
eliminating poverty and reducing unemployment.
This is something the Liberals are very proud they have done in
terms of the deficit. What we have been saying is we have to do
this regarding poverty and unemployment.
Again, if members look at the record it becomes very clear. I
heard one Liberal member speak about how the Liberals have
produced a balanced and moderate approach.
We have to understand that the so-called balanced and moderate
approach has been at the expense of more and more people living
below the poverty line. It has been at the expense of more and
more unemployment in this country.
If the Tories are serious, if the Liberals are serious about
dealing with this issue of poverty, if we truly did have a belief
in 1989 through the unanimous resolution of the House that we
would eliminate child poverty, then we need a systematic
approach. Unfortunately that is lacking in this motion.
On the issue of tax credits I believe we should have fair
taxation. The reality is the richest one-fifth of Canadians
receive close to half of all the income in Canada while the
poorest one-fifth of Canadians receive just 3.1%.
When we look at the child tax benefit, there is an injustice
because it is not indexed. I would certainly agree with the
motion on that basis.
This simply does not go far enough. We need to talk about fair
taxation. We need to look at what the Vanier Institute is saying
in its recent report, that tax cuts benefit mostly wealthy and
upper income Canadians.
If we are talking about tax credits, we have to look at the
taxation system and say why is it that wealthy Canadians are
paying less in taxes proportionately and poor Canadians are
paying more.
I would like to address what I heard when listening to the
debate today as the member from the Reform Party was speaking to
the question of what a poverty line is. I was really outraged by
the comments the Reform member came out with.
He talked about what true poverty is. He said true poverty is
basically kids who are starving to death. He said that actually
there are not that many children who die of starvation in Canada.
One had to infer from this that we probably do not have much of
a problem relative to, say, the third world.
1145
The hon. member should take the time to go to almost any
community in Canada to see the poverty that exists. There are
kids who go to school hungry. They do not do very well at school
because they do not have enough to eat. There are hundreds of
thousands of people who live in substandard housing. There are
about 100,000 Canadians who are homeless. That is poverty. It
is poverty in our country. It has been recognized by the United
Nations committee that has done research on our compliance with
the UN covenant on social, economic and cultural rights.
I would ask the member from the Reform Party what he is really
saying when he says that we do not have poverty in this country.
Is the member saying that he wants to see people dying of
starvation on the street before the Reform Party will acknowledge
that we have huge income inequities in this country and serious
problems with the inequitable distribution of wealth and
resources?
The Reform Party's answer is simply to cut taxes. I would ask
Reform members to look at our neighbours to the south, whom they
always like to use as an example. If tax rates are lower in the
United States, and I believe the Reform Party thinks they are,
why does it have an even higher poverty rate than Canada?
These issues require very serious examination and a serious
program if we are to address poverty in Canada.
The member who introduced this motion has done good work in
bringing this issue forward. It is important that we work
together as much as possible, particularly on bills such as Bill
S-11 which seeks to have social condition included in the
Canadian Human Rights Act as a ground against which there cannot
be discrimination. We also have to have credibility and
acknowledge what has been done in the past.
I say to those members, in terms of the policies of their party,
if they are truly committed to eliminating poverty, then they
should stand in defence of social housing. It was actually under
the Tory government that social housing was gutted in this
country and the job was finished off by the Liberal government.
Let us get the record straight and let us make a real commitment
to reduce poverty and unemployment in Canada.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
anytime is the right time to talk about poverty in Canada in this
place. We should do it more and I wish we could have an allotted
day or an emergency debate on poverty so that we could hear from
more members of parliament.
This debate about poverty so far has been about taxes. People
who are living in poverty do not pay taxes because they do not
have an income.
I am a little disappointed because, as of yet, I have not heard
one mention in this debate about the family. The member will
know that lone parent families—and I say lone parent, not single
parent—number about 12% of all families in Canada and account
for about 46% of all children living in poverty.
Child poverty is a politically convenient term for family
poverty. We have to understand that point fundamentally and we
have to deal with it. If we are to deal with child poverty,
family poverty, and we know that almost half of it is due to
family breakdown in Canada, then the member should be prepared to
deal with the reasons the Canadian family is under attack and the
reasons the Canadian family is breaking down.
Divorce, domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, adultery,
and all kinds of other reasons for the family breaking down are
the root causes of the majority of poverty in Canada. I want to
know whether the member would agree and if she would encourage
her colleagues in the House to start talking about the real
fundamentals of poverty, the breakdown of the Canadian family.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
his comments. I would agree that the issue of child poverty is
really a political term that has been created. I have to say,
though, that it has come mostly from his own party which has
chosen to characterize poverty as a children's issue. The
Liberal Party has campaigned on the child tax benefit.
1150
I would agree that when we look at poor children we have to look
at poor families and the fact that most of those families are
unemployed.
Families are under attack, but if we look at what has happened
over the past few decades, families are under attack because of
public policies that have undermined the ability of families to
cope in our society. We see rising unemployment, shrinking EI
benefits, the lack of housing, the lack of social programs and
even welfare rates that have been attacked by many provincial
governments because of the shrinking health and social transfers.
Those have all been public policy decisions which have attacked
the family.
It all depends on how one wants to look at this. If lone parent
families live in poverty they will have a lot of difficulties,
but that does not necessarily mean that family breakdown has to
do with economic and social conditions or the lack of housing and
decent paying jobs for women.
Maybe the member and I have different perspectives on how we
look at this issue, but I would agree that when we talk about
poverty we should talk about the whole family. We should also
talk about single people. Some Canadians who are feeling the
worst effects of poverty are single people. However, we do not
like to talk about single people because it is unpopular to do
so.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, my
intervention is more a comment than a question.
I appreciate the member pointing out that what I said may have
been misinterpreted.
When I look at the pictures of our kids and the things that I
have seen secondhand from third world countries, it tears my
heart out. That is what I was trying to communicate.
Certainly, if we have people who are hungry here, we need to
look after them. There is no question about that.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I am glad the member
from the Reform Party clarified his comments. We only have to
look to our own backyards, to our own communities, to his
community and to my community, to see that those same situations
exist. Maybe they are not as stark, maybe we do not see them as
much on the media, but they are visible, they do exist and it
means that we have to work here at home.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This certainly has no reflection on yourself, but I cannot help
noticing that in debates of this nature, throughout the time that
I have been in this House, the first person who asks a question
or makes a comment generally gets four to five minutes and the
second person gets thirty seconds. Thus, the second person, or
possibly the third, does not get an opportunity to reflect upon
what they may want to say or the reaction to it.
I am wondering if it is at all possible for that to be a little
more balanced, where the first person could have a minute or two
and then the second person could have a minute or two.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member
certainly has a good suggestion. Maybe we could now proceed with
one minute questions and one minute answers. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Very well, I have no
objection to that.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion proposed by my
hon. friend from Shefford. I will be sharing my time with my
good colleague from Chicoutimi.
Perhaps the most visible sign of poverty in Canada's cities is
the growing number of homeless people. In the 10 minutes I have
available to me I would like to discuss the cause of homelessness
and the lack of adequate housing for many low income families. I
will also show how this government has failed Canadians in need
of housing and suggest some ideas on how we might begin to tackle
this problem.
In the recently released Toronto task force report on the
homeless, Dr. Anne Golden noted that there are four principle
causes of homelessness. First, there are social factors that
have contributed to the breakdown of families and other social
support networks. Domestic violence, physical and sexual abuse
and the alienation of individuals from family and friends have
all added to the problem of homelessness.
1155
Poverty as well continues to aggravate this problem. In recent
years the incidence and depth of poverty have increased because
of changes in the structure of the labour market. For example,
Canada's unemployment rate continues to be about double that of
the United States. As well, reductions in transfers from the
federal government to individuals have left low income Canadians
with fewer resources to pay for housing.
Third, many people who suffer from mental illness and addiction
become homeless after being deinstitutionalized because
communities lack adequate support programs. Inadequate discharge
planning of hospitals and jails also results in people being
released on the street with no support systems.
Finally, since this Liberal government was elected in 1993 the
supply of affordable housing has shrivelled. The dwindling
supply of low cost rental units and rooming houses, the
withdrawal of federal support for new social housing programs and
the abandonment of social housing by the federal government have
all made affordable housing much harder to find.
All these factors have combined to send the numbers of Canadians
who are either homeless or who lack adequate affordable housing
skyrocketing in the last six years.
Ironically, the current finance minister, the man who has had
the ability to address this problem for the last six years and
who has done nothing, once promised that he would fix it. Yes,
it is hard to believe, but the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard who
has been Minister of Finance for the last six years once cared
about homelessness in Canada.
In 1990 he co-chaired, along with the member for London North
Centre, a Liberal caucus task force on the homeless. He told us
that he was concerned about this important social problem. He
and his Liberal cronies shuffled all across the country. They
met with all the right groups. They said all the right things.
They smiled for the cameras. They tried to look concerned. Then
they wrote a flowery report. The finance minister said “Trust
me. I have the answer. If you elect Liberals we can fix the
problem”. We all know what happened. They got elected and
promptly and conveniently forgot their promises.
Let us take a look at exactly what the finance minister promised
to do for the homeless when he got the power. He said that
housing is a fundamental human right. The Liberals promised to
discuss housing rights at a first ministers' conference and they
promised to enshrine in the Constitution, no less, the right to
adequate shelter. What happened? When they got elected they
said “Thanks for your vote” and they tossed out their promise.
The finance minister also promised to provide more money for
housing to the provinces through the Canada assistance plan, now
called the CHST. Guess what? They got elected and instead
slashed provincial transfers by 40%. So much for the promises of
the member for LaSalle—Émard.
They said we would get a new federal-provincial social program
to assist the working poor with housing costs. It never
happened.
They promised they would hold a national conference, bringing
together federal, provincial and municipal governments to fix
the problem. The Liberals still have not set a date.
The finance minister promised a few other things. He assured us
that if Canadians elected a Liberal government he would increase
funding for housing co-ops and look at new ways of using co-ops.
He gave us his word that he would make surplus crown lands
available below market value for low income housing. He said he
would encourage private-public partnerships to build affordable
housing. Get a load of this: he promised that he would
eliminate substandard aboriginal housing by the year 2000.
If we were keeping score, so far the finance minister has hit
zero out of eight.
I could talk all morning about the failures of the Liberal
government, but that would not help solve the problem. Let us
talk about some of the things we can do. This is a solvable
problem which does not take brain surgeons to fix.
First, let us hold the national conference on the homeless which
the finance minister promised nine years ago. I realize that
there are those who will roll their eyes and say that we need
less talk and more action, but I am not talking about a bunch of
politicians sitting around, complaining about how awful a problem
this is and that someone should do something about it. What I am
proposing is that all three levels of government come together to
devise and implement a strategy to address this problem. We need
to identify measurable targets with time lines and divide up the
task between the three governments with respect to their
jurisdictions. And then we need to do it.
1200
Second, the federal government needs to stop the downloading of
social housing to the provinces. You cannot fix your house if
you have given all your tools away and we cannot fix the housing
problems if the Liberals have given up control over social
housing. Let us be frank here. The decision to offload the
responsibility for social housing to the provinces has been an
unqualified disaster.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if the housing minister had
purposefully set out to royally screw up our system for providing
affordable housing to Canadians he could not have done a better
job than he already has. Half the provinces will not sign the
agreement and those are the provinces with the vast majority of
social housing units. The provinces that have signed are the
smaller provinces which are also cash starved.
Let us not kid ourselves. Look at what happened to job
training. The Liberals had this bright idea that they would
transfer job training to the provinces. We all know what
happened. The provinces gladly accepted the job training money
and then had to use that money for hospitals, schools and social
services because this same federal government cut those transfer
payments by 40%. Now there is no more job training in Canada and
the exact same thing will happen with social housing.
We can raise the supply of affordable housing in Canada, but
that is only half the answer. We also need to address the income
problem, and there are two things we can do. No Canadian who
earns $10,000 a year or less should have to pay personal income
tax. We need to raise the personal income tax exemption to
$10,000, not the $7,900 the Reform member said we should raise it
to. This will immediately put cash into the hands of low income
Canadians. We need to create more jobs for those on the margins
of society. Let us make it less expensive for employers to hire
by reducing payroll taxes.
I reiterate that this is a solvable problem. Despite its
promises the Liberal government has abandoned the homeless and
allowed this problem to get worse. Some people may wonder why
the Tories are interested in helping the homeless. Why worry
about the homeless? None of them ever voted PC. If we think
about what it means to be a Conservative, we will understand why
this is important. We believe in family and in our communities.
We are the party of nation building and we believe in equality of
opportunity. Homelessness strikes at all these core beliefs.
If we can deal effectively with these issues it will solve
problems in our families. It will strengthen our communities and
our country. It will ensure that Canadians who have been
forgotten by the government will once again have access to the
same opportunities as everyone else. This is why we need to act
now.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I listened intently as the Conservatives talked about
what it is like to be a Conservative. I remind them that they
had nine years in government to fix a lot of the problems and to
set the way.
I wanted to talk to the member about the summit he proposed.
What happens in non-aboriginal communities is very severe but not
as severe as what happens in our aboriginal communities. Should
the leaders of our aboriginal communities be invited to
participate in such an active dialogue?
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Madam Speaker, when I talk about
Canada as a country, natives are Canadians also. If there would
be such a conference of all leaders, I believe aboriginal leaders
should be involved.
I live four kilometres from the second biggest native community
in New Brunswick. It is no fun to take a ride on that reserve
and see how natives are living. Many have to live and feed their
families on $68 a week. It is a disgrace to Canada for them to
be living in such conditions.
1205
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to respond briefly
to the some of the comments from members of the NDP.
It find it quite ironic they would point out that we were in
government when in fact they had a provincial government for many
years and impacted very negligibly on the situation of the poor
in the province of Ontario. Similarly there was a very scathing
and unwarranted attack on Mr. Clark and his decision to attend
the rally on Parliament Hill yesterday. It is ironic
particularly in light of the fact that he is in Montreal this
morning at another such event aimed at helping poor and homeless
people.
Similarly I point out that this day of debate that was initiated
by the Progressive Conservative Party comes on the heels of the
NDP decision to debate an issue concerning Canada's water, a
national resource. I am not diminishing that initiative. It is
important, but it was the Progressive Conservative Party that
brought this debate forward today in a very non-partisan way.
To bring this kind of politics into it at this level is very
destructive. Let us keep the focus on what this is about. It is
an issue of trying to help the poor, trying to do something
positive about the issues that exist for the homeless. We will
not even raise the fact that the Prime Minister chose not to meet
with them and would rather be snowboarding in Alberta.
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Madam Speaker, I respect the points
of my colleague from Nova Scotia. They were really just a
comment. He referred to some of the comments the NDP member made
earlier. I totally agree with my colleague from Nova Scotia.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that the
motion in essence makes reference to the working poor and yet
every time I hear Conservative colleagues speak they talk about
the homeless.
I am trying to understand how the motion helps address the
homeless issue. The Conservatives are talking about the working
poor and about increasing the basic income tax credit to
$10,000—it was amended by the Reform Party to something less
than that—and the cost of indexing the tax bracket.
Collectively they are talking about $28 billion or $30 billion of
tax measures over three years.
They keep talking about the homeless in their speeches but their
motion makes reference to the tax system. How does the motion
assist those individuals who are not working? They are talking
about homeless people. They are just making political hay.
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance talks about what poverty has
to do with homelessness. To be poor means people cannot afford
housing.
The member does not have to go far because he works for the
minister responsible for the task force report he produced back
in 1990. At that time the finance minister promised to make
affordable housing accessible to all Canadians. That was part of
the task force of 1990.
I do not know what the parliamentary secretary is talking about.
Before he refers to me he should refer to the finance minister in
that regard.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
most of my colleagues today have talked about poverty in Canada
for all Canadians. However I want to speak to the issue of
poverty in the Canadian forces. It relates directly to the
motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
steps to alleviate the burden of poverty in Canada—
This is a big part of poverty in Canada.
Like other members of the House I have served on the Standing
Committee of National Defence and Veterans Affairs which spent
the best part of last year studying the quality of life in the
Canadian forces. “Moving Forward: A Strategic Plan for Quality
of Life Improvements in the Canadian Forces” is a benchmark
study and one that I hope the Liberal government will implement.
What members of the committee heard was very sad, actually
pathetic.
At one point in time there used to exist a kind of social
contract between the people, their representatives, the
government and the military. It existed for hundreds of years
based upon a contract of unlimited liability.
1210
The unlimited liability for those in the military profession
meant that they would go off and fight and if necessary die when
governments, the contractor, tells them to. In return,
governments have given militaries a quality of life, their own
special society and veneration when they retire or later die.
There once was a quality of life, not poverty, but not with this
government. To date it has broken its part of the contract.
Our soldiers, sailors and air crew go wherever they are told and
do so outnumbered, ill equipped, if equipped at all, and uncared
for by our government. They go without a whimper.
We must remember that this is the Liberal government that sends
its soldiers to the army surplus store for boots and clothing.
This is the Liberal government that sends its air crews on search
and rescue missions with the Labrador helicopter or on flight
training with parachutes that do not open. This is the Liberal
government that says to the navy that there are no problems with
the Sea Kings. Of course they are serviceable only 40% of the
time and their mission systems fail at least 50% of the time.
This is the Liberal government whose Prime Minister travels all
over the world offering the same Canadian military to whoever
might want them, whether they have been asked formally,
informally or not even asked at all, and without care or thought
for their well-being. Last but not least, this is the Liberal
government that sends military families to food banks and soup
kitchens, poverty at its very worst.
This Liberal government has broken its portion of the contract.
Shame. We hear the stories of military families going to food
banks. It is heartbreaking to the hardest of hearts. We hear
stories of sailors delivering pizzas at night to feed and clothe
their young families. It is absolutely unacceptable. We hear
stories of PMQs in such bad shape that one is afraid to go
through the door.
Things just went from bad to worse when the Liberal government
dispatched our military to far off places. People went from
poverty with family support to abject poverty in some cases and
with loved ones thousands of miles away and until recently with
no support at all. Mothers are forced to shoplift for
necessities. Then there are the injured from our peacekeeping
operations that were abandoned. Lastly our veterans, some with
benefits, some without like the merchant navy vets.
The anger and frustration the committee met on the road were
incredible. I for one am changed by what I saw and heard. I
would like to think that all of us were changed by it and for the
better.
We came forward with a report, a blueprint to help the Liberal
government deal with the problems of poverty in the Canadian
forces. This was the committee's first priority and I hope it is
the government's when it comes to the men and women in our
Canadian forces.
We as a party want to see the quality of life study implemented
but not through troop reduction or delays in much needed
equipment. We can give a corporal a paycheque so he does not
have to go to a food bank, but we cannot give his family his life
back if he is lost in a Sea King helicopter.
The problems with poverty and the qualify of life in the
Canadian forces are easy to solve. The problems are as clear as
the solutions. In large measure the solutions involve something
that has no monetary value, compassion. Sometimes it is
important to say that we care. The solutions also involve the
expenditure of money, about $700 million, but surely it must be
worth it.
The committee recommends several improvements in the quality of
life for military personnel, solutions that will ease poverty in
a large measure if not eliminate it. There are some
recommendations in the quality of life report which I think are
key in fighting poverty in the Canadian forces and
re-establishing a quality of life erased by the Liberal defence
cuts. I want to paraphrase them quickly.
The pay levels for entry level ranks of private, second
lieutenant and lieutenant must be increased by 10% no later than
April 1, 1999. Reservists deserve a pension plan and deserve to
be paid on time and correctly. The Department of National
Defence should establish a global cost of living allowance.
1215
The department should ensure that personnel at all bases have
access to well maintained single quarters. The housing agency
should provide adequate and sufficient services, including
emergency repairs. The accommodation allowance should not be
considered taxable income. The department should ensure that
base housing remains suitable and affordable. There should be
rehabilitation training for injured members of the Canadian
forces prior to their release and a commitment to supporting
military family support centres.
All these recommendations and the many more found in the report
sound so natural, even logical, maybe a better word is expected,
that people actually shake their heads in disbelief when we tell
them that is not the case right now.
The men and women of the Canadian forces put it on the line for
us every day, as do their families. They deserve our support and
our compassion. It is time for the Liberal government to put its
slash and burn policies behind it and do its part in giving the
Canadian forces they require and deserve.
My party and I are also concerned about the plight of our
veterans. We have veterans struggling to survive. They are
living just below the poverty line and need assistance. We have
all heard the horror stories of how some have been treated or
their widows. It is an outrage. As Canadians I hope we do not
have to start selling neckties and bow ties like the Gurkha Trust
to help support our Canadian veterans. I hope it does not come
to that.
As for our merchant veterans, we all saw those delightful old
gentlemen sitting the steps of Parliament Hill fighting for what
they deeply believed in, just as they had crossing the grey,
unforgiving Atlantic. I hope they have not been starving
themselves in vain. It is plain to every member of the House
that there are veterans both recent and old living in poverty. It
is a shame.
The Liberal government has a chance ahead of it to rehabilitate
itself in the coming budget and give the Canadian forces and our
veterans the money they need to have quality of life and to
survive. This is the time for Liberals to move forward and bring
in a budget that will allow the Department of National Defence to
implement the quality of life study and to buy new maritime
helicopters. This is the time for the Liberals to put a few
dollars aside to compensate merchant navy veterans.
In conclusion the report called on the Liberal government and
future governments to make a national commitment, a moral
commitment to the Canadian forces. We must recognize military
life is different and unique from civilian life. But just
because they are trained for war does not mean they have to spend
every day of their service lives and after until death in the
trenches.
These measures I have talked about will ease poverty in the
Canadian forces or end it. The 60,000-strong Canadian forces
deserve better. I hope the Liberal frontbenches recognize that
and redeem themselves in the eyes of the Canadian people at
budget time.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I again thank the Conservative Party for the motion and
for bringing up the problem with our veterans and those in our
military.
The member is talking about compensation for the merchant
marines which I wholeheartily support. But he would also apply
that compensation to our Buchenwald vets as well. I would like
his comments on what he thinks Canada should do for our
Buchenwald vets who have been fighting for proper compensation an
awfully long time. Does he agree they should be compensated as
well?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question.
We have to look at all vets who have done anything for this
country. They have to be taken care of. We have put them aside
for far too long.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased that my hon. colleague spoke about the forces and
the terrible problems they are having. Back in New Brunswick we
are all very much aware of that.
When we see our military men going to soup kitchens, which is
what has been happening, we feel very much ashamed. I feel very
much ashamed to be in the House of Commons and allowing that to
happen.
1220
In my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick, the largest city in
the province of New Brunswick, we have the largest percentage of
people living in poverty of any other part of the province. This
has never happened before.
When we get up in the House and ask the hon. Minister of
Industry to please bring in a national shipbuilding policy, he
just stands up and says he is not looking at subsidies. I am not
looking at subsidies. I am looking at addressing poverty, giving
people back all their dignity and that can only happen if we have
a lot of co-operation from across the floor.
I ask my hon. colleague what does he see. What should we be
doing to correct the problem we are having with our armed forces?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, we have gone through this
quality of life study. It is probably one of the best things
this government has done in a long time and the interesting thing
about it is that the Liberal backbenchers who were sitting on
that committee agreed with it totally. We were able to put in
different amendments. They even agreed with the amendments.
We have a solid document in front of us, something that will
help out our armed forces. So I think we should follow through
with the quality of life report.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to address the opposition motion concerning poverty
and the tax burden. I will be splitting my time.
They are matters of real concern for Canadians and they deserve
the full attention of the House. However, I am worried about the
underlying assumption of the hon. member's motion, that the
government is in a position to take extreme action, to take
action to dramatically bring down our national tax burden.
There is no politician, certainly not on this side of the House,
who does not want to bring tax reform to Canadians, especially to
help reduce poverty. But, and there is a very big but, appealing
politics often does not make good public policy. The national
pocketbook can simply not pay for the wish lists many of us have.
If we cannot afford it, we cannot do it.
Too many governments in the past have had good intentions that
have outweighed fiscal reality. As a result of two decades of
deficits we had a national debt that was the second worst, the
second highest among G-7 major industrial nations. It affected
our growth. We lagged in growth and there were too many
Canadians, despite the spending, who remained in need. That is
not to deny that easing Canada's tax burden must be a priority.
It is a priority for the government. Tax cuts should be focused
first on those in the greatest need. That is just what we did in
the last budget.
Canadians made it very clear in the last two federal elections
that it is a fundamental priority for them that the government
continue to give good financial management, both of the nation's
resources and of government itself.
When I speak to my constituents in Kitchener Centre as well to
Canadians from coast to coast, which I have had the opportunity
to do being a member of the finance committee, I have not heard
any voices saying that cutting taxes is more important than
maintaining the gains we have made.
Canadians remember too well the price we paid for relying on
deficit spending, resulting higher interest rates, lower economic
growth and the jobs that have been lost. A key priority for the
government is to avoid returning to the vicious cycle that was
dominated by federal policy in the two previous decades.
Priorities are neither simple nor self-evident when it comes to
the budget of a government. This debate attempts to focus on a
single issue, an issue dealt with in isolation, and even one as
compelling as poverty can make this conversation simplistic and
self-serving.
1225
Let me again emphasize that we are committed absolutely and
aggressively to tax relief, especially for low income Canadians.
We will not do so through knee-jerk decisions that ignore fiscal
reality, the world environment and the appropriate role for
government.
The finance minister addressed this in his October economic
update before the House finance committee. Our work as a
government reflects that the pursuit of frugality had to become a
defining feature of everything we do. This is a principle that
must govern all policy making and debates such as ours here
today.
Given the volatile condition in many parts of the world economy,
we are in a situation that calls for great care and extreme
caution. We must be realistic about the resources at our
disposal.
Some seem to believe we have mountains of money to spend, that
we should step back and take action immediately. I suggest we
need to continue with a more balanced look, a look that takes
global trends into consideration.
As a government we need to continue to make hard choices. I
suggest we will continue to do that.
The minister pointed out what has happened in the average
forecast of economic growth by private sector experts over the
past year. In January 1998 they were estimating a nominal income
growth of 4.7% for that fiscal year. By the fall, it was revised
downward to 3%. For 1999, a 4.9% nominal income growth was
projected. By the fall, that too was down significantly, reduced
to 3.5%.
What do these revisions mean in the size of the possible fiscal
surpluses projected by the private sector? The answer is it
would take out over $5 billion of government revenues in the
coming fiscal year, 1999-2000. This is what next
week's budget will address.
In our last budget many criticized us for being too prudent, too
cautious in their estimation. We are hearing that same criticism
in today's debate. We have been attacked for not moving quickly
to slash taxes but the dramatic downward revision of private
sector forecasts illustrates that as a government we must stick
to a careful approach to budget planning.
We simply cannot afford the risks associated with the changing
of planning assumptions so drastically month by month. This is
not an academic argument or some arcane point from economic
theory.
Consider the result if we followed the advice of some not long
ago to take $9 billion to $10 billion of tax burden action,
action they claimed we could afford.
If they were wrong, the result would push us back into deficit
virtually overnight. It is easy to be wrong. Projecting
government revenues and spending pressures, very large numbers,
is dealt with in a matter of a mere 12 months. The fact is
government revenues and spending, including interest payments on
the debt, are both in the range of $150 billion.
If forecasts are off by merely 1%, an amount statistically not
particularly significant, in each of these sectors, if the
revenue is out 1%, it is lower and costs are up 1%, the answer is
that they are out by $3 billion. That is $3 billion we do not
have.
If we committed the $6 billion to $7 billion in tax cuts with
little more than 1% shortfall in revenues and 1% again in costs,
we would be back into the world of deficit financing. To get out
we would simply have to raise taxes. Then they would be higher
and we would be back into that downward spiral.
It is these risks based not on ideology but mathematics that the
finance minister must consider when planning his new budget. That
is why I share his concern that the fiscal dividend over the next
two years must be estimated to be modest, much less than would be
required to provide sufficient funding for the types of
initiatives on tax reduction that today's motion calls for.
Clearly careful consideration and choice in allocating that
dividend will be required.
Again in the words of the finance minister, the very reason that
we have met our targets, the very reason we are now able to say
that despite the global economic crisis we are still on track not
only to balance the books but to have a dividend, all this is
anchored in the caution we have applied from the very beginning.
1230
Some have said we should implement major personal income tax
cuts, for example, an average of $600 annually per taxpayer. That
comes with a price tag of about $9 billion per year. Others are
demanding that employment insurance premiums be reduced to a
so-called break even level. That comes with a cost of $6 billion
per year. Still others are saying we should mount a larger
attack on the debt. That would cost in the neighbourhood of $3
billion a year. If we add that up, our total bill would be $18
billion each and every year.
This is not a complete inventory; this is merely a highlight of
some of the requests that have been made of the government.
Adopting all of these principles very clearly would put the
country back in a situation of serious chronic deficits. Adopting
any one of these proposals could put us in financial difficulty.
Let me again emphasize, I do not intend to understate the
significance that Canadians and our government put on easing
taxes and reducing poverty. It is only by looking at the sum of
our priorities that we will be able to give long term security to
all Canadians. That is why it would be irresponsible of us to
accept, as this motion does, the easy assumption that government
has all kinds of money at its disposal.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot understand how the hon. member across the way
can stand in her place and talk about this government, her
government, governing by frugality. If it were not so serious,
it would be laughable.
Her government took power back in 1993. The present Liberal
administration has had close to one and a half mandates and it
has yet to hit its budgeted target for spending. And she has the
audacity to stand in her place and talk about governing with
frugality.
The facts are that last year in the budget the finance minister
estimated the spending to be about $104.5 billion. He is over
that by an estimated $3 billion already. And he is talking about
another $2.5 billion for health care that he is going to
retroactively put back into last year's budget which will put him
somewhere around $6 billion or $7 billion over budget. How is
that governing with frugality?
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, as we travelled across
Canada one of the things we heard from economists, everyday
Canadians and business people was that they embraced the kind of
prudent forecast the finance minister had made. In fact revenues
have consistently come in over budget. It is that kind of
forecasting that has led us to a balanced budget and being able
to pay down the deficit.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, earlier in the debate one of the member's colleagues
mentioned the child tax credit that was given to the provinces
and how the provinces were clawing some of that back. He is
right. The provinces are clawing some of that back but the
reason is that the federal government allowed them to do it in
their negotiations.
Why did the federal government allow the provinces the ability
to claw back the child tax credit?
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, provinces are allowed the
autonomy to do that in order that those moneys can then be
redirected to that target group of people. I would also add that
is one of the reasons last week was so exciting for all members
of this House. With the signing of the social union we see a
demand for transparency. Any money flowing from the federal
government to the provinces will then go directly to the people
it is targeted at.
I think we will see this government continue to refine
federalism in a way that is meaningful to all Canadians in
partnership with the territories and the provinces.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my colleague. She is on the finance
committee and she does have a very clear view of what this
government has been doing.
There is no question that in the last budget 400,000 Canadians
came off the tax rolls and 90% of Canadians benefited from tax
relief.
There is no question that 1.5 million people have been put back
to work.
1235
When we talk about self-reliance, what the member is suggesting
and I would like her to comment on is the fact that the
government has a clear plan. We cannot do everything. We are
criticized by the opposition when we do not spend money, and when
we do spend money they criticize. When we give tax cuts they say
it is not enough. Clearly it is a lot easier to talk than it is
to act.
This government is acting. This government has a clear plan of
what it is doing. It is taking a step by step approach. Not
everything is done in one year. Governments are elected for a
maximum of five years. I would like the hon. member to comment
on that type of approach.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, consistently as we
crossed Canada last year and this year, we heard a call for a
strategic plan for targeted investment by this government and for
programs that can be sustained as opposed to throwing money at
quick fixes to problems. This is exactly the kind of thing my
colleague points out. This government is here for the long haul,
for strategic investment and to continue a balanced approach for
governing Canada.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
certainly happy to participate in this very important debate on
the issue not only of child poverty but of our income tax system.
Once again I think the member for Shefford has brought to the
floor of the House her concerns and indeed the concerns of many
people in this country to deal with the issue of child poverty.
First I would like to talk about the issue of bracket creep, and
issue which has been thrown around the House. I do not think a
lot of people fully understand what bracket creep means. Back in
1984 when inflation was something like 10% the then government in
its wisdom decided that it would only index the taxation system
to the extent that it exceeded three percentage points. At the
time that meant a 7% address to the inflationary factor. In those
days it did not seem like a big problem.
Of course it is the stated policy today of the Bank of Canada to
keep our inflation rate within a very specific band of between 1%
and 2%. Consequently the entire inflation that is occurring
within the Canadian economy is not being recognized in the income
tax system.
It is an insidious growth because of course we think of 3% as
not being a lot of money in any one particular year, but
obviously over a 10-year period it is a very significant amount.
As years have gone by and the issue of bracket creep has
constantly impacted on the system this disparity has become
greater and greater.
I looked at some of these numbers and the total cost of doing
away with the problem in income brackets that it affected. I was
struck with how the peaks of this tax had gone from little bumps
on the graph to significantly huge amounts, and it continues to
do so. These brackets and tax escalation occur around the income
tax brackets themselves in a change of income of $30,000 and at
$65,000. The total money that our taxation authority gleans from
the process is about $840 million. So that is an answer to the
Conservatives who refuse to answer the question on how much would
it cost to solve this problem.
The real issue is, is that money an entitlement of our tax
collection system? Quite frankly it is not. It is taxation on
increases in income that never in fact occurred. People's income
rose, if they were so fortunate to have it do so in keeping up
with inflation and many people were not, but their tax brackets
did not. At the same time so did the consumer price index. They
have had a constant squeeze on their disposable income and we
keep taxing them. There are some tremendous examples of where
people whose income rose $900 in a year actually saw their tax
burden increase $1,400. That is an overview of the problem.
1240
Quite frankly, I do not think if anybody is honest about it they
will think that is not a systemic problem within the taxation
system.
The next question is how do we solve it? Those of us who are
bold enough and do not have any responsibility for the system
itself will say fix it and will pay the $850 million or almost $1
billion.
The reality of government finances is that we cannot fix it all
at once. I am very hopeful that we will fix it slowly over a
period of time. It has taken since 1984 for it to get embedded
in our system. It may take two or three years to get it back out
of our system. I think the government's intentions are well
founded to try and do that. The members on this side have been
veracious in trying to move some of those amendments.
The issue of child poverty is something that bothers all of us.
I have heard people in this House asking what the definition is
and how do we define it. It gets very difficult. Various people
mentioned the United Nations declaration of income levels and
said it is very hard to hold the government's feet to the fire
because there is no real definition, and we talk about low income
cutoffs. That is the problem we in government see reported across
Canada.
The reality is that $20,000 can buy more goods in one part of
the country than somewhere else. A $20,000 income to somebody
living in downtown Toronto no question is poverty. I have had
farm clients over the years who made $20,000 and have lived quite
well, but of course they are eating their own produce and so
forth. When we talk about using low income levels to define
poverty there are discrepancies.
There is another thing that has always bothered me about this
issue. When people talk about child poverty, I think what they
are really talking about is child neglect or child nutritional
problems. There must be another way to measure the nutrition of
our youth. That is really the problem.
I have talked to nurses and teachers in my riding. I have
discovered that it is not necessarily low income people, although
there would be a high quotient related to income levels, but
there are also people in the so-called middle income bracket
whose kids are not getting the proper nutrition. It is a bigger
problem than just setting out low income levels.
I would like to get us off this stereotype debate with the New
Democratic Party saying to just redistribute all the income and
the problem will go away. The issue has changed tremendously over
the years between this business about rich and poor, between a
knowledge based society and a lack of knowledge society.
When people phone me and say they cannot get a job, that they
are living in poverty and so forth, invariably the first question
is what is their educational background, how much investment have
they personally put into their human capital. If they are in
what we think is the high risk area, because we are responsible
for the employment insurance system, ages 17 to 24, invariably
they have very little education.
What obligations do governments have to solve this so-called
disparity between rich and poor? We have to encourage people
even at a very young age. Of course, they have to be properly
fed for their brains to absorb knowledge, but we have to instil
at a very young age and a consistent age a greater celebration of
the importance of getting a better education.
I do not have to tell the members here that this is a provincial
jurisdiction. This is the problem in this issue. When it comes to
our problem, adults are standing outside our doors complaining to
us that the provincial education system may well have failed them
in the past. How do we as legislators do a quick fix of that?
There is no real quick fix. The scholarship millennium fund was
hotly debated in this House.
1245
The reality is that is one way in which the federal government
can be proactive in looking at people who for some reason whether
economic or otherwise cannot get a better education. The
government can step in and say we realize we have a basic
obligation to you to get you a good education and to ensure that
you and your children will be able to plug yourselves into the
basic economy and earn a living from it.
We cannot keep thinking about this debate as just a matter of
money. It is a matter of human capital. As legislators we
should spend a little more time trying to find programs to
increase the nutrition of our young people and to ensure they
have the skills to make sure this is a problem that will
eventually go away.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I agree that we should be talking about finances and
issues of taxation, exactly what the hon. member spoke about for
the first eight minutes of his speech. He talked about the NDP
wanting to redistribute the wealth. I remind him that we have
not said that. We have said that it is better to redistribute
allocation of resources.
An example is our fishing communities on the east and west
coasts. DFO's practices and policies have allocated that common
property resource to fewer and fewer hands, which is the
corporate sector. That sector gets richer and richer while
thousands of people lose their livelihoods to partake in the
economy he talked about. Would the member not agree that a better
allocation of resources, which would enable people to work in
their coastal communities, would be a better way to end child
poverty in those communities?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, according to my reading
of the coastal fisheries issue no matter what coast you are on in
Canada there are no more fish. We can talk about it being a
terrible thing that the fishery is in decline but the bottom line
is there are no more fish.
We really need aggressive policies to ensure there are different
resources available so we can restructure and diversify these
economies. That is happening but it may be happening a little
slower than it should be. The Nova Scotia Technical College is a
great resource for the people of Nova Scotia to glean that
knowledge.
The regional disparity in Canada in this age of the information
highway is ridiculous. It does not really matter where you live
in this country, everybody should have equal access to those
skills that will sustain them over a good number of years.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I appreciated the comments of the hon. member for Durham. I know
that in his professional life he worked a lot in financial
situations and accounting and that he is well respected in that
field.
I particularly appreciated his comments on the impacts of
bracket creep. I was reminded as he was speaking about a recent
report from the C.D. Howe Institute that talks about how Canada's
personal income tax system has not been adjusted properly for
inflation since 1985. As a result more taxpayer income has
become effectively subject to tax. For Canadian families this
means higher taxes on the average of about $1,000 per family due
to bracket creep. I certainly concur with his comments. Now
that we are moving into the days of surplus, is it the member's
priority that we address this with the surplus money?
We may be saying there are no tax increases but in effect with
bracket creep real tax increases are taking place.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, it is an issue the
government has recognized as a problem. We are moving in a
direction to eradicate it. I do not think it will disappear
overnight. It will take time.
I have another observation which is often given by the real
opponents to fixing the system, to index the taxation system may
well lead to inflation, in other words what creates inflationary
pressures.
I remember the days when everybody's labour contracts were
specifically tied to the consumer price index. When the consumer
price index went up 7% their wages went up 7%. Wages went up 7%
and the products they bought in the store went up 7%. We got
into an inflationary spiral. There is an argument within the
taxation system that said we are trying to control things at zero
or break even inflationary rate, so why should we index the
taxation system which may well lead to a cascading effect? I am
not a strong believer in that argument but it is an argument that
we have to take into account.
1250
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Souris—Moose
Mountain.
We appreciate the good intentions of the motion to address the
indexing of the child tax benefit and the increase of the
threshold on when people begin to pay taxes.
Part of my concern is that a motion like this couched in the
terms of addressing poverty is perhaps not comprehensive enough.
To take a small part of the issue, a piecemeal approach, probably
does not serve all Canadians well. That is part of the reason
why Reform has done such a diligent job in our budget alternative
package we presented to the House, to various members and to
people across the country.
It is prudent for us to pause for a moment to reflect back as we
are in the throes of this debate on poverty and ask what we can
do in the tax system to address it. In Canada over the last 15
or 20 years we have incurred a $600 billion debt, the highest
debt ever, massive tax increases combined with that. There has
been lots of money drawn from the taxpayer and also borrowed and
yet we are in a country where we talk about one in every five
children is supposedly in some state of poverty.
When we think about that it does not seem like getting more
money both through borrowing and through taxation into the hands
of government has really done much to address poverty if it is
true that one in five is in a state of poverty as some would
claim. We had a debate on poverty.
It is time to review quickly some of our own points that are
more comprehensive. I do not have time today to go through our
complete budget submission but there are some things I want to
highlight to show it is more than just the components that are in
this motion before us today that would address some of the
challenges of the less fortunate in Canada.
Certainly our budget submission calls for very substantial tax
reduction with the surpluses that are available. As well we call
for a very substantial reduction of the debt which is really
borrowing on the future of our youngest Canadians. The core
programs that are so important to Canadians must be strengthened.
One of the speakers today quoted from the recent Vanier
Institute study. The study states that in 1996 family incomes
were only $600 above their 1980 level, 16 years. Family incomes
on an after tax basis declined by over 5% in real terms from 1989
to 1996.
Taxing is impacting families. We are talking about poverty
today and it is within that context I would like to talk on the
impacts of taxation on the financial future of Canadian families.
I want to quote from another study in 1998 by the National
Foundation of Family Research and Education talking about bracket
creep which we just heard some comments on. It says bracket creep
and the clawing back of tax credits from families with incomes as
low as $20,000 per year means that families earning between
$20,000 and $40,000 per year are now paying the highest marginal
tax rates in the country.
1255
What we are creating with this heavy level of taxation is a type
of a working poor scenario. That is of real concern to me as it
is to many Canadians and I know many members House share that
concern.
It is interesting also from the Vanier report that in 1980
financial stress on families was relatively low. In the 1990s
this most current report states that most measures under
financial stress are reaching record highs.
Families in Canada are under financial stress and I think it is
incumbent on members of the House to find ways to relieve that
stress and tax reduction is certainly one of the most obvious and
straightforward ones that I know we could find a lot of agreement
on in the House.
I want to talk a bit about some of the specific proposals in
Reform's budget alternative better way budget. One of them has
to do with reducing or at least considering and investigating the
impacts of the current tax legislation on marriage. One
submission states that single income families may pay
considerably higher amounts of federal tax than two income
families with the same level of family income.
Take a family earning $30,000 annually. While a dual income
family splits the income 50:50, the single income family will
generally pay about $4,317 a year in federal and provincial
income taxes, whereas the dual income family pays a combined
$3,492 a year. So it is 24% more in tax for a single income
family. These are the kinds of inequities that I think should be
investigated to bring some greater fairness and equity into the
way families are treated and taxation is applied.
As a specific step we could take in this direction, we are
suggesting that one of the easiest and most straightforward
things to do is to increase the married credit by setting it
equal to the basic personal credit at $1,098 from its current
maximum of $915. The proposal provides for a tax reduction when
coupled with the increase to the basic personal credit that we
advocate of $675 for single income families across Canada. This
is an important proposal for a couple of reasons. It is
important because why should the spouse who is in the home and
maybe not employed in the private sector have some type of
exemption that is less than the basic exemption? We are
advocating that it should at least be equal.
Another important point we call for to address some of the
taxation impacts on family is that the current system allows for
deductions of $7,000 for children under seven and $4,000 for
children aged seven to sixteen. That is the current situation.
We propose to replace this system with one where all families
with children become eligible to receive a refundable child care
expense credit of 17% of $7,000 or effectively $1,190 for all
children up to seven years of age. Further, a credit of 17% on
$4,000, or $680 in hard cash return, will be made available for
parents of children seven to twelve years of age. The credit
would be available to all families with children whether they are
earning income or not and provide benefits for each child under
the age of seven and for children seven to twelve.
There are costs I could provide on that. We have quantified
that.
We have examined the impact of that recommendation to make sure
that it is consistent with our overall budget proposal.
1300
Another area I would like to address is directly related to the
impacts of capital gains taxes in Canada. Let me quickly touch
on a reduction of capital gains and how that could help us
strengthen opportunities for the less fortunate. The increase in
economic activity which would result in a reduction of capital
gains taxes would lead to greater employment and thus higher
income tax revenues. In other words, the economic benefits of a
reduction in the capital gains rate far outweigh the short run
costs of them. There are a number of studies I could quote if I
had the time to do so.
To sum up, the thrust of the motion today is to alleviate the
burden of poverty and calls for two specifics on tax policy. We
must meet the needs of those who are not able to help themselves
and are facing harder times. However higher taxation and
increasing debt are not working.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate. I congratulate the
Conservative Party for putting the motion forward. It is a very
timely motion.
I will not deal with the taxation part of the motion so much as
I will deal with some terms used in the motion such as burden of
poverty. I doubt if any member of the House has more firsthand
knowledge of poverty than I have. It did not really affect me
too much, but I was born in a period of time in southern
Saskatchewan known as the dirty thirties. That period of time
had a great commonality: everybody was poor. In our house we
were so poor we did not even have mice. That may be a joke, I
say it in fun, but I know what poverty is all about.
As I travel across the country it bothers me to come face to
face with poverty, particularly young children suffering from
poverty. That to me is the most horrendous sight. It is bad
enough to see it on television in third world countries, but when
it is face to face it shakes me up because I have been there.
I do not know if I was ever hungry. I do not know if I ever had
too much cake or pie. I do know that my mother could make
beautiful loaves of bread, fry some sour dough and we could
afford a bit of syrup.
Today the burden of poverty should not exist. I encourage the
House to listen to the words in the Progressive Conservatives
supply day motion where it says “encouraging self-sufficiency”.
That begins in the home.
Because of my background we grow a huge garden every year. My
wife and I have taught our children to do the same. What is the
reason for it? I grow a huge garden to give it away. Before I
was elected I set a goal to grow a tonne of vegetables. With the
modern black squash which they call zucchini, I did not have to
wait very long to get 300 or 400 pounds of those.
We would give them away. I would pick out families I knew in a
huge area to come and get vegetables mainly because they had
children. There are ways in which to encourage self-sufficiency
not only from an individual level but from the level of the
provincial government and the level of the federal government.
1305
It bothers me that we declare to society what the poverty line
is and we have a mother and a father with two children living
below the poverty line and Revenue Canada is still extracting
taxes. Let us think about that.
In the words of the motion, self-efficiency is destroyed. People
ask themselves what is the use. Dad is out working. Mother is
out working. Grandma may be looking after the children. They
have to pay income tax when they are many thousand of dollars
below the declared poverty line.
What about self-reliance, in the words of the motion?
Self-reliance brings to the individual a sense of pride in what
can be accomplished. It broke my heart less than three weeks ago
to have somebody come into my office to say: “Thank you for
getting me a job but I am only $5 a week better off with a job
than I was before”.
How by government's means do we create and encourage a sense of
self-sufficiency and self-reliance when we fall prey to heavy
taxation? I want to give a couple of examples.
While I was in Estevan, Saskatchewan, which is part of my
constituency, a young fellow came to my office and told me about
his dilemma. His EI had been cut off. He was employed by a
construction firm that often lays its people off but he was on
call. They had to get the machinery ready to remove the snow
from that small city. He got in three days of work and bingo. He
would have been better off if he had not got that work. We do
strange things to destroy pride in the individual. He did not
have very much money. I went down to his boss and got his boss
to get him a loan to spare him until he got back on EI.
Let us take a look at some very serious problems. Let us start
teaching people. Let us start seeing an attitudinal change and
looking at the things we can accomplish. I picked up the list of
boo-boos that governments make in spending. I think of how that
money could be used through proper channels. We could certainly
alleviate a whole lot of poverty.
What would happen if this became an issue not only at the
federal level but at the provincial and municipal levels? We
should somehow get the politics out of it, from what I am hearing
today back and forth. Do we think that five and six years old
who do not have enough to eat at home know what a Liberal, a PC,
an NDP or anyone else is? Do we think they care? We care when
it comes to wanting to provide all the help and dignity we can to
elevate the self-sufficiency, pride and self-reliance of these
people. Too often we go about it the wrong way.
1310
In closing I will use an illustration. There is an idea in
government that all it needs to do to cure a problem is to dump
more money into it. I could spend from now until midnight
talking about programs the government has dumped money into which
have not solved the problem.
A World War I veteran lived eight miles up the road from me.
During the thirties when I was a boy he decided to raise sheep.
It was not too profitable, but he shipped three carloads of sheep
to the Burns slaughterhouse in Winnipeg. Mr. Kimmerly got a
letter back reminding him that the sale of the sheep did not
cover the cost of freight and asking him to kindly remit $3.78.
He wrote a letter back saying very nicely that he did not have
any money but he could send some more sheep.
Money is not always the answer. We should look at the question
of poverty in the light of becoming involved not from the
political viewpoint but from the human viewpoint.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Madam
Speaker, I respect my colleague from the Reform Party and thank
him for his nice comments. I had hoped to hear some of the same
comments from his other colleagues this morning.
We are talking about poverty. I am a person who knows about
poverty. I understand my colleague was born and raised in the
thirties during the great depression. I was born and raised in
later years. I was born in 1955. Today we have been talking
about how we differ, how to establish where poverty starts and
ends. When I was first married I had to go on welfare. I know
what it is like to be on welfare and to be on EI. I also know
how it feels to have small kids and not have enough money to buy
a loaf of bread or a quart of milk. I went through that. That
is poverty. One Reform member mentioned those starving to death
in Sudan. I would give my shirt to somebody who needed it because
I was one of them before.
Last summer we in the House of Commons gave ourselves a salary
increase. I took my salary increase and gave it to charity. Is
the hon. member willing to do the same?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Madam Speaker, I do not want to use this
opportunity to talk about charity.
I am assuming the hon. member has heard of the term tithing or
one-tenth. Since my children are raised and finished university
I have more than exceeded that every year. I am very proud to do
so. In order for me to do that, I doubt if anyone in the House
lives in an older house than the one in which I live.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have a quick comment and question to remind people in television
land just how ridiculous some things are.
I have gone across the country and seen the poverty that exists
in the cities and on the streets. I know what we are talking
about. First it was a million children in 1993 and now we are up
to a million and a half. This leads me to understand that we are
not doing a very good job.
I know what living in squalor is like on reserves. I have
personally been in their homes and have talked with native people
who are suffering. They provided great hospitality with what
little they had. I have reviewed the public accounts that come
out every year. We also have a member who puts out a waste
report.
The hon. member is probably a couple of years older than I am
but not much more. Three years ago the government—and it is
just one small example of millions of dollars—put together a
committee which according to public accounts cost $116,000 to
study seniors and sexually. I wonder if the old fellow, like
this old fellow, feels a whole lot better that this wonderful
Liberal government is spending big money to study us old guys and
our sexuality. How does he feel about that?
1315
Mr. Roy Bailey: Madam Speaker, I was not aware of that
particular study. I might say, as well, that I am glad I was not
a candidate for the study. But I do appreciate the member's
point.
I have noticed a difference. We have these soup kitchens in our
community. I phoned a soup kitchen last summer because I had
almost 300 pounds of potatoes to give away. The response I
received was: “Could you bring them up when they are cleaned?”
Can they not even clean the potatoes they are given?
This goes back to my original point of self-sufficiency and
having some pride.
I turned the TV on that night and saw: “Wanted: people to
help serve”. Why not serve the people and have those people who
have eaten serve the others? The process should be about
self-sufficiency and self-reliance. I really believe that could
do a lot.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the issue before the House today is probably one of the most
important challenges facing our country.
Poverty is a complex problem and for every complex problem there
is a simple solution, but this one is wrong. Today we have had
a suggestion that we can deal with poverty by giving tax breaks
to the poor. Not only do the poor not pay tax, the poor do not
have income. In fact the poor are those in our society who are
unable to help themselves. They are the ones who are on welfare
and social assistance. They are the ones who need Canadians to
re-establish their value system so we ensure that all Canadians
can live in dignity.
A parliamentarian once said in this place that when dignity is
lost, everything is lost. We should never forget that.
Child poverty is a convenient political synonym for family
poverty. We should talk about family poverty in Canada. Nobody
but nobody could ever argue against dealing with child poverty.
It tugs at the heartstrings. However, by dealing with the issue
of child poverty we ignore the reality that family poverty is the
real issue and that the root causes of poverty rest with the
conditions of the Canadian family.
Canada does not have an established poverty line. Statistics
Canada has announced on many occasions that we do not have a
defined poverty line. We do have, however, the low income
cut-off, which is a measure of income levels which provide a
certain amount for the basic necessities of life plus an
additional amount for all other good things necessary for general
Canadian life in terms of the lifestyle that Canadians would seek
to enjoy.
Those kinds of calculations tend to generate high numbers. In
1989 when the Canadian Council on Social Development announced
its numbers of so-called children living in poverty, it said the
number was one million children, one out of six children in
Canada. Ten years later the same agency reported that 1.5
million children are living in poverty, which is one out of five
children.
The calculation used to determine poverty in 1989 had to do with
the ability to provide food, clothing and shelter. Today the
definition includes much more than that. What we have done is
allowed the definition to float in a way which tends to increase
the numbers to levels which nobody but nobody believes.
I believe that Canadians have actually become desensitized to
what poverty really is in Canada. It has become so inflated that
we have lost our focus on what real poverty is. StatsCanada and
the LICO are talking about relative poverty, not real poverty.
1320
It is about time that we understood what the level of real
poverty in Canada is so that we can focus our attention and make
sure that our limited resources are focused on those who are
really living in poverty, and there are many people in Canada who
are living in real poverty.
In 1989 the House unanimously passed a resolution to seek to
achieve the objective of eliminating child poverty in Canada.
“Seek to achieve” basically means to do something, to try. It
does not mean to eliminate child poverty.
Members will be interested to know that that particular event
was not as momentous as they would think. The motion of that day
was made by Ed Broadbent on the very last day that he served as a
member of parliament in the House of Commons. It was a Friday.
There were four hours of debate only and most of that debate
concentrated on tributes to Ed Broadbent. There was very little
actually said about the real issue of poverty, except about
references to the third world and children starving to death.
The discussion and the debate then, if members would check
Hansard, was clearly not the discussion of poverty that we
think it was. In fact, with 10 minutes to go in the debate
before the House adjourned, the then secretary of state for
youth, Jean Charest, entered the House huffing and puffing and
said “Mr. Speaker, considering the exceptional circumstances
today”, referring to Mr. Broadbent's resignation from the House,
“and pursuant to discussions that we had before the debate, I
move that the motion be passed unanimously”. Hansard then
recorded some hon. members saying yes and the House adjourned.
That was it.
The House did not actually have a serious debate about poverty,
except for one speaker, to whom I want to give credit, and that
was Perrin Beatty, the current chair of the CBC. Perrin Beatty
spoke very eloquently in the House about the changing nature of
the family and the reasons that was contributing to this whole
problem of child poverty.
Poverty in our case today is somehow determined to be a measure
of income. It is not just a measure of income, it is a measure
of resources. That means income and assets, plus the value of
social benefits and services that are available to Canadians so
they are able to live in dignity, to have food, clothing, shelter
and the basic necessities of life. Those are the things we
should be measuring.
If we look at the root causes of people living in poverty in
Canada we will see that a lot of seniors are on that list. A lot
of seniors are on that list because they did not have the
opportunity to provide adequately for their retirement income.
Their income levels on their tax returns show them to be below
some artificial low income cut-off.
There are immigration problems. Many immigrants, in particular
the refugees who come to Canada, are unable to assimilate and to
care for themselves as well as they should. They are also on
this list.
Then there are the mentally and the physically disabled, those
who are unable to care for themselves.
This is not something which we can simply pass a resolution on
and then eliminate. It is a fact of life, which means that the
social values of Canadians should be: How are we going to
protect and care for the physically and the mentally disabled,
those who are not able to care for themselves? That is a
separate issue in the whole complex dynamic of poverty.
How about the youth? There are tens of thousand of youth
floating around this country. If we look at the condition of
today's Canadian youth we have to ask ourselves: Why is it that
about 25% of Canadian youth drop out of high school? How is it
possible for a high school dropout to even think of fully
participating in the opportunities of Canada? To opt out of high
school is to sit on the curb and watch the parade go by. This is
an important aspect of poverty.
Again though, as members will notice, that falls under
provincial jurisdiction. Federal issues are involved, municipal
issues are involved, and there are also Canadian issues. If we
are going to deal with poverty, we have to get Canadians on side
as well. There has to be a minimal expectation that all
Canadians will act in good faith and will work hard to get
themselves out of the situation. Those are the things that we
have to do.
Drug and alcohol abuse and addiction are very significant
contributors to poverty in Canada. There are people who have
illnesses and we are not providing services to help them.
1325
That is part of the situation. It is mostly a provincial issue,
but we as a federal government have to support serving Canadians
with those health care needs. That is why we have a social union
agreement. That is part of the agenda.
The single largest contributor to child poverty in Canada has to
do with the breakdown of the Canadian family. Twelve per cent of
all Canadian families are lone-parent families. They account for
46% of all children living in poverty. Almost half of the
poverty situation we are talking about today has to do with the
breakdown of the family.
Why does the family break down? It is a very complex area. It
has to do with domestic violence. It has to do with substance
abuse. It has to do with the lack of a job. It has to do with
adultery. It has to do with a lot of things.
Let us not deal with poverty as a linear problem that has linear
solutions. We have to deal with poverty as a complex problem,
requiring a multiplicity of solutions that we can all support at
all levels of government and embrace all Canadians to be part of
the solution, not part of the problem.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, it is amazing to hear a Liberal backbencher talk about
poverty when it was his government that gutted the EI system and
caused a lot of the problems in this country today.
The fact is that people want to work. Fishermen in the coastal
communities and farmers on the prairies want to work. When they
could not work they had to rely on the EI system, an EI system
that is failing well over 65% of the people in this country. It
is not just lone parents and families that break up which are
suffering, there are many families with a husband and wife who
find it difficult to make ends meet today.
I would like the member to respond to the fact that it was this
government's drastic cuts to EI, to satisfy its fiscal objectives
and banking needs, which created a huge social deficit in which
parented families are greatly suffering as well.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, the EI debate has taken
place in the House on many occasions. I will not try to repeat
those arguments.
I would rather spend the couple of moments that I have to
reiterate to the member that if we are serious about addressing
the complex problem of poverty in Canada, one of the most
significant elements has to do with the Canadian family. It has
to do with the erosion of the Canadian family, the breakdown of
the Canadian family, which leads to many broken homes,
homelessness and real poverty.
Let us make a commitment now to at least admit that the
breakdown of the social and moral fabric in Canada is
collectively our fault, which will take our collective will to
change.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam
Speaker, once again the member opposite, when he talked about
education, referred to provincial boundaries. We all know that
if our kids are going to survive in this global market they need
a better education.
He also spoke about the compassion his government has for broken
homes, family split-ups and school dropouts. Let me remind the
hon. member that transfer payments to the provinces were slashed
by his government. Broken homes, split-ups and dropouts are
caused by this government's lack of job creation. That is the
real problem with this government.
If the member had control of the EI surplus, if he could decide
what to do with the EI surplus, what would he do?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, we are not here to debate
the issues that the member raises. We are here to talk about
poverty.
Let me use my one minute to make reference to the Golden report
on the homeless in Toronto.
It was a very good report.
1330
It was found that half the homeless in Toronto actually had no
roots in Toronto. They had migrated from other places across the
country. It reminds me of the Field of Dreams statement if
you build it, they will come. Toronto's experiences found that
yes, they built it and they did come.
Golden tries to suggest that somehow we have preventative
strategies to deal with homelessness and with poverty. In fact,
their idea of addressing poverty was to mask it. It was to deal
with making poverty invisible. It had nothing to do with dealing
with the root causes.
The root causes are more fundamental than a tax break because as
I said at the beginning of my speech, the poor in Canada do not
pay taxes because they do not have income. Tax credits as
proposed by the Conservative Party are really an inappropriate
approach to dealing with poverty. It is going to take the
collective will of all three levels of government as well as the
Canadian people to understand that we are the cause of this
problem collectively and we collectively must be the solution.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate this
very important motion.
The motion of the hon. member for Shefford states that the
government should help to fight poverty in this country by
encouraging self-sufficiency and self-reliance. These are
excellent goals and underscore several programs and initiatives
which we in the federal government have undertaken especially in
partnership with the provincial and territorial governments to do
precisely that.
The new national child benefit is one of the most obvious
examples of this kind of movement. As hon. members know, this
initiative came into effect last year following extensive
discussions between the federal, provincial and territorial
governments on how to most effectively address the issue of child
poverty. Even though Canada is one of the most successful and
socially advanced countries in the world, the very sad fact is
that far too many children in our country still live in poverty.
Poverty is a numbing and degrading experience for anyone, but it
is particularly difficult for children. It can mean a child is
not only deprived of proper food, clothing and other essentials
but also has long term health and social consequences that come
up later in life.
In order to address this issue, as of July last year the federal
government invested an additional $850 million per year in
support of children under the national child benefit. By July
2000 the federal investment will be at least an additional $1.7
billion per year. That is over and above the roughly $5 billion
annually the federal government already invests in families with
children through the Canada child tax benefit.
As a result of this initiative, more than two million children
are receiving higher federal payments each month to help ensure
that they have adequate food, clothing and shelter. It will help
provide for some of the necessities that children need for a
healthy start in life.
What does this have to do with self-sufficiency and
self-reliance? It has a great deal to do with it. The problem
is that too many parents on social assistance cannot accept a low
wage job without penalizing their children. They are often
caught behind that infamous welfare wall, meaning that when they
move off social assistance and into a job, they can actually end
up with fewer benefits and services for their children than what
they had received while on social assistance. That truly is a
shame. They lose social assistance benefits, things like dental
plans, transportation allowances, housing allowances and other
supports which come to an end when they take that job.
The new program will help to lower the welfare wall with a
higher Canada child tax benefit for all low income families
whether they are in the workforce or not. That is an important
change. This in turn means that provincial and territorial
governments will be able to reduce the amount they pay to
families on social assistance.
It is not simply a windfall for the provinces. As part of the
deal, provincial and territorial governments have agreed that
they will take the money they save and reinvest it in income
support and services to help poor families; services such as
provincial child benefits, child care support for working
parents, basic skills training and other preventative services
for children that reflect the needs of individual communities.
As a result of the first phase of the national child benefit,
most provinces already have these complementary programs in
place.
1335
The provinces will also be investing more as a result of the
government's commitment to further increase the national child
benefit supplement by an additional $850 million per year
starting this July and next July. These complementary provincial
services range from child benefit and employment supplements for
low income recipients to child care tax credits to programs for
optical care and prescription drugs for school age children and
many other initiatives.
The end result is that more low income parents will be
encouraged to get back into the workforce. More children will
therefore benefit because of a higher household income.
The government does not suggest for a minute that this new
program solves all the problems, not at all. What it does
represent is a new beginning, a fresh start if you will, a chance
to provide a more comprehensive way to meet the challenge of
poverty in this country.
At the same time the government is working to ensure that it has
better information on which to base policy decisions, something
that is extremely important as our society and the economy
undergo the increasingly rapid pace of change that has
characterized the past number of decades.
The national longitudinal study of children and youth will be
enhanced to provide more specific community based data that will
greatly assist all governments in making policy choices that are
better targeted and more effective.
The government believes that making an investment in our
children and our young people is in our own long term best
economic and social interests. Certainly it is. That is why the
government has also implemented other measures, such as
increasing the deductions for child care expenses, providing a
family income supplement for roughly 200,000 low income parents
receiving employment insurance benefits, enhancing the community
action program for children and putting more emphasis on prenatal
nutrition programs for children at risk.
That is also why the government has a number of programs to help
Canadians find and keep jobs. The Canada jobs fund is helping to
create jobs in high unemployment areas. The youth employment
strategy is helping thousands of young Canadians with that all
important transition from school to work. We also have a program
called employment assistance for persons with disabilities to
help those persons with disabilities join and stay in the
workforce. The government has also introduced the Canada
opportunities strategy that helps more Canadians, young and old,
to gain access to a good education and to acquire the skills they
need to get a good job.
The government has a clear strategy to fight poverty in this
country. Many great initiatives are well under way and are
directly addressing the concerns raised in this motion.
The strategy is to get as many people as possible into the
workforce, or certainly back into the workforce so that they can
earn a living and support themselves and their families. Since
1993 some 1.6 million new jobs have been created in this country.
I believe that when the Minister of Finance presents his budget
next week, Canadians will see that this government intends to
continue to pursue the strategy of job creation and growth which
we have done and which has invigorated our economy and helped
give more and more Canadians the chance to be full participants
in the economic and social life of this great country of ours.
No one should have any doubt that this government is serious
about fighting poverty in this country, nor should anyone doubt
that this government believes that the best way to do so is to
encourage the self-sufficiency and self-reliance referred to in
this motion. That is important to note and I think we on all
sides of the House should do so.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I just wanted to ask the hon. member, whom I greatly
respect by the way, about the recent letter which was referred to
by us last week in the House of Commons. Is one of those
programs he talked about the quota that HRDC personnel are now
required to meet to take money from EI recipients in order to
protect their jobs from the wrath of this government? How is
arbitrarily taking people off EI especially in remote communities
going to help them feed their families and end child poverty?
1340
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question.
We on the government side have a tremendous record when it comes
to issues of poverty, especially child poverty. The kinds of
things that we have implemented over time and the kinds of things
that we will be implementing over time are truly in the best
interests of Canadians wherever they may live.
Canadians understand that what we as a government are doing is
in the best interests of everyone. It is done so with compassion
and tolerance, knowing that we need to pursue that and ensure
that poverty as we know it is eradicated to the best extent
possible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened
to the hon. member's thoughtful comments.
One can say one cares, as the hon. member does, and he is
undoubtedly sincere, but he is a member of a government that
showed no compassion, that did not anticipate the impact on
people of its cuts to employment insurance and to transfers.
Let us not forget that it is this government that decided to
turn funding for education, health and the Canada assistance
plan into a single transfer. Once that was done, the government
was quick to reduce federal funding from $19 billion in 1994
down to $11.5 billion. The result is that the provinces had to
make cuts in health, education and social assistance.
They are now saying “We will allocate money for the poor. We
will help the poor”. People are people. How many have found
themselves in dire straits? Poverty is not just a question of
money, it is a question of despair, of repeated failure, of
dignity, or lack of dignity, as was pointed out.
I would appreciate it if the hon. member could comment.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I thank the member
opposite for the question.
I reject out of hand her premise of failure. I reject out of
hand her premise of our lacking compassion. On the contrary we
have not failed. We do have in place a system of compassion to
help Canadians wherever they may live in this great country of
ours. We have built in the kinds of programs necessary to assist
Canadians and to help them, not only people in poverty and
especially our young people, but in all kinds of ways. We have
done so through the transfer payment system and will continue to
do so in a very meaningful way that underscores our government's
commitment to this all important policy area.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the government speakers have indicated that the
provincial governments were at fault, that it is not really the
government's fault as it has great programs.
Over the past 130 years or so that this country has been
governed, the Liberal Party has been a big part of it. Where we
are at today in child poverty is a direct result of its
performance as a government. It cannot avoid responsibility for
that.
Besides the broad issues, there is one area which is clearly the
responsibility of the federal government and that is aboriginal
affairs. Our Indian reserves are pockets of poverty which I have
been trying to do something about in my riding.
I ask the member if the tax issues cannot be fixed, can those
areas of aboriginal affairs be fixed where there is no
accountability for the money that is going into those reserves?
People are getting incredibly rich and the poor and the small
children are literally starving and in poverty.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, of course we have had a
long history of helping people and we will continue to do so. We
will do so for aboriginals and for all Canadians.
It is interesting that a member from the Reform Party, which
stands for opposing every initiative that our government has ever
tried to put in place with respect to poverty, including child
poverty, would stand in the House and make those kinds of
statements.
When we came to the child tax benefit for example, the Reform
Party voted against it. When it came to CAPC, the community
action program for children, the Reform Party voted against it.
When it came to—
1345
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak today on the motion put forward by the hon.
member for Shefford, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
steps to alleviate the burden of poverty in Canada by
encouraging self-sufficiency and self-reliance and, to that end,
should increase the basic income tax credit to $10,000, index
the tax brackets and index the child tax benefit.
It is a pleasure because, today, we will have an opportunity to
debate the issue of poverty in Canada and in every province.
I can see that, on the government side, members are very
compassionate. They seem to be familiar with the issue and its
adverse effects and to know what constituencies are affected by
poverty.
My colleague from Mississauga South not only has the gift of the
gab, he also has a great deal of compassion, as I heard. Too bad
he is not the Prime Minister of Canada. I think he might just
implement some of the suggestions made in this motion.
It seems to me that he contradicted something he said earlier. I
see him every day applauding the Minister of Human Resources
Development and his EI reform. We are aware of the fact that
this is a social policy that has taken a serious toll on the
public. It has made poverty grow worse day by day.
Compassion is one thing, but action is what is needed. What good
is it to recognize and lament the fact that some people cannot
afford basic necessities like food and housing, if nothing is
done about it. The Liberal government could take a variety of
measures to remedy the problem, but it is not taking action.
Everyone knows that poverty is growing. There are many more
children living in poverty today than there were ten years ago.
The Bloc Quebecois has been actively involved in fighting
poverty. I mentioned earlier the employment insurance issue,
which is a major social policy. Several of my colleagues have
worked on private member's bills that they have introduced in
this House. Time and time again, they have suggested various
approaches to the government, which brushed all of them off,
without any consideration for the effort that had gone into
developing these proposals.
Unlike the hon. member for Mississauga South, I congratulate the
hon. member for Shefford for bringing this motion to the House
today. It allows us to focus on poverty.
It is a motion that is praiseworthy in itself, but we are not in
agreement with its wording. We find the motion financially
irresponsible. It is all very well to bring in solutions, but
they must also be affordable. The main weapons against poverty
are not contained in the motion of the hon. member for Shefford.
This morning, the political parties admit that poverty is a real
shame. It is time to act, and the Liberal policies in this area
have been a total failure. The only ones who can do anything
are the Liberals. However, we do not see even a hint of
willingness to do something to change the situation.
Yet in 1989, the House unanimously passed the following
resolution:
This House express its concern for the more than one million
Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to
achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children
by the year 2000.
We are well aware that the Liberals had a great deal to say on
this when in the opposition. They criticized the Progressive
Conservative government. Now the shoe is on the other foot and
the Progressive Conservatives are criticizing the Liberal
government for not attacking poverty.
Ten years later, we have a 60% increase in the number of poor
children, to a record high of 1.5 million poor children in
Canada.
1350
Each successive government has passed the buck on to the next.
I think it was under the Progressive Conservatives that social
transfers to the provinces were first reduced and UI eligibility
requirements tightened.
These are two enormously important social measures that have a
major impact on people, and that play a key role in contributing
to poverty if corrective action is not taken.
The Bloc Quebecois is not pulling figures out of a hat and it is
not alone in condemning the situation. There are a number of
bodies that advise the government and that examine the problem
of growing poverty in Canada.
The National Council of Welfare, the Canadian Council on Social
Development, the UN and Campaign 2000 have criticized the
government on several counts and asked it to take action where
it could.
The National Council of Welfare is not just any old council. It
is a body that advises the federal government on poverty. In a
report entitled “Poverty Profile 1996”, it was already
identifying poverty as an issue:
With 20.6%, or 1,481,000, of Canada's children living in
poverty, the Liberals are the clear winners when it comes to
driving people into poverty.
The poverty rate for all categories of families is 14.8%. The
rate for single mothers under 65 years of age with children
under 18 is 61.4%.
The policies set up by the Liberal government are nothing to
brag about. If we look at the figures, the result is rather
disastrous.
According to the National Council of Welfare, the decline in
government income support programs, particularly social
assistance and employment insurance, is the primary cause of
poverty. The federal government hurt people in two ways, by
reducing transfers to the provinces for social assistance and by
making it harder to qualify for employment insurance.
The cuts affecting transfers to the provinces total $42 billion,
or $6 billion per year.
The National Council of Welfare says that, since the deficit has
now been eliminated, the government is in a position to change
its approach and to fulfil the commitment it has often made
regarding children and their families. This means restoring
transfers to the provinces and improving the employment
insurance program.
The Canadian Council on Social Development also released a
report on progress achieved by Canadian children in 1998. That
report is even more scathing. It says that improvements in the
lives of Canadian children and young people were offset by
negative social and economic patterns. The council blames the
bad coverage provided to the unemployed.
So, the Bloc Quebecois is not the only one to condemn the
government's attitude regarding transfers to the provinces and
employment insurance, with all the restrictions that it has
imposed.
The United Nations is also a very important body. It released a
report, on December 4, in which it strongly condemned Canada for
the rapid deterioration of the living conditions of Canadians.
Under the UN's human development index, Canada does not take
first place, but only tenth place.
As we all know, Canada prides itself in being the best country
in the world, but with figures such as those there is nothing to
brag about.
Campaign 2000 is another organization dedicated to fighting
poverty in Canada. Its report published in 1998 provides very
disturbing figures.
1355
The number of children living in families with incomes under
$20,000 has increased by 65%. The number of children living in
families experiencing chronic unemployment has increased by 33%.
The number of children living in families on social assistance
has increased by 51%. The number of children living in low cost
but unaffordable housing has increased by 91%.
The government can tell us all it wants about how it is trying
to combat child poverty, that it has made it a priority and that
its programs take the needs of children and their families into
account, but its attitude to the problems of EI and the Canada
social transfer put it at the bottom of the class in social
policy.
We would like to come back to the member for Shefford's motion
and make a few suggestions, because we in the Bloc Quebecois
think that she did not go far enough and that her figures are
unrealistic. We feel that her motion is financially
irresponsible and that the measures proposed do not go far
enough.
The motion is financially irresponsible and merely repeats some
of the dissenting views of this party with respect to the
December report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
The Progressive Conservative Party is making suggestions which
individually have some merit but collectively would clearly push
the Liberal government back into a deficit situation.
I would like to outline the costs associated with this motion of
the Progressive Conservative Party. The motion would lower EI
premiums by $6 billion without making any improvement to the
program. We in the Bloc Quebecois have asked repeatedly that the
government improve the system, so that more people can qualify,
but this concern is not reflected in the motion put forward by
the hon. member for Shefford. At present, 60% of the unemployed
are excluded from the EI program. This means that many do not
qualify, which contributes to the growth in poverty.
The second suggestion in the hon. member's motion is about fully
indexing tax brackets, at a cost of $2 billion. This is in
addition to the $6 billion for EI premiums.
She is also asking that the basic income tax credit be increased
to $10,000. We know that this would cost $9 billion and that the
cost to the public purse per $100 increase—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. She has
seven minutes left to complete her speech, which will be
followed by a 10-minute question and comment period. Since this
would take approximately a quarter of an hour, I think we should
now proceed to Statements by Members. The hon. member can resume
her speech after Oral Question Period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
RBST
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Health and Health
Canada for their decision to reject the use of rBST in Canadian
dairy herds.
As the federal MP for one of the largest dairy producing
counties in Canada, I can assure the minister that this decision
is a welcome one for dairy farmers in Oxford County. I am
especially impressed by Health Canada's diligence in reviewing
this product over an nine year period.
The Minister of Health has consistently said that rBST would not
be approved if it posed a threat to human or animal health. After
studies showed that rBST caused a significant increase by
approximately 50% in the incidence of lameness in injected dairy
cattle, the department made a clear decision to reject rBST use
in Canada. It is a decision which and I and the dairy farmers of
Oxford applaud.
* * *
TEACHING
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to acknowledge two teachers for their
outstanding efforts. These teachers are from the Evergreen School
Division, located in the Selkirk—Interlake riding. They have
been internationally recognized for their work with special needs
students.
1400
John Sarkozi, a resource teacher at Gimli High School, and Brian
Thordarson, a resource and classroom teacher at Riverton
Early-Middle Years School, were recently awarded the
professionally recognized special educator certificate for
special education teaching by the Council for Exceptional
Children. The Council for Exceptional Children is the largest
international professional association for special educators,
related service providers and parents.
I take this opportunity to thank those two men and special needs
teachers throughout Canada for the extra effort they put forward
to educate students with exceptional qualities.
* * *
DANIEL REHAK
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are known around the world for our generosity
and our willingness to help countries in the developing world.
One Canadian who recently demonstrated this is Mr. Daniel Rehak,
a constituent in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
As a volunteer with the Canadian Executive Service Overseas,
Daniel shared his expertise and knowledge of local area network
systems with the vice-ministry of citizens services and municipal
development in La Paz, Bolivia. He assisted the ministry in
installing server software, local area networks, and in designing
other computer programs to enable it to track migration
effectively and efficiently.
Daniel's work is typical of Canadians who are motivated to
provide services to disadvantaged economies. On behalf of the
people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore I congratulate Daniel for his
contributions to international development and for a job well
done. He makes Canada proud.
* * *
HERITAGE WEEK
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is heritage week in Canada and the theme is honouring
Canadian heroes.
I would like to highlight three such heroes in my community of
Kitchener Centre. Michael Hildebrand, a Grand River math
teacher, will be receiving an award from the governor general for
bravery for protecting an 11 year old boy from a black bear
attack 18 months ago in Algonquin Park.
The congregation of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and the
Reverend Grant McDonald this week received a downtown leadership
award for their work in the core of our city.
Jessica Smith is an 11 year old who is battling bone cancer in
our community. Her good spirits and good humour prove that she
is not only a fighter but also a hero.
It is my pleasure to acknowledge these heroes in my community.
They are Canadians who are making a difference.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week is year 2000 preparedness week. The government is working
to assist businesses and consumers to prepare for the year 2000
bug.
The charitable and not for profit sector is also a vital segment
of the Canadian economy and can potentially be affected by the
year 2000 problem. All the information available to businesses
is also available to the not for profit sector, as are many of
the support programs provided by the government.
In particular the year 2000 first step program provides a
complete diagnostic service for up to 10 computers for a very low
cost. I urge the not for profit sector to address the year 2000
problem and to seek information and support from the government
by either calling the task force year 2000 secretariat toll free
number or by visiting Industry Canada's website.
It is time for all of Canada to act, including the not for
profit sector.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are facing a major health care crisis in Canada. This is nothing
new to the many people who are waiting for surgery or hospital
beds or for the doctors, nurses and hospital support staff.
Since 1995 the Liberal government has slashed $16.5 billion from
health and social spending. Now it wants to look like a hero by
reinstating taxpayers dollars into the health care budget,
dollars it took out.
Heroes do not have to create their own situations to look good.
The Liberal government is not a hero when it comes to health
care. It is the villain.
Through the Liberals charred earth policy Canada's health care
is in jeopardy. In British Columbia patients are being placed
not in wards but in linen closets. In my riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan the Nanaimo hospital has been suffering
greatly. Over the past two weeks it has had a daily average of
50 people waiting for beds.
In one case a 65 year old woman has been cancelled for hip
replacement surgery for the third time. Does she have any
comfort waiting in her hospital bed? No. She is on morphine
waiting in a wheelchair parked in the hallway—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Essex.
* * *
THE LATE SHAUGHNESSY COHEN
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December
9, 1998 this Chamber, this institution and all of us suffered a
great tragedy over the loss of our colleague Shaughnessy Cohen.
To some she was a colleague and to others a dear and trusted
friend, but all who knew her instantly saw her vitality for life.
Shaughn lived each and every day to the fullest. We miss her,
her laughter, her partisanship and even her heckling.
1405
Today I rise to toast what would have been her 51st birthday. As
sure as I am standing here I am certain she is having one heck of
a birthday party in Heaven today.
On behalf of her constituents and on behalf of my colleagues I
would just like to say happy birthday, Shaughnessy; we miss you.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate the agricultural producers of Quebec for their
efforts, under the leadership of the Laval University economics
and agricultural policies research group, are drawing up a
portrait of the agro-environmental situation on Quebec farms.
This has been under way since 1997, and the assessment of
Quebec's 25,000 farms will soon be completed.
This agro-environmental report on farming is a broad survey of
agricultural practices and their impacts on soil and water. The
data address some 100 different aspects.
The data banks can be cross-referenced to numbered maps to give
information by MRC, by watershed area or by crop.
The purpose of this one-of-a-kind undertaking is to provide farmers
and government with guidance for improving the impact of
agriculture on the environment.
Let us congratulate the farmers for protecting their
environment, for it is one we all share.
* * *
[English]
GEORGE BROWN
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to ask the House to join me in honouring broadcasting
legend George Brown.
On Saturday night friends of radio in southern Alberta lost a
true pioneer. George began his distinguished radio career in
Lethbridge in 1939. During World War II he enlisted in the Royal
Canadian Corps of Signals where he helped the allied forces
intercept enemy communications. After the war George returned to
southern Alberta where he embarked on a long and illustrious
career on the airwaves.
A dedicated community member, he served on many voluntary boards
and societies sharing his talents. George was a distinguished
performer himself performing in choral groups across southern
Alberta. A member of the Broadcasting Hall of Fame, George
reminded us of an era when radio was our window to the world.
George used his love and knowledge of music, particularly his
love for big band music, to create a bond with the listeners of
his unique Sunday morning radio program.
Our prayers and condolences go out to his family. Thank you
George, thanks for the musical memories.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-55
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for Canada,
Bill C-55 is the best solution to a complex situation, for it
fully respects our international trade obligations and fits in
with our traditional cultural policies.
It will ban a practice which threatens the continuing success of
the Canadian periodical industry, namely elimination of Canadian
content by offering an unfair advantage to foreign publishers as
far as advertising revenues are concerned. This bill protects
against price gouging, which already goes on domestically, even
in the U.S.
Above all, it maintains fair market conditions for Canadian
publishers, without imposing a tax or in any way limiting the
content of periodicals, creating subsidies, or limiting readers'
choice.
This bill is, therefore, a logical and effective solution.
* * *
[English]
WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of the
Environment tried to pretend that they were living up to the NDP
motion passed in the House of Commons the day before concerning
the bulk export of water from Canada.
However, what they announced falls far short of the motion. For
example, the motion called on the federal government to declare
immediately a moratorium on bulk water exports. Instead there
are to be 10 separate provincial moratoriums and they are not
necessarily immediate, if some of them happen at all.
Worst of all the Liberals continue to parade the half-truth that
water is not affected by NAFTA. If so, why do they say that they
want to avoid a national ban on exports on the grounds, that that
would treat water as a tradable good and might trigger NAFTA?
If water was exempt like raw logs, beer and culture are under
NAFTA, we could ban it or not ban its export as we please; but we
cannot and we will not be able to until the Liberals face up to
the reality of what they once knew and now deny, that we either
have to change or scrap NAFTA.
* * *
[Translation]
THÉÂTRE DU RIDEAU VERT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with emotion and gratitude that the Bloc Quebecois pays tribute
to the management and staff of the Théâtre du Rideau Vert, which
celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, and expresses its
gratitude to Mercédes Palomino, who founded the theatre jointly
with Yvette Brind'Amour.
The Rideau Vert is Quebec's oldest French theatre. It has put
on nearly 300 productions. Its aims have remained unchanged: to
provide the public with professional quality theatre and to
promote the work of Canadian and Quebec playwrights.
1410
It put on the first productions of Michel Tremblay's
Les Belles-Soeurs, Antonine Maillet's La Sagouine and Françoise
Loranger's Une maison, un jour ... and Encore 5 minutes.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes the curtain continues to rise at the
Rideau Vert for many decades to come on productions that touch
both our hearts and our imaginations.
Congratulations to Ms. Brind'Amour and to Metcha.
* * *
THE LATE YVON DUFOUR
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
Quebec weeps at the loss of one of its great actors, Yvon
Dufour, who died at the age of 68.
We watched him in Le Courrier du roy, Jeunes visages,
D'Iberville, Les Enquêtes Jobidon, La Petite semaine, where he
was the lead, and Le Temps d'une paix, among others.
For a person arriving in a new country, local television
represents a powerful source of cultural learning. It was how I
learned. Yvon Dufour contributed to it significantly. He was
part of my discovery of my adopted land. Like many others and
with considerable talent, he helped me better understand Quebec.
I wanted to thank him today and to pay him tribute. I offer my
heartfelt sympathy to his family.
* * *
[English]
JOB CORPS PROGRAM
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, at the
end of March the federal-provincial New Brunswick job corps
program comes to an end. This program assists older workers and
makes possible projects like facilities beautification,
silviculture, fish enhancement, upgrading tourist facilities and
other environmental projects.
While the province was prepared to continue the program, the
human resource minister, ignoring his own officials, decided not
to renew it or extend it, leaving 956 people with an uncertain
future.
Employers and participants have praised the program and new
Brunswick communities have benefited immensely from the projects.
Cancellation will affect the entire province.
The Liberals have finally stumbled upon a good program and now
they are ignoring the assessment of their officials by cancelling
it without providing a replacement to meet the needs of
participants, employers or the community.
I urge the government to reconsider its plan before adding
hundreds more to the ranks of the poor.
* * *
WASTE REPORT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the most recent edition of the member for St. Albert's so-called
waste report indignantly claims that the Department of National
Defence is nickel and diming us into the poorhouse by spending
$1,033 to replace a lost tricycle. “It must have belonged to a
general's granddaughter”, the hon. member writes.
It turns out that this tricycle was a military cargo transporter
used by soldiers to assist victims of the Saguenay region flood
in 1996. Only the Reform Party would believe that helping
Canadians who are being ravaged by floods is somehow a waste of
money.
I have some advice for the hon. member. He should check his
facts and do his homework. Until the accuracy of the member's
publication improves I will continue to relegate it, the copy of
the waste report, to the wastebasket where it truly belongs.
* * *
DONALD CALNE
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Dr. Donald Calne, who received his arts, science and doctor of
medicine degrees from Oxford University, is director of the neuro
degenerative disorders centre at the University of British
Columbia.
He has achieved international stature for his work on
Parkinsonism. He introduced bromocriptine as a treatment for
Parkinson's disease. He has demonstrated that latent damage
occurs in the brain even before the symptoms of Parkinsonism
appear. He was recently named Officer of the Order of Canada for
his research, writings and contributions to international
medicine.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the crisis in the
health care sector continues.
Since the Liberals took office, over $16 billion has been
snatched away from the provinces in the sector of health care
and social services.
The result is clear in the reports we have been seeing of late.
Waiting time in Quebec emergency rooms has reached a critical
level. As is the federal Liberals' practice, the blame is
passed on to the provinces.
Next week's budget will not provide the $16 billion already
taken. The Minister of Finance will try to convince you he is
repairing the health care system, but billions more will be
needed to fix it.
Canadians, beware, next week's budget will bring you more taxes
and less health care.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
TAXATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
new study by the Vanier Institute of the Family proves what
Canadian families already know, that taxes under the Liberals
have reached a record high.
Income taxes alone now eat up almost one-quarter of every
family's budget. Although we are paying record taxes to the
Liberals, they have cut our health care deeper than ever.
Could the Prime Minister please tell us why we are paying record
taxes but he has cut our health care to the bone at the same
time?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister of Finance said many times in the House,
we have reduced taxes every year we have been in government.
To give an example, when we formed the government the EI premium
was $3.30. We reduced that to $2.55. We made reductions in
taxes every year, including last year. The surtax for those
below $50,000 of 3% was completely eliminated and 400,000
taxpayers were not on tax rolls at all after the last budget.
I am confident that the Minister of Finance will think about the
taxpayers come next Tuesday.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister could check his books. Taxes have gone up,
not down. Average Canadians are paying $1,800 more this year in
taxes than when the Prime Minister took over in 1993, yet they
have had $1,150 cut out of their health and social programs.
That is $1,800 more in taxes and they have cut $1,150 on health
care.
How can the Prime Minister bill himself as the great guardian of
health care when he ought to be sued for malpractice?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, exactly a week ago I had a discussion with all the
premiers. We discussed health care. They were all very positive
about the intention of the federal government for the next
budget.
Perhaps the member should check with the premiers before asking
questions.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure they are comforted that the Prime Minister is going to
put back a fraction of what they have taken out since they took
office in 1993.
Next week in the budget we will probably hear about a $2 billion
selective tax cut. Canadians are saying “thank you very
little”. Incredibly, we are still paying more taxes, not less.
Since 1993 the Prime Minister has wrung $1,800 more out of the
average taxpayer and still take back $1,150 in cuts to health
care.
How can the Prime Minister brag about being the great slasher of
health care and Mr. tax hike?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we were elected to provide good government for the
people of Canada and we do not have to work with anybody to try
to form an alliance to survive.
We are continuing to provide good government. The united is
here and the alternative is there.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
was very eloquent.
Taxpayers are paying $1,800 more this year in taxes than they
did in 1993. Meanwhile this year, government spending is down
$1,150 per taxpayer for health care since 1993.
Has the Prime Minister no shame that he is charging taxpayers
$1,800 more this year than he did in 1993 yet he is cutting the
heart out of health care?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we cut taxes by $7 billion in the last budget over a
period of three years. We reduced the EI premium every year
since we formed the government, from $3.30 to $2.55.
At the same time, we managed to eliminate the deficit which was
$42 billion. I guess the people of Canada know we are doing our
best and we are providing good administration which is ensuring
the growth that permits the government to balance its books.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister should understand that it was not he or his
government that reduced the deficit. It was Canadian taxpayers
who eliminated the deficit. He took $1,800 out of their pockets
every year to reduce the deficit. He is putting back a fraction
of what he took out of health care.
1420
I wonder how the Prime Minister feels to be known as the man who
put the hell into health care.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am a bon Chrétien. I will easily forgive those words.
Yes, there is more tax paid in Canada because there are
1,500,000 Canadians who were not working but who have jobs today
because we have provided good government. There are more people
paying taxes because the level of unemployment went down from
11.5% to 7.8% last month.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
General Baril showed us yesterday just what a good cover-up
operation he runs.
But the more we hear about the Prime Minister's ski vacation,
the less we understand.
My question is very simple: Can the Prime Minister tell us what
kind of plane he used to fly to Vancouver and whether it stayed
there during his holiday?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister always flies in a Challenger. There is
nothing secret about that.
I have always interrupted my vacations. When nine Eskimo died in
New Quebec, I interrupted my vacation, unlike the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not have a Challenger.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. leader of the Bloc
Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Can he tell us then how it is that the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and the delegation of members left
Ottawa in a Challenger on Sunday morning and flew to Amman in 12
hours, while seven hours were not enough for the Prime Minister
to make it from Vancouver to Ottawa? Will he explain that for
us?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
General Baril explained this yesterday. The Canadian Armed
Forces are responsible for getting the Prime Minister around.
The Prime Minister himself does not tell the pilot what time to
get up. That is not my responsibility.
However I would point out to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
that the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, Jean Charest,
who does not have a Challenger either, attended the funeral
service in New Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
outside the country, but this is not how question period works.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Can he tell us how it was that General Baril
did not reply when I put the same question to him, and why the
Canadian Armed Forces are able to arrange a trip from Ottawa to
Amman in 12 hours by notifying opposition members at the last
minute, but cannot manage to look after the Prime Minister, who
had more than enough time to make it from Vancouver to Ottawa?
Would he stop covering up the truth?
The Speaker: The hon. member is making borderline comments. I
would ask him to be very careful in his choice of words.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
explained to everyone yesterday that I wanted to be there, that
I had sent a team ahead to make arrangements for my arrival in
Jordan, but that it was impossible for me to get there in time.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs went, along with members of the
House, and he represented Canada very ably. He met the new King
of Jordan, the brother of the former king and others, including
the UN Secretary General. They all understood perfectly well
why I was not there. Obviously, they are a little more
understanding than the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
new king is not his brother, but his son.
The Prime Minister must think we are asleep at the switch.
1425
If the Canadian Armed Forces made such a serious error—because
the international press said that the Prime Minister had
committed a gaffe—is the Prime Minister going to take
disciplinary action against those responsible for such a gaffe,
or was it he himself who committed the gaffe?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously the Bloc Quebecois does not have enough to worry
about.
It would be much appreciated by the governments of Jordan and
other countries if the Bloc Quebecois were to concern itself
with the real problems in that area of the world and the need to
establish a regime that can maintain peace. It was for that
purpose that the Minister of Foreign Affairs met with the new
king, who is the son of King Hussein, and with the king's
brother, who had been the acting leader of the country. But
since the Bloc Quebecois has a very narrow focus, it was likely
unaware that we met with both.
* * *
[English]
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, is the
Prime Minister aware that there are 200,000 homeless Canadians,
over 5,000 homeless children in Toronto alone? Does the Prime
Minister ever take a moment to think about what it is for a child
growing up to live without a home?
Will the Prime Minister agree to come with me and see for
himself the human horror of homelessness or will he cross the
street and just walk on by?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am aware of it and I have done something.
Yesterday the minister of public works gave a list of all the
activities this government has moved on in the last few months.
He was reporting to the House that he is talking to the provinces
to have them collaborate. The NDP Government of British Columbia
did not want to participate in the RRAP, a housing program for
the poor.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is so concerned about homelessness that he pulled
the plug on all new social housing in this country. So what if
thousands of Canadians are homeless. Leave it to others to deal
with the crisis. Leave it to others to find a way to put a roof
over their heads.
It is not cardboard boxes that are needed. It is leadership
from the Prime Minister. When will he face up to his
responsibilities? When will he reassert a federal role in
housing for Canadians who need it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has put hundreds of millions of dollars
into these programs over the years. We have done something. We
are preoccupied with and working on that.
Rather than recognizing these things, she is refusing to see
them. She should be pleading with the Premier of British
Columbia to collaborate with our minister to improve the
situation in Vancouver. However, as usual, by trying to score
political points she has abandoned all the principles of the NDP.
It is a shame that she voted against protecting—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Shefford.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, immediate
government action is required on the issue of child poverty in
Canada. We know that child poverty has grown constantly in the
past ten years or so.
Will the Prime Minister pledge today, before this House, to
improve his government's poor record with respect to child
poverty by tabling a comprehensive action plan, with real
targets and deadlines, providing for the indexing of the child
tax benefit, among other things?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
addressed that point yesterday, indicating that it is a
government priority.
Two years ago, we took the initiative, in co-operation with the
provinces, to provide in child tax benefits. Over the past two
years, $1.7 billion was provided. I think it was the largest
single investment made by the federal government in any social
program in three years, and it was for child poverty.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, in recent
months, the government finally reaped the rewards of the efforts
made by all Canadians to restore Canada's economic health.
1430
However, the long period of restraint and sacrifices that led to
this new era of economic prosperity has exacted a major human
and financial toll on many Canadians, especially those living
below the poverty line.
Can the Prime Minister give this House the assurance that he
intends to redirect the surpluses accumulated through these
sacrifices to the most disadvantaged members of our society?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is precisely what we have done. I just gave the hon. member
an answer.
I want to point out to her that the reason we were facing such a
difficult situation in 1993 is that we had just taken over from
the previous Conservative government. When we voted to provide a
tax benefit for poor families with children, the Conservative
Party voted against the budget.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for a week now the solicitor general has had a letter from the
commissioner of the APEC inquiry asking for funding for the
students' lawyers so that the process is fair. He has had a whole
week. He has dozens of advisers and he has all sorts of lawyers.
The question cannot be that difficult. What is the answer? Are
they getting the funding, yes or no?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously in the House, I
received a detailed letter. My officials and I are studying the
letter and we will respond to the letter.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
how complicated can it be? Is the solicitor general having
trouble with the big words or what? Get the health minister to
go over and help him, whatever it takes. Give us an answer.
If he will not give us the answer today, will he at least tell
us when, yes or no?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague I am
evaluating the letter and he will hear the answer.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
minister of agriculture told me that Quebec farmers affected by
the drop in agricultural produce prices would be “treated
equitably, the same as any other farmer in Canada”.
Am I to understand from the minister's words that he plans to
provide Quebec producers with the same assistance as to the rest
of Canada, without taking into account the measures already
available from the Government of Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the discussions with the provinces as far
as farm income disaster assistance will ensure that all farmers
in Canada who trigger the criteria will be treated the same by
the provinces and the federal government on a 60-40 split.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
speaking of a federal program paid for by the taxes of everyone
in Canada, Quebec farmers included.
Can the minister explain to us why he insists on imposing a
rigid program for all of Canada which penalizes Quebec farmers
for the financial assistance already received from the
Government of Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the very same
member stands up and wants to know why there is not equity for
farmers in Quebec with the farmers in the rest of Canada. Not
only for farmers but for everything else, I will assure that
there will be equity.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we saw
another litany of health care problems on TV last night: preemies
without neonatal intensive care beds; Quebeckers without
emergency space; and people in B.C. sleeping in the linen closet
because there are no beds.
Since the Liberals are wringing more taxes out of us, why is it
that our health care system is in such a mess?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is true the provinces are having real difficulties meeting
their responsibilities and delivering services.
Just last week the Prime Minister led an effort to develop an
agreement among governments in Canada to act on health as a
priority and will soon be announcing measures in that regard.
The hon. member raises an issue which does not sit comfortably
with the Reform philosophy. Reform just a few weeks ago said it
would devote one half of the surplus toward debt reduction and
the other half toward tax relief, apparently leaving nothing for
health care.
1435
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister would like to direct attention elsewhere because he has
a record that he is not very proud of. While he has raised taxes
by $40 billion, he has wrung $16 billion out of the health care
system, not a record that anybody should be very proud of.
My question is very simple. When taxes are at record highs, why
is health care in such a sorry, sorry state?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the problems one sees on the ground are being coped with by
provincial governments. We are going to be there next week in
the budget to announce measures we believe will help them.
Let me make clear that the measures we will announce will be
intended to strengthen our public system of medicare in the
country supported by the Canada Health Act. That is not
something the Reform Party understands or appreciates.
We all know what the Reform Party would do. It would repeal the
Canada Health Act. It would have American style medicine in
Canada. It would have private insurance. That is something we
will never do.
* * *
[Translation]
EXPORT OF CANDU REACTORS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the
Minister for International Trade revealed here in the House that
the federal government wishes to continue exporting CANDU
reactors.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Given the lack of
scientific and social consensus on the safety of Canadian
nuclear technology, can the Prime Minister guarantee that his
government will not advance the billions of dollars required to
purchase new CANDU reactors to Romania and Turkey?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously with respect to future transactions, no one
can predict what might happen in terms of future business
relationships.
On the scientific point, the hon. member does this Canadian
technology a grave disservice by implying that it is somehow
inherently unsafe. In fact, the Candu has the safest track
record in the world.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us whether he intends
to follow up on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs calling upon Parliament to conduct “a separate
and in-depth study on the domestic use, and foreign export of,
Canada's civilian nuclear technology”?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are actively looking at the very interesting
recommendations from the committee. We have 150 days to respond.
I can assure the hon. member that we will be responding in a very
comprehensive way within that time period. I am sure that we will
be able to provide the kind of answers she is looking for.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, under the new health care accord that the
Prime Minister and the health minister mentioned this afternoon,
three provinces may end up paying more than they receive. If the
additional health care funds are transferred under the existing
formula, the citizens of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia
will pay more than they receive.
In the interests of fairness and equity, will the Prime Minister
commit to transfer the additional funds for health care on a per
capita basis?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was there and all the premiers said it was a very good
deal.
I do not know where the member is getting that from. Some are
presuming that perhaps if we decide to cut taxes, the provinces
will have to cut taxes. Everybody will note that the Reform
Party is against any tax cuts by the federal government because
it might affect the provinces.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to those under the
Canada health and social transfer that there are three provinces
in this country that pay more.
I remind the Prime Minister that the first principle of the
social union that he signed a week ago was to treat all Canadians
with fairness and equity. Why is the Prime Minister so willing to
put that aside one week later?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is why the premiers signed. It is why they said
thank you to the federal government. It is why they said it was
a very innovative way to operate the federation, that everybody
would be better off with this new system than with the old
system.
1440
I know that the Reform Party is in very bad shape these days to
raise questions like that.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN CLONING
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
initiative of the Bloc Quebecois, the House will soon debate the
basic question of human cloning.
Could the minister tell us whether the government intends to
proceed with this matter and could he tell us why he is trying
to amend the bill in order to delay its implementation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
common knowledge that the present government opposes human
cloning. In Canada, we have had a voluntary moratorium since
1995, and a year ago, we introduced Bill C-47 to ban this and
other practices.
We are currently examining a bill to do the same thing, and I
intend to table it shortly.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Children and Youth.
Inuit communities across the north suffer from among the highest
rates of unemployment in Canada. Can the Secretary of State for
Children and Youth tell this House what is being done to help
Inuit find and keep jobs?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased today to have the
hon. member for Nunavut with me to sign a national accord with
the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada.
The accord recognizes that a one size fits all solution does
meet the needs of the Inuit people in the labour market. It will
empower Inuit people to design and deliver their own programs.
The national accord replaces the existing national framework
agreement and signals the beginning of a new five year program
that we are going to undertake for the Inuit. The details will be
announced by the government at a later date.
* * *
SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Three days ago Shearwater Development Corporation ceased
operations after blowing $2.6 million in public money. In spite
of ACOA largesse and a good income from airport operations
Shearwater did not pay its principal contractor, Frontec
Corporation, last year and has been hit with a $677,000 judgment.
Does the minister have any idea where all the money went and is
the government responsible for the debt to Frontec?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said a week or so ago, the Shearwater Development
Corporation was put together to ameliorate the effect of the
downsizing of Shearwater. Cornwallis did very well by the way.
The question was, where did the money go. The money went to
keep the airport operating. The airport was still operating and
the assets are still there.
Regrettably Shearwater Development Corporation is not in
business any more. The future of the property and indeed the
airport is now between the Government of Nova Scotia and the
Government of Canada through public works and government
services.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Shearwater has given a brand new meaning to the term not
for profit corporation.
Shearwater's chairman, Charles Keating, is a high profile
Liberal operator. His executive director worked for former MP
Ron MacDonald. Neither one of them has any transportation
expertise, yet they talked of turning Shearwater into a
“multimodal transportation hub”.
They made lots of money running that airport. Where did the
money go? Will the minister launch an investigation?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, there is no need for an
investigation. The money was spent to keep the airport open. As
the delivery agency, ACOA accounted for the money. Due diligence
was done. Everything was done properly. There is no need for an
investigation. There will be no investigation.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, emergency
rooms throughout the country are in a state of crisis because of
the cuts imposed by this Liberal government. The situation is
critical in Montreal. Patients are waiting 48 hours on
stretchers before getting a bed.
In Toronto, the Ontario government is contemplating sending sick
children to the United States. B.C. immediately invested $10
million, Quebec, $20 million.
1445
Will this Liberal government assume its share of the
responsibility and reinvest today? It is today we need money in
health care across the country.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly
for us health is a key priority. Clearly, as the Prime Minister
said, we will be reinvesting in health care significantly in the
coming budget.
I would ask the hon. member to wait for next week's budget. We
will take steps to improve the situation.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad that health is a priority for the government because my
question is also for the health minister.
A report released this afternoon by the Sierra Club of Canada,
co-authored by renowned experts in environmental health and
safety, is a scathing indictment of the Can-Tox study
co-sponsored by Health Canada last year regarding Frederick
Street. The findings of the now flawed Can-Tox study were the
basis for the government's inaction.
Will the Minister of Health continue to leave the people of
Frederick Street at risk or will he show that it is a priority
and do the right thing for the people in that community now and
not next week?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
along with the Minister of the Environment I met with the
residents of Frederick Street some months ago when I was in
Sydney. I said to them then and I repeat now that our concern is
for their safety and for their health.
Let me say two things. First, the Can-Tox study was made
public. We believe it was right, but we are going to look at the
report which we are receiving this afternoon and we will study it
carefully.
Second, a joint action group made up of people from the
community is looking at strategies. That is where the strategy
should start. We will support that process now and in the
future.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians' after tax income has declined by 7% since the early
1990s. One in five Canadian children are now living in poverty.
All Canadians, particularly low end Canadians, need tax relief
now.
In the last budget the finance minister took $2.5 billion of
Canadians' money to put into a millennium scholarship fund. How
much of that money has benefited Canadians this year when they
need it?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
certainly outlines how from day one in our first budget, even
though we had a huge deficit, we have been investing in the
future of Canadians. One of our first major investments was to
increase the floor of the transfers for health care.
We realize that we cannot have a strong country unless we have
the best trained and best educated young people. That is why we
have made this huge investment in the future of our young
Canadians.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, that
was the long answer. The short answer is zero. Not one red cent
of that $2.5 billion taken from Canadians was reinvested in
Canadians this year. Will the minister stop playing Mother
Hubbard with Canadians' money? Will he reduce taxes for low
income Canadians next week by fully reindexing tax brackets and
by raising the basic personal exemption to $10,000?
I ask the secretary of state not to say that he cannot comment
on the budget because everybody knows that the minister has been
leaking like a sieve.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I value my job
too much to leak anything that would be in the budget.
From day one tax cuts have been important to us. We started out
with targeted tax cuts to those who are most in need, to those
who are disabled, to charities in the voluntary sector, to poor
families. In the last budget we doubled the amount of the child
tax benefit and provided $1.7 billion to the poorest families in
Canada. We took 400,000 of the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Oak Ridges.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is Y2K week, with 10 months to go before the year 2000. Can the
Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification tell us
what the government is doing to assist small and medium size
businesses to prepare?
1450
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, western economic diversification through 100 points
of service in the whole of western Canada is focused on this
problem. We have people working on it on a daily basis.
We are finding and identifying the most relevant information.
We are sharing that information widely, both directly and through
small and medium size businesses. We are also providing guidance
to those who need assistance in making sure they are Y2K
compliant.
There have been a number of seminars and conferences. Today in
British Columbia there is a forum on this very issue, where there
are very credible resource persons available to assist.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
speaking about Y2K, when it comes to government preparedness for
the Y2K problem Health Canada is dead last.
That is the information the chief information officer told the
public accounts committee the other day. Not only are they dead
last, but when it comes to individual hospitals the department
does not have a clue where they are. It has not measured them in
any way, shape or form.
My question is for the Minister of Health. If the government
claims that health is the top priority that it says it is, why
does he have no idea of what the level of hospital service will
be on January 1, 2000?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is dead wrong.
Health Canada has for some months been engaged in a systematic
and methodical program to make sure that medical devices are
ready for the year 2000. I can tell the House that in the
highest risk devices category, 96% of manufacturers have
responded to request for compliance information. None of the
highest risk devices to date have been reported as non-compliant.
The names of those who have not responded have been published on
the website. Attention has been drawn to that fact. We continue
and we will redouble our efforts to make sure we are ready for
the year 2000.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA POST
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning, we
learned that there had been a suspicious parcel scare at the
Canada Post sorting station in Ottawa during the night.
Having been notified by postal officials, RCMP officers searched
the premises extensively without evacuating the premises.
My question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
Does the minister feel it is right to risk the lives of
employees for the sake of productivity?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the
incident the hon. member just referred to. I will inquire and
report back.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
The Manitoba Dene have hunted caribou north of the 60th parallel
for over 2,000 years. They have at least 25 burial sites north
of 60.
Is it the Liberal government's position that the Manitoba Dene
have treaty and aboriginal rights north of the 60th parallel,
rights protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, yes or
no?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear in the Nunavut
Act that there is nothing which will abrogate or derogate from
the treaty rights that may exist for first nations in Manitoba.
I have had the opportunity to meet with Chief Bussidor of the
Sahtu Dene to talk about her concerns. I have offered the
services of a mediator to help her and her people negotiate with
the Inuit on these issues.
* * *
POVERTY
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
government policies are forcing more children in all regions of
our country into poverty levels.
Poverty levels in every area of the country have increased
significantly. Canadians in economically depressed areas of this
country want to work.
I ask the Prime Minister, when is his government going to take
action to stimulate employment and economic activity in depressed
areas of the country and address this very serious problem of
rising poverty levels throughout this great country of Canada?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of
the hon. member a few numbers concerning job creation.
Unemployment is now down to 7.8%. We saw the creation of
450,000 jobs last year. Another 87,000 jobs were created in
January alone and half of those jobs were for young Canadians,
who have a harder time integrating the labour market.
The Canada jobs fund has been renewed on a permanent basis. We
are investing money, particularly in those regions where
unemployment levels remain stubbornly high, to create job
opportunities.
* * *
1455
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today the government introduced legislation that will allow
foreign banks to open commercially focused branches in Canada.
Can the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions please tell the House what this means for the
financial services sector in Canada, and particularly what it
means for consumers?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
introduced that legislation today. It will mean that foreign
banks can come into Canada using the capital which they have on a
global basis to support their lending activities here in Canada.
This legislation brings Canada into line with the accepted
practice throughout the western world. It has been encouraged by
all of our financial institutions, as well as the MacKay task
force, the finance committee of the House of Commons and of the
other place.
We look forward to the co-operation and support of all members.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Revenue. Yesterday I revealed to
the minister that wealthy American corporate and family trusts
like Hewlett-Packard, Ted Turner and the Rockefeller Foundation
are funnelling millions of dollars into Canadian environmental
organizations with charitable tax status in a paid campaign to
kill jobs and investment in Canada. These are not charities.
These are economic terrorists.
I ask the minister again, when is he going to end this sham and
revoke this charitable tax status to these economic terrorists?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take any information
the member has on any charity groups that are not abiding by
charity law.
One thing is quite clear to the House. The Reform Party has no
agenda on the environment. It has no interest in the
environment, and environmental groups across Canada, including
British Columbia, will take note that Reform does not care about
the environment. No wonder it is dropping in the polls every
single month.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all of
Canada's major centres must deal with the serious problem of
homelessness. In Quebec, nearly 29,000 people are affected.
Will the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation make a commitment today to make available to
the provinces the necessary funding to establish social housing
programs for the homeless?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that we are
working in co-operation with the provinces.
Take for example the RRAP program in Quebec, where the member
comes from and which takes full advantage of the program. More
than 30% of the RRAP budget is spent in Quebec, and other
provinces benefit as well.
We are working on convincing those provinces that do not
participate in the program to change their minds, so that all
Canadians can benefit from this federal program.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, over 12,000 employees of the federal public service are
being discriminated against by the policy of regional rates of
pay.
I will give the President of the Treasury Board the opportunity
to speak directly to the lowest paid PSAC members and explain to
them why the Liberals betrayed the workers with broken promises.
When will the government get back to the bargaining table?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are trying to solve the problem of rotating strikes for the
blue collar workers as quickly as possible.
We have been offering rates of increase in pay that are exactly
the same as those which have already been accepted by 80% of the
public service.
In terms of regional rates of pay, it is normal and correct that
we would reflect not only local and provincial regulations, but
also the state of local markets. In markets which have higher
costs we would pay more, as stated, by the way, in provincial
regulations.
* * *
UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
first in Atlantic Canada we had the government's inflexibility on
the post-TAGS program. Last summer communities in British
Columbia were devastated by an inadequate salmon fishing plan.
Recently we had the Devco closure announcement. All of these
decisions are downgrading the communities and their viability in
rural Canada.
I ask the Prime Minister, when will his government implement a
comprehensive regional economic development program, a plan for
Canadians in economically depressed areas to create employment?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, within the tax program, yes
indeed there was enough flexibility following the major crisis
which occurred in eastern Canada.
1500
I can tell members that we have also worked very hard at human
resources to help British Columbia fishermen with the appropriate
tools to try to get to a better labour market and create economic
diversification in the region in some of the communities where it
is most difficult to do so. We have been looking after the
situation in British Columbia as well as we have in Atlantic
Canada.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the government House leader if he has some
business for the rest of this week and what the nature of the
business is for next week, including whether there will be some
legislation introduced in the House on child pornography.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to
respond to the Thursday business question by the opposition
leader.
[Translation]
The business that the government will put before the House
between now and the end of next week is as follows: tomorrow,
we will deal with second reading of Bill C-61, the veterans bill.
It is not my intention to call other bills tomorrow.
On Monday, we shall complete second reading debate of Bill C-65,
the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements legislation.
On Tuesday, we will debate the citizenship bill, C-63. If there
is time, we will examine Bill C-49.
At 4.15 p.m., the Minister of Finance will deliver the budget
statement. The budget debate will commence on Wednesday,
February 17, with the first vote at 5.15 p.m. on Thursday,
February 18.
I would also like to take this opportunity to announce that, on
Friday, February 19, we will be debating Bill C-64, the bill
respecting exhibitions.
[English]
With regard to the question as to when we will introduce any
legislation in the House of Commons, all government legislation
is introduced in the House of Commons following approval of
cabinet. That is the normal way.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have a question for
the government House leader. The government has indicated an
interest now in announcing a moratorium on bulk water exports. I
wonder if he could tell us what day next week that will take
place?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, an announcement of a
moratorium does not necessarily involve in itself legislation.
That is a ministerial announcement together with the provinces.
It is not the legislative agenda. I think the member knows that.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to revert to tabling of documents under Routine Proceedings
in order for me to table the third report of the Special Joint
Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 123(1), I have the honour to present
the third report of the Special Joint Committee on the Scrutiny
of Regulations concerning section 68(1) of the Narcotic Control
Regulations, C.R.T. 1978, chapter 1041.
The text of the relevant section of the regulations is contained
in this report.
The Speaker: We will now proceed to tributes for one of
our members of parliament who served here earlier, Mr. Ron
Huntington of British Columbia, a member of the Progressive
Conservative Party.
* * *
THE LATE HON. ARTHUR RONALD HUNTINGTON
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and a sense of pride that I rise
to pay tribute to the Hon. Ron Huntington who died in Vancouver
on December 28, 1998.
Mr. Huntington served in this House from 1974 until his
retirement in 1984. He was the minister of state for small
business and industry during the administration of the
Progressive Conservative government under the Right Hon. Joe
Clark. My father was also a member of that administration and
expressed that he was extremely proud to have served with a man
such as Mr. Huntington.
Ron Huntington's parliamentary passion was to improve the public
accountability of government to the House of Commons. He wanted
members of this House to play a more effective role in holding to
account ministers and public officials. He wanted better
scrutiny of the expenditures of public funds and he worked
diligently on the public accounts committee and on the Lefebvre
committee to further those goals.
Ron Huntington came from a generation that believed that public
service and duty to his country was of extreme importance. He
served in the Royal Canadian Navy during the second world war and
obtained the rank of lieutenant commander in a very distinguished
military career.
He was also very active in community clubs and committed to
improving his community. This followed his parliamentary career
where he then headed to the Canada Ports Authority and made even
further contributions to Canadian coastal communities.
Simply put, Mr. Huntington was a model of a man and will be
greatly missed.
To his wife Miriam, to his children and to other members of his
family we offer our sympathies on their loss and also our thanks
for making it possible for him to serve the people of Canada in
such a superior way.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and as a
fellow British Columbian member of parliament, I wish to pay
tribute to a former member of this House, the late Ron
Huntington, who passed away in December.
Mr. Huntington represented west Vancouver and British Columbians
in this House for a decade. During that time, when in
opposition, he served diligently on several committees of this
House, making a substantial contribution.
Later when the Progressive Conservative Party under Mr. Clark
took office he served as minister of state for small business.
As minister of oceans I should point out that Mr. Huntington was
a man who knew the oceans well, serving, as was mentioned by my
hon. friend, as a member of the Royal Canadian Navy during the
second world war, rising to the rank of lieutenant commander. He
also served as chairman of the Canada Ports Corporation from 1985
to 1991. In recreation he enjoyed the waters of the Pacific
coast as commodore of the West Vancouver Yacht Club.
On behalf of the government and all my colleagues, I would like
to extend to his wife Miriam and to his family our most sincere
condolences on the loss of Ron Huntington.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay
tribute to the Hon. Ron Huntington.
A lot of honourable people have served this precinct. Ron
Huntington is one parliamentarian who served this House with
particular distinction and honour.
First elected in 1974 and re-elected in 1979 and 1980, Ron
Huntington immediately became known to his colleagues on both
sides of the House as a gentleman, respectful of the dignity and
history of this esteemed institution.
1510
Perhaps it was Ron's belief in hard work and what a diligence to
task could bring to those who persevered. Perhaps it was Ron's
parents, Sam and Winifred, who instilled in Ron what service to
community and country meant. Perhaps it was Ron's naval career
and his service in the Royal Canadian Navy from 1941 to 1945 that
ingrained in Ron a love of this nation and a desire to maintain
its honour by serving as a member of parliament. Knowing Ron as a
colleague, I believe it was all that and much more.
Ron Huntington was a focused man. He once told me he came to
Ottawa with an objective, a goal and a vision. He wanted to make
this country a better place and he worked hard each day as a
member of parliament for the riding of Capilano to realize these
goals.
Anyone who knew Ron Huntington knew of his no nonsense approach
to getting the job done. At the same time, anyone who knew Ron
Huntington knew of his sensitive and caring side.
Many an employee of Ron Huntington, some who are still working
in these precincts, can attest to his nurturing side and his
genuine concern for the future of those who worked for him.
Forever humble, it was particularly difficult for Ron to accept
the mantel of honourable when he was appointed small business
minister in 1979. No one more than Ron deserved this
acknowledgement for his contribution to this House and this
country.
His work in public accounts, transport, finance, estimates and
procedure remains as examples of enlightened and progressive
thinking, and his authorship of “Closing the Loop”, a working
document on how to make the spending of the taxpayer's money more
realistic, is testimony to his deep passion for making things
better.
When Ron decided not to run in the 1984 election, he was far
from finished with the public service and served as chairman
Ridley Terminals from 1985 to 1990.
Following that, Ron returned to Ottawa as chairman of Canada
Ports Corporation from 1990 to 1995. Ron had something to offer
and his contribution was welcomed by everyone.
Ron lost the woman he brought to Ottawa in 1974 to cancer. Those
of us who had the pleasure of knowing Jean knew a woman of grace
and dignity. She was Ron's pillar during the tumultuous and
trying times and she never wavered.
In 1990 Ron married Mim and until ill health befell her, Ron and
Mim resided in peace and serenity in White Rock, British
Columbia.
Ron Huntington was a man of passion. His indomitable spirit for
good and righteousness is unquestionable. If there was one spot
he enjoyed even more than these precincts, it surely was at times
aboard his yacht in Desolation Sound. It was his refuge and I
will not tell any story or any tales about his times out there.
Ron Huntington left a mark on this institution. Let us work to
ensure this mark is not erased and let us each day emulate this
most complete and compelling gentleman.
On behalf of the official opposition, I extend to his family our
sincerest condolences. We liked Ron and he will be missed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to the Hon. Ronald Huntington, a
former member of this House, who died December 28 at the age of 77.
Born in Vancouver, Mr. Huntington studied at the University of
British Columbia. From 1941 to 1945, during World War II, he
served in the Canadian navy, in the Mediterranean and the North
Atlantic. He began his parliamentary career in 1974 as the
Progressive Conservative member for Capilano—Howe Sound, a riding
he would represent for 10 years.
During that period, Mr. Huntington served as minister of state
for small business and industry from 1979 to 1980 in the
Progressive Conservative cabinet and as president of the
Progressive Conservative Party from 1982 to 1983.
On retiring from active political life, he was appointed
president of Ports Canada in 1985, a post he held until 1991.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to
extend my condolences to his family and friends.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to add a few words about the late Ron Huntington.
I concur with what was said by the member from the Reform Party
who is his successor for the part of Vancouver he represented in
the House of Commons.
I remember very well when he first came to the House in 1974. He
was re-elected in 1979 and 1980. I remember him very well. He
was one of those members of parliament who were very outspoken.
He spoke very directly. He spoke in a very straight way to what
he believed in passionately.
He was also a very dogged, determined person in terms of pursuing
the ideals that he thought were correct. Obviously he was also
very partisan and we often disagreed with him in terms of our
ideology, but I always admire someone who will stand up and say
what they believe in.
1515
At this time I want to say that we will miss him. I say to his
wife, to his son Ron and to his daughter Vicky on behalf of the
New Democratic Party of Canada that their father and their
grandfather and husband was a great member of parliament who was
well liked and respected by all parties in this House of Commons.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—POVERTY IN CANADA
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Québec has seven minutes
left.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
continue to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Shefford,
asking the government to “take steps to alleviate the burden of
poverty in Canada by encouraging self-sufficiency and
self-reliance”.
To that end, the government should “increase the basic Income
Tax credit to $10,000, index the tax brackets and index the
Child Tax Benefit”.
We will not support that motion for two reasons. First, we think
the motion is unrealistic from a financial point of view and
could generate another deficit, after we just got rid of one.
The second reason is the restrictive nature of the proposed
measures. Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois has more all encompassing
suggestions to fight poverty.
The motion includes some elements found in the dissenting
opinion expressed by the Progressive Conservatives in the
December report of the Standing Committee on Finance. The
Progressive Conservative Party proposes what are essentially
good ideas. However, if all these proposals were implemented, it
would surely create another federal deficit. We know that the
Progressive Conservative Party has already largely contributed
to the federal deficit.
The hon. member for Shefford proposes to reduce employment
insurance contributions by $6 billion. We too are strong
supporters of that idea. We want to reduce employment insurance
contributions, but we also want to improve the program.
This means more people eligible for employment insurance. We
know that 40% of people now have access to employment insurance
benefits. Three young people out of four no longer qualify. A
number of men and women cannot draw benefits. We cannot agree
with the first measure of a $6 billion cut, because this does
not take improvement of the program into account.
Total indexation of the tax tables, at the cost of $2 billion,
on top of the $6 billion for employment insurance contributions,
brings us to $8 billion for these proposals.
If we include raising the basic personal exemption from its
present $6,500 to $10,000—we know that every $100 increase costs
the treasury $250 million—the total cost would be $9 billion.
She is also calling for a $2 billion increase in the Canada
social transfer. While in agreement with some of these measures,
we believe her proposals total $21 billion. If we had one
criticism to make of the Progressive Conservative Party, it
would be its failure to provide figures for the proposals made
here today.
There was no provision made for the surplus, which, according to
a very conservative estimate, will be in the vicinity of $15
billion. More idealistically, it could be around $19.13
billion.
1520
Obviously, we are a few billions short of meeting the
expectations of the hon. member for Shefford.
We know that the Conservative Party is in the habit of passing
its deficits on to the next government when it is no longer in
office, but there is still a need to remain realistic and think
about the budget, which must be taken into account. The Bloc
Quebecois is proposing measures that are better suited to the
real budgetary situation.
As I said earlier, there is some merit to what our colleague is
proposing, but there is also a lack of vision due to the
restrictive nature of the motion. Obviously, we are in favour of
indexing tax brackets and tax benefits, but that is not enough.
We feel this should be part of a comprehensive antipoverty
strategy.
By refusing to index the child tax benefit, the tax brackets and
the GST credits, the Liberal government is picking the pockets
of low income earners to the tune of billions of dollars. By not
indexing tax brackets, GST credits and the child tax benefit
between 1993 and 1997, the federal government took $5 billion
out of the pockets of low income earners. By not indexing these
things, the whole structure of transfers to individuals was left
to change according to the cost of living. This in turn resulted
in a complete distortion of the tax system, which affects the
effectiveness of tax policies and makes the system unfair.
Let me give members an example of the type of distortion
resulting from this decision not to index credits.
A person earning between $32,000 and $33,000 paid $821 more in
income tax between 1994 and 1997. However, a person earning
$92,241 paid $752 more in income tax during that period. We can
see the unfairness in the system and its unfair effect, a tax
bias.
Which of the government's measures actually caused the
impoverishment? For the Bloc Quebecois it is surely the
reduction in provincial transfers, reductions of $6 billion
annually for a total of $42 billion. That affects education,
health care and social assistance.
People in vulnerable situations, living below the poverty line,
need more support for help with children. They need more health
care. They often need social assistance. It is sad to say, but
it is the truth.
When the federal government cuts transfers to the provinces, it
impoverishes the public too.
Then there is the employment insurance reform. Six out of ten
unemployed individuals are excluded; 32% of unemployed women
received benefits in 1997; 15% of young people are eligible for
benefits. These two government measures could have been
effective in the fight against poverty. The Liberal government
could have decided, with $20 billion in the employment insurance
fund, to help part of the population without employment and
often without financial assistance.
These people are often not eligible for social assistance for
other reasons: because a partner is working, earning a bit, they
have to give up their possessions, their small savings. This is
how poverty grows.
I do not, unfortunately, have time to continue. It is always a
shame when a speech is split in two with one part delivered
earlier and one later. It is never fair in terms of time.
I respect the Chair. Since I am told that my time is up, I will
stop here. I hope I will have other opportunities to speak of
all the measures the Liberal government could implement to stop
poverty. I hope I will have the opportunity to do so in the
weeks following the tabling of the budget and I hope you will
give me more time to address this issue.
1525
[English]
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to mention at the outset that I will be splitting my
time with the hon. member for St. Paul's.
I would also like to thank the House for this opportunity to
speak on the motion as put forward by the Progressive
Conservative Party. I will take the opportunity at this point to
read the motion into the record:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
steps to alleviate the burden of poverty in Canada by encouraging
self-sufficiency and self-reliance and, to that end, should
increase the basic income tax credit to $10,000, index the tax
brackets and index the child tax benefit.
My first observation is that this is a bit of a jumble. We are
dealing with tax credits, we are dealing with poverty, we are
dealing with indexation, we are dealing with a variety of tax
credits. Frankly I have even heard members speak about
homelessness in this whole debate. About the only problem that
is not here is that of original sin.
If we eliminate from the motion the concept of poverty, I think
the motion starts to make a little more sense. Really the motion
does not deal with poverty. It deals with the person who cannot
find enough money from month to month to make ends meet.
In order to make any sense of this motion, I believe it should
simply deal with the efficacy of tax credits, the efficacy of the
child tax benefit as a means by which fairness can be introduced
into the tax system. If I may be permitted, I would like to
restate the motion along those lines and address that issue.
The real question then becomes as to what this government has
done in order to alleviate the working poor, the person who
really cannot make it from month to month and is forever in
danger of slipping into poverty.
At the outset it is not really rocket science. The first thing
we should do is move up the threshold at which taxes get paid.
When means were available this government at the first
opportunity moved up that threshold. The last move on the
threshold was $500 which eliminated about 400,000 Canadians from
the tax rolls. That is a great number of Canadians to remove
from the tax rolls and alleviate them from paying any taxes at
all.
The other measure that was introduced in the last budget which
will alleviate poverty was with respect to another 13 million
taxpayers who no longer have to pay the 3% surtax on incomes
below $50,000. Hopefully the 1999 budget will go the entire route
and eliminate that surtax in its entirety. It was after all a
surtax that was introduced for the purpose of deficit
elimination. The deficit is now eliminated and has been
eliminated for two years running now, and it is appropriate to
eliminate that tax.
The 1998 budget also helped families with child care expenses by
significantly increasing the limits of the child care expense
deduction from $5,000 to $7,000 for children under seven, and
from $3,000 to $4,000 for children seven to sixteen. These
measures will add to tax relief for approximately 65,000 working
families in Canada.
May I say as a point of general observation that I for one am
not as thrilled about that particular child tax expense credit
because it has two flaws as I see it. First, it has Revenue
Canada preferring the arrangements that families might make with
respect to children in one manner over another which I do not
think is any business of Revenue Canada. Second, one has to have
a very decent income in order to maximize out on this particular
benefit.
While I support the government's initiative in this area, it
seems to me in some respects a bit of a crude instrument in terms
of achieving certain benefits to taxpaying families which might
otherwise be done in another fashion.
The government introduced other initiatives to assist low and
middle income families as well. Effective July 1, 1998, $1.7
billion per year was introduced in the child tax benefit. It
provides $1,625 for the first child and $1,425 for each child
thereafter.
1530
When those cheques started to go through the system in July of
last year I received quite a number of telephone calls at my
constituency office. The calls were to the effect: “Thank you
for that cheque. It really helps. This month my family and I
will not have to go to the food bank. This month we will catch
up on some of our bills. This month we will be able to avoid the
embarrassment of being so close to continually slipping into
debt”. I received quite a number of calls along that line.
About two weeks later I received an additional set of calls.
This time it was calls from the people on social assistance. The
people on social assistance in the province of Ontario were cut
back by an equal amount of money.
We had the worst of all possible worlds. We had raised
expectations. We had met expectations with money and by another
branch of another government had taken those moneys away. Those
expectations and that reality were dashed. I can still hear
those conversations in my constituency office. People were
literally crying on the phone that they had to go back to the
food bank for another month and saw no hope.
The Liberal caucus put a lot of political capital into that
initiative. As a Liberal member on this side of the House I am
very proud to see that initiative adopted by this government.
However I am very frustrated that initiative was in some respects
defeated by a government that has no commitment to the reduction
and alleviation of child poverty in the province of Ontario.
That is why I take some encouragement, though I must admit some
skeptical encouragement, from the social union discussions. I am
hopeful that kind of undercutting will not occur in the future
once this government takes a particular initiative in an area to
relieve child poverty or any other kind of poverty which is
perceived to be in the national interest.
I do not think the government wants to micromanage a provincial
economy or a provincial government's priorities. It does not
want to be in the position of backfilling tax cuts, tax cuts
which are ideologically driven, tax cuts which are a priority to
all other priorities. It also does not want to be in a position
of having its initiatives in the national interest being defeated
simultaneously. I am skeptical but I am hopeful these social
union talks will go in a direction so these kinds of initiatives
are not defeated.
In summary, the motion does not deserve to be supported. It is
poorly drafted. It looks like it was a bushel basket that
everyone got around and threw a whole bunch of stuff into. It is
not a coherent motion. It tries to connect tax credits and
poverty. When one is in poverty and not filing tax returns and
has no income, tax credits are the least of one's worries. One
certainly is not terribly interested in indexation and all of the
ratcheting up that might be going on simultaneously.
Moving up the threshold by $500 was a smart move on the part of
the government. It simply eliminated 400,000 taxpayers from the
roles. It gave additional relief to something in the order of
4.6 million Canadians just by moving up $500.
Tax credits, be they for children or poverty or otherwise, are
limited in their usefulness because one needs to have an income
in order to use them. They are also limited in their usefulness
because provincial governments ideologically driven in other
directions can defeat them by their own policies. Partially
eliminating the 3% tax on $50,000 incomes is worth $1.4 billion
and is a relief to 90% of all tax filers. Hopefully the budget
will see it completely eliminated.
These are not motions, not even poorly drafted motions. These
are concrete measures which the government has achieved. That is
why I am urging all members to speak to the motion and to defeat
it.
1535
The Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. member that we are
on one minute questions and one minute answers so we can get the
maximum number of questions in.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I concur
with that good plan, not that you need my concurrence.
I listened carefully to the member's statement. He talked about
eliminating the surtax, which is a great idea. The fact of the
matter is that the surtaxes apply mostly to higher income people.
The motion as amended deals with increasing the tax credit or
the basic exemption which would primarily reduce to the greatest
percentage the taxes paid by poorer people. In other words, a
person with a family income of $12,000, which is a pitiful amount
by today's standard, would pay taxes. If we increased the limits
and applied the same kind of exemption to spouses they would be
eliminated from the tax roll. Surely he would be in favour of
that.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure that
I understood the question, if in fact there was a question. I
apologize to the hon. member. I was listening carefully.
We could do one of several things. We could move up the bottom.
Once in the tax system we could put some credits on and eliminate
the taxes in the system. Or, we could reduce from the top and
presumably make more moneys available.
Our response has been to initially move up the bottom. When we
can take 400,000 people off the tax rolls we are doing something
right. That is and of itself one of the most effective means by
which to eliminate poverty. It is a substantial cost to the
treasury but I think it is worth paying.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how do we
get to zero poverty? I will read a resolution passed by all
members of this House. It was supported by all parties in 1989.
[That] this House ... seek to achieve the goal of eliminating
poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
This resolution was passed in 1989. Today, there are 1.5
million poor children, 500,000 more than in 1989. What has this
government done since 1993 to put into effect what the members
voted for in 1989?
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, it is a good question and I
appreciate it. In my view that is a worthwhile motion and a
worthwhile goal. It is something that the government has
attempted to move toward. It is always put in the context of
realism. The first realism is limitations on government
revenues.
Another concrete reality is that the government role in society
is a diminishing factor of GDP. As the government role in
society reduces, its ability to address the concern the member
has, that is eliminating child poverty, is reduced as well. We
cannot be increasing government and increasing the ability to
eliminate child poverty as well.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, what does the hon. member think should be done with the
EI surplus? Should it go to balance the deficit and other
programs? Or, should it go back to the workers so they can look
after their families, especially those in remote communities?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, if I had my way I would
entirely separate out the EI account just like we handle it off
books and deal with it that way instead of getting into this
whole fictional exercise.
The hon. member opposite does not appreciate that if there is a
surplus of $13 billion, $17 billion, $20 billion or whatever the
number is, it is ratcheted here and ratcheted there.
That revenue will need to be replaced on the books somewhere. If
the member can tell me how it will be replaced somewhere then we
can deal with the other issue.
1540
[Translation]
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, poverty,
in a country as rich as Canada, is very disturbing for this
government and for all Canadians. Unquestionably, we should not
tolerate even one Canadian living in poverty.
[English]
As members of the House well know, poverty is and continues to
be a major preoccupation of our government. We are particularly
aware of the importance of addressing child poverty, recognizing
that giving children in Canada a good start in life is one of the
most important investments Canada can make for its future.
I assure the hon. member for Shefford that we are working
aggressively to achieve this goal. I remind the House that as of
last July we began to invest $850 million per year into the
national child benefit. These new funds are over and above the
$5.1 billion we already invest in families with children. By
July of the year 2000 that additional investment will reach $1.7
billion per year into the national child benefit. That more than
compensates for inflation.
We will clearly need to sustain and enhance the benefit over a
number of years, something we have committed to do. We do not
pretend that this first phase of the program will solve child
poverty. Nor do we suggest that a single program can be expected
to reduce poverty on its own.
As part of our comprehensive plan to fight poverty we have
provided a range of supports to low income families such as the
family income supplement for roughly 200,000 low income parents
on unemployment insurance and increased deductions for child
care. We have also strengthened the community action program for
children as well as the Canadian prenatal nutrition program for
children at risk.
No one on this side of the Chamber would disagree that there is
still much more to be done. However, my hon. colleague must not
overlook the government's track record in endowing the country's
children with a legacy of greater opportunity.
Neither can the opposition ignore the fact that money is not the
entire answer. The fact is the share of government transfer
payments to Canadians such as child tax benefits, goods and
services tax credits and old age pensions has doubled over the
past quarter century. In 1995 these transfers contributed 14
cents of every dollar of income compared with 11 cents in 1990
and less than 7 cents in 1970.
While my hon. colleague's motion is undeniably well intended, it
is highly doubtful that simply raising the tax threshold would
make a meaningful difference in the war against poverty. Poverty
is a deeply entrenched and complex challenge that defies easy
solutions. It will take not only money but time and a lot of
hard work on the part of all Canadians to turn this situation
around. There is no magic formula, but we can work to provide
more opportunities by creating the right conditions to fight
poverty through a strong labour market.
The reality is that reducing poverty ultimately depends on
putting underemployed and unemployed Canadians to work. That has
more to do with the individual's age, skills, experience and
personal motivation than it does with tax brackets.
Very obviously addressing these difficult issues extends beyond
the purview of the finance department or any one level of
government. Alleviating poverty requires the concerted efforts
of federal and provincial governments along with the co-operation
and support of the private and voluntary sectors as well as
individual Canadians themselves.
I am pleased to see that the opposition motion acknowledges the
need to foster self-sufficiency and self-reliance. Canadians
have always striven to maintain a successful balance between
taking responsibility for themselves and sharing responsibility
for others.
We believe strongly in compassion and fairness as we value
individual independence and achievement. This philosophy is
reflected in many of the initiatives our government has brought
forward aimed at addressing the root causes of poverty and
empowering people to help themselves. We have focused much of
our efforts on equipping Canadians with the skills and knowledge
that they need to succeed in a changing working world because
Canada's economic prospects and the eventual elimination of
poverty increasingly depend on a highly trained and highly
educated workforce.
Anyone doubting this fundamental fact of life in the new economy
need only look at the employment numbers. Since 1981 jobs for
Canadians with a high school education or less dropped by two
million while jobs demanding higher qualifications grew by more
than five million.
Clearly Canadians with more education have better job prospects,
greater job security and higher earnings. Just as clearly this
is key to narrowing the gap between the haves and the have nots.
That is why the government introduced the youth employment
strategy which helps young people make the transition from school
to work, especially those youth at risk.
1545
There are active employment measures under employment insurance which
provide opportunities for skills upgrading, wage subsidies and
job creation partnerships, financial assistance to those who want
to go back to school and self-employment assistance.
Canada jobs funds create sustainable jobs in areas of
high unemployment.
The employment assistance for persons with disabilities
initiative, a federal-provincial partnership introduced last
year, is helping increase the participation of Canadians with
disabilities in the workforce.
The aboriginal action plan is to ensure the integration and the
equality of aboriginal people in the economy and all sectors of
society.
The Canadian opportunities strategy helps Canadians upgrade
their skills and knowledge whether they are still in school or
already in the workforce to improve their prospects for
employment.
The overriding objective of all these initiatives is to help
ensure that Canadians, especially those at greatest risk of
exclusion, have better and more opportunity to participate in the
demanding new economy and to share in its benefits. The evidence
to date indicates that this strategy is working. Unemployment is
now at the lowest rate since 1990. Since we took office 1.6
million new jobs have been created, 449,000 last year alone. Of
those 449,000 new jobs, 143,000 went to young Canadians and some
299,000 women found work in 1998, the majority in full time jobs.
Tinkering with tax brackets as the opposition proposes will not
result in numbers like these. Ensuring more Canadians receive
the supports they need to help themselves to better jobs and
better futures will.
I believe the hon. member for Shefford is truly committed
to bridging the divide between rich and poor. I encourage her to
work with the government to help us as we prepare young children
to get off to a good start in life and as we prepare Canadians
for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century economy.
I am convinced that together we stand a much better chance of
helping all Canadians shake off the shackles of poverty.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to remind my colleague of what is in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the 50th anniversary of which was
just celebrated. It includes the following statement “Everyone
has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health
and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social
services”.
It seems that this is not the case here in Canada, a country
said to be very rich. When children do not get enough to eat,
when they are not dressed properly because their parents are
waiting for the last week cheque, I wonder just how motivated
the government is to help them.
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with
this question in that it is the reason when we are held
accountable to international standards that we need the kinds of
national standards that have come part and parcel of our new
social union negotiation. It is only when we have strong
national standards that we will be able to ensure that the
provinces are not able to let down Canadians in the way I think
Ontarians feel has happened in the government of Michael Harris.
I am delighted that the hon. member understands that when we sit
on the international stage with the Canadian flag before us that
we as a federal government need a way to ensure that all
Canadians are able to achieve their visions and values of this
country.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the member from the Liberal Party
for whom I have great respect.
When she talks about national standards and caring Canadians why
did her government abandon social housing in my province of Nova
Scotia?
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in this complicated
federation it is extremely important that when the provinces have
requested certain programs it is a collaborative effort.
Now when we realize what happens with social housing, what is
happening in terms of affordable housing and when we realize that
there is going to be no way of ensuring food security when some
people are paying more than 50% of their income on rent, we have
to look at how we establish national standards. So it is not a
matter of who delivers the program. It is a matter that all
Canadians feel there is a security that those programs will be
delivered.
1550
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
have greatly appreciated having the hon. member for St. Paul's
provide us with some examples and solutions for eradicating the
situation we have in Canada at the present time of 1.6 million
children living in poverty. We are not talking of figures here,
we are talking about children. They are our future. We should
stop talking about this and that. We are told what Mr. Chrétien—
The Deputy Speaker: I must interrupt the hon. member. She is
well aware that other hon. members must be referred to by title
or riding name, and not by name.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The Minister of Human
Resources Development has been going on and on about this for
weeks.
I would like my colleague to come up with some concrete facts
and examples that will lead to elimination of poverty by around
the year 2000 in Canada.
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as of July 1, by merely
increasing the personal tax exemption, we took 400,000 Canadians
off the tax rolls. I think it is extraordinarily important that
we look at the future in terms of the 3% surtax, which came off
last year, and understand that those are the simple things that
the federal government can do in just taxation.
The sentinel event I think last week where the provinces agreed
to the way they will co-operate to make sure that the vision and
values of this country come to be I think is something we should
not underestimate.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Jonquière, The Environment.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle.
First of all I thank the hon. member for Shefford and her party
for introducing the motion today. I think it is an extremely
timely debate with the crisis of this country, although it is not
a crisis that just happened yesterday, this is an ongoing crisis
which has been going on for many years. I am glad that today is a
good day to discuss this.
Next week my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst will be
bringing out his long awaited EI report. After his travel across
the country from coast to coast to coast he will be relating the
report and putting a human face to exactly what this government
and the previous governments have done to people who are
collecting EI and exactly what has happened to these people. He
will be relating their personal stories for the House of Commons
for all parliamentarians to have.
If I may digress to a personal experience, my mother and father
and I were born in Holland. In 1956 when Holland was discussing
the closure of the coal mines, and my father was a miner then, my
mom and dad and six brothers and sisters plus thousands of other
people in Europe at that time had no other opportunities but to
abandon not only their homes but their countries and migrate to a
great country like Canada and other countries.
I am very proud to say that my mother and father and all my
brothers and sisters have done very well in Canada in terms of
the social fabric of this country. The only unfortunate part is
I now speak to my mother and father on a regular basis and what
they see around them is the degenerating of the social fabric of
this country.
For over 20 years my mother and father ran a group home for
various children from across this country who were abandoned or
abused, neglected or just basically forgotten about. They had
well over a few hundred children go through their home. It was
their way of thanking Canada for opening up Canada's doors when
we needed a place to come and live and survive.
1555
Unfortunately after living in this country for over 43 years
they feel now that Canada is reverting to dog eat dog, forget
about them society, a user pay, merger monopoly society aided and
abetted by the provincial and federal governments.
A tax program like the GST is not implemented without having
some detrimental effect on the lowest paid citizen. To give a
tax break to citizens start lowering the GST. That is probably
the most balanced and fair tax break that every single Canadian
in the country can be given, especially for those who are the
lowest paid.
Ravage cuts to EI cannot be introduced without a negative
effect. I would like to give a quote of a very famous Canadian
from February 17, 1993: “By reducing benefits and by imposing
even higher penalties on those who leave their jobs voluntarily,
it is clear that the government has little concern for victims of
the economic crisis. Instead of addressing the underlying cause
of the problem it attacks the unemployed”.
Believe it or not that was a quote by the Prime Minister. If
that is not a metamorphosis in the Liberal Party I do not know
what does.
The Liberals have abandoned all the principles of the great
leader Lester Pearson. They have abandoned all the principles
and the moral fabric of Mr. Warren Allmand. They have abandoned
all it was to be a Liberal in the 60s and 70s. Their agenda is
tax breaks for the wealthy and their friends high on the economic
scale while completely abandoning poverty, those who are homeless
and those who are disenfranchised in society.
I work on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. When
we had the previous member from Gander—Grand Falls as the chair
of the committee, we were on extensive tours across the country,
especially in small isolated coastal communities. It did not
take a rocket scientist to understand the problem these people
were going through.
What the government with those in the corporate sector has done
is take a common property resource, the fish, and given most of it
through the ITQ, IQ and EA programs to their friends in the
corporate sector.
Someone like John Rifley of Clearwater can go from 15 years of
selling lobsters individually and on a small scale to a grand
scale. People will say that is really great but what has
happened is that Clearwater and also Highliner Foods have managed
to grab most of the licensing in the scallop sectors for example.
Literally thousands of people on the east coast and the west
coast have now been taken out of an economic opportunity in terms
of their livelihood which is fishing.
The same thing is happening to our farmers, especially in the
prairies. Back in 1977 there were 110,000
registered farmers in the province of Saskatchewan. These were
family farms. They were independent and proud people who did not
want to rely on the handouts of government to put food on their
tables. These were people who put food on our tables.
Unfortunately now in 1999 we are probably down to about 58,000
registered farmers in Saskatchewan and with the recent crisis in
the country, by next year we will probably have fewer and fewer
farmers. That indicates that instead of being individually run
and family owned by people who are proud to call themselves
Canadian who support us and put food on our table, now we are
going to the corporate sector of farming. We are literally giving
these farms away because of the policies of the government. It
is the same as in the fishing industry.
I find it absolutely abominable that the government can talk
about its pride when it comes to the financial record of the
country when in essence over $20 billion has been taken out of
the unemployed of the country. It is proud of that record. It is
absolutely scandalous when only 35% of people who pay EI can
actually qualify for it now.
Last week the government again got its hand caught in the cookie
jar with a memo that was leaked from HRDC that indicated that if
HRDC personnel in Prince Edward Island did not cut enough people
off EI and maintain a certain quota they themselves would be on
the unemployment line.
1600
Knowing the way this government works, it probably would not
have been able to collect EI. This government is absolutely
hollow when it comes to the concerns of the unemployed, the
homeless and those who have to rely on shelters and the
generosity of food banks in order to get by in their daily
living.
For Canada to have an increase in food banks should send alarms
right across the Liberal caucus telling them very urgently that
we have a crisis and a problem in this country. But no, the
Liberals talk about the 1.3 million jobs they have created. They
never ever talk about the thousands and thousands of jobs that
have been lost in most cases by people with limited education but
with great vocational skills. They are proud working people. Now
they are in their forties and they no longer can look after their
families.
Recently I was in Sointula, British Columbia. There was a
gentleman in his forties with his wife and his three children.
The man was extremely proud to be living in that community but he
stood in front of the committee, a group of total strangers, and
he started weeping. He no longer knows how to survive. He no
longer knows how to look after his family. And all this
government does is say it will probably give him a tax break or
try to look at some sort of program. All the man ever wanted was
a job.
Years ago a Cape Breton woman wrote to Prime Minister Mulroney
saying “Go ahead, threaten me with a full time job”. I
encourage every single one of the Liberals and my fellow
opposition members to go ahead and threaten the unemployed with a
full time job that pays them a decent salary, that gives them
proper labour standards, that gives them the opportunity to look
after their families and live in their communities without being
forced to abandon their homes like they do in Catalina or Burgeo
or up in Canso, Nova Scotia. They literally board up their homes
and then leave.
The track record of this government is very poor and abysmal. I
thank the hon. member for Shefford for this opportunity. I know
the work she does very well with the homeless and impoverished.
It is time that the government understood the crisis of what it
has done. Not only is it important to pay attention to the
fiscal problems, but it is also important to talk about the
social deficit that has been caused by the previous Tory
government and this current Liberal government.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member
from the NDP.
I would ask the hon. member to correct me if I am wrong but my
information is that in 1997 the NDP's document “A Framework for
Canada's Future” called for the elimination of federal surtaxes
on low income earners. It is my information that during the 1997
federal election campaign the NDP leader asked for tax relief for
low income Canadians. If those things are true, would the hon.
member agree with me that this Liberal government delivered on
both of those requests in our respective budgets?
We have begun by helping low income Canadians with tax relief
first. That is why our last budget reduced taxes for 13 million
Canadians and completely eliminated taxes for 400,000 of the
poorest taxpayers in the country and also eliminated surtaxes.
Would the member not agree that we have delivered on many of the
things that the NDP wants?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the
hon. member of the Liberal Party recognizes the pressure and the
good work the New Democratic Party can put on the Liberals.
The problem is that if a tax break is given to the lowest income
earners and then they are charged user fees on products that they
obtained before, it does not work. The private services that
have been downloaded from the federal government on the health
care issues would be an example.
What used to be taken care of by the government for these low
income workers, they now have to pay for. The government gave
them back 10 cents but now they are charged $1 for the services
that they had before.
The government did not go all the way with it. It credited them
in one hand and debited them in the other, which was most
unfortunate.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that cost recovery for
instance is simply just another tax. It is affecting many
sectors but primarily it is affecting agriculture.
1605
The member mentioned agriculture in his speech. Because of the
poverty we have on farms I was wondering what solutions the
member could recommend the Liberal government take to alleviate
poverty in the agriculture sector. Does the member have an
answer for that?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing the
government can definitely do. The government could work closely
with the farmers to find out about the Crow rate. We cannot take
$200 million off the Crow rate and expect the farmers to be able
to pick that up. We cannot abandon grain elevators in a lot of
the communities and expect the farmers to drive an additional 100
miles with their product and still keep it at the same price.
The member for Selkirk—Interlake knows very well that farmers
are the breadbasket of our country. If we cannot look after them
and their families so that they in turn can look after us, we
have a very serious problem. I think this government has
completely abandoned farmers in terms of the agriculture crisis
that is happening with the pork farmers and the wheat farmers.
We negotiate trade deals that do absolutely no good for the
farmers.
It is time we sat down and talked to the farmers to find out
exactly what their concerns are instead of telling them from
Ottawa what they should be doing.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Jean-Paul
Sartre said that hunger is far more than being hungry. I would
say that poverty is far more than being poor. The battle
against poverty, in my opinion, involves job creation. I would
ask my colleague: does he believe that job sharing could be part
of the solution?
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
I do know that social democratic countries in Europe are now
looking at that very seriously. In fact the country of Holland,
which most people call the Dutch miracle, is implementing that
program as we speak. It probably would be a very good time to
debate that in this House of Commons for the new economy for the
new millennium.
[Translation]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to congratulate the hon. member for Shefford for asking that
there be a debate on poverty in the House.
[English]
The whole issue of poverty is becoming more and more prevalent
as we look around this country. Just yesterday on Parliament
Hill there were hundreds of homeless people who had come here
from the Ottawa area, the Montreal area, the Toronto area and
other parts of this country to demonstrate the need for some real
help.
I was thinking about this speech this morning and I came across
a very interesting statistic. In the last while the gap between
the rich and the poor has been widening in this country and in
much of the world.
When I was first elected in 1968 I was very proud of the
progress being made in our country with the implementation of
medicare and social programs toward the narrowing of the gap
between the rich and the poor.
I remember you, Mr. Speaker, when you were member for Kingston
and the Islands, an ordinary member of the House, making a
statement in the House that we had virtually eliminated poverty
among senior citizens in this country because of the Canada
pension plan, the old age pension and the supplement.
Then somewhere around 10 years ago we started going in the other
direction and the gap between the rich and the poor began to
widen. If we look around the world, we are now in the midst of
creating through this technological revolution and the Bill Gates
and so on, a class of the super wealthy and also a class of people
who are getting poorer and poorer all the time.
I came across an interesting statistic this morning which said
that the 358 wealthiest people in the world—and I suppose that
includes none of us in this chamber—have more wealth than the
income of the 45% poorest people in the world, or 2.3 billion
people put together. This is a startling statistic. Two
billion, three hundred million people have less income than the
wealth of the 358 wealthiest people in the world. I am sure you
are not one of those people, Mr. Speaker, but they are people
like Bill Gates and probably people like Conrad Black.
I can see the hon. member of the Reform Party shaking his head
over there. I know a while back they called for a tax break for
Conrad Black and some of these wealthy people and it strikes me
as very puzzling that they would do that.
1610
That gap is widening in this country.
I also remember when Ed Broadbent was retiring as the leader of
the New Democratic Party of Canada. In December 1989 he moved a
motion in the House of Commons that was supported unanimously by
all members of the House and all political parties including the
then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. The motion said that we are
going to set as a goal the elimination of child poverty in this
country by the year 2000, that in 11 years we are going to
eliminate child poverty in this country.
What has happened? Child poverty has not been eliminated. In
fact, there is more child poverty now than there was 11 years
ago. More kids are going hungry. There are about three times as
many food banks now as there were 11 years ago. There are more
kids out there with fewer opportunities. There are more homeless
people with fewer opportunities. There is more sadness and
dispossession out there now than there was 11 years ago. We have
to ask why. There are three or four reasons.
First, we have poor kids because we have poor parents. We have
poor parents because for all too long this country has had a very
high unemployment rate. It has gone down recently, but it is
still very high at 7.8%. For many years and many, many months we
had an unemployment rate of over 10%, month after month after
month. Because of that we have driven more and more people into
poverty.
Second, even with the creation of more jobs, the average income
in real terms for most Canadians now is lower than it was in 1989
when that laudable objective of eliminating child poverty was set
by the House of Commons. It is lower because there are more and
more part time jobs, more and more low wage jobs and more and
more jobs with fewer and fewer benefits for Canadians. Because
of the belt tightening in this country, for all but the very
rich, incomes have actually gone backward instead of ahead.
[Translation]
That is why there is more poverty now than 11 years ago.
[English]
It is an issue we are going to have to tackle.
Yesterday I talked with a former prime minister. I do not want
to use his name, but he told me that he was surprised at the
anger that he saw among people demonstrating yesterday compared
to five or ten years ago. That is true. More and more people are
getting the short end of the stick in terms of economic fairness
and justice in this country. It is because of years of high
unemployment. It is because even though there are more jobs now,
they are low wage jobs, part time jobs, fewer benefits and fewer
opportunities. Those are two reasons.
Another reason, and I think members of the Liberal Party have to
hang their heads in shame on this one, is the cutback of some $6
billion in transfers to the provinces, primarily for health care
but also for education and social programs. Turn on the
newscasts. What is happening in every province? What is happening
in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Regina, Halifax, wherever we go?
There are waiting lists in emergency rooms and hospitals are
being closed. People are waiting in every province primarily
because the federal government has cut back by $6 billion in the
funding of social programs in Canada.
We can go back to the sixties and people of that day like Lester
Pearson, Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles, Bob Stanfield, when this
country had the foundation of national medical care. At that
time the federal government funded 50% of medical care. What is
it today in some provinces? It is 12% or 13%. Put up a dollar
and only 12 or 13 cents is paid by the federal government. It
used to be 50%. We have gone backward.
The reason for poverty is that the federal Minister of Finance
in February 1995 cut back by $6 billion and it is no wonder
members in the Liberal Party hang their heads in shame over this
massive cutback, a bigger cutback than any Conservative
government ever made in terms of social programs. Yet some
Liberals like to think that they are really progressing.
I know that you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, because you are a
very progressive Liberal from the Kingston and the Islands
constituency. I do not know why I always commend you so much but
you are a very progressive man. Perhaps that is why you occupy
the chair.
1615
Finally we have the issue of taxes. The Reform Party might
think it has a monopoly on talking about taxes in this country.
The important thing when it comes to taxes is that we need tax
fairness and a cut in taxes for the poorest people of this
country. They need the money, they will spend the money and they
will stimulate the economy in doing so.
In 1986 this parliament passed a bill to end the indexation of
income taxes. That has put more and more people in the tax
brackets. It has meant that the poorer people are paying more
and more taxes all the time. We have also had the partial
deindexation of the child tax credit and the GST tax credit for
poorer people.
If it wants to do something about poverty, in the budget next
Tuesday the government should end bracket creep for low income
people and it should index the taxation system for low income
people. There should be a fully indexed taxation system for the
GST tax credit and for the child tax credit. I agree with my
friend from Nova Scotia that we should have a 1% cut in the GST
right across the board.
Those are some of the things we could do. I would like to see
Liberal members opposite stand in the House of Commons and speak
out on the issue of poverty. There is a minister of the crown
about to take his place in the front row, the minister of
fisheries. I am sure that he too was scandalized by the Minister
of Finance in February 1995 when he cut social programs by $6
billion, throwing more and more people in this country into
poverty.
The time has come for Liberal backbenchers to speak their piece
and say how they feel about restoring funding to social programs.
We should have a fair taxation system in this country. We should
make sure that we fight for full time, meaningful and well paying
jobs. That is the way to end poverty. We have gone backwards.
The gap between the rich and the poor is widening, which is why
this debate today is extremely important.
[Translation]
Once again, I thank the Conservative member for Shefford for her
motion.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it seems that by suggesting this government has done
things wrong the member is suggesting that an NDP government
would do things better and correctly.
He tried to blame difficulties in the health care system on
federal cuts to health care spending. However, there is an NDP
government that he knows very well. Hospitals were being closed
in Saskatchewan by an NDP premier long before the federal
government, under the Liberals, started taking responsibility for
the deficit and getting it under control. One of the areas in
which we did that was in reducing transfers to the provinces for
health care, which we have since started to augment.
Did Premier Romanow of Saskatchewan, as an NDP premier, not
close hospitals long before there was any decrease in federal
funding?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if the member was
listening, I said that we have had problems in every single
province, including the province of Saskatchewan. I made that
very clear. I also said that the biggest single cutback in the
country was the $6 billion cutback made by the federal
government.
The member should also know that Saskatchewan was the only
province, if not one of only two or three provinces, which
backfilled the cutback dollar for dollar. There was no cutback
in the province of Saskatchewan in terms of health care funding.
Every single dollar was backfilled by the provincial government.
The premier of her province did not do that. She defends her
premier as a great and wonderful man, but that did not happen in
the province of Ontario. Premier Romanow did that and that is
one of the reasons he is one of the most popular premiers in this
country. Can she say that about her premier? I doubt if she
can.
1620
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for Shefford for putting
this motion before the House, in spite of the fact that my party
is somewhat uneasy with its possible financial implications.
Still, her concern is a very healthy one.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague from the NDP if he agrees
that, looking back on the last 60 years, it would be difficult
to find a government as heartless, unfair, incompetent and
stupid in the management of antipoverty efforts as the one
opposite.
This is a rather unique case of a government that is not only
facing particular conditions but also making people poorer
though its fiscal policies. Does my colleague agree that the
best thing that could happen to the poor in this country would
be for this government to be defeated?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I agree with most of what my
friend, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, said.
I would not go as far as to say that the government is stupid,
but I do agree that it is not fair. Never in the history of
Canada have I heard of a government making a $6 billion cut to
social programs. That is not fair. It has been very hard on
thousands of Canadians. This government is more conservative
than the Conservatives are.
It is not fair to cut $6 billion. It is the doing of the current
Minister of Finance. That is not fair at all, something which
many progressive Liberals have a problem with and which
hopefully will change after the minister brings down his budget
Tuesday evening.
[English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen on
February 11, 1999 saying “The party, and the left in general now
has realized that we have to have a sound financial base”. He
went on to say “You can't do anything for people unless you have
your financial house in order”. He then went on to say that it
was only after that that the NDP left its roots with Tommy
Douglas and that “the federal party didn't take the deficit as
seriously as it should”.
I would like the hon. member to comment on that.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the
Ottawa Citizen today, but the very first government in this
country that balanced its budget in recent times was the
Government of Saskatchewan under Roy Romanow.
The legacy of the Saskatchewan CCF and NDP has been that of
governments which have always had balanced budgets, contrary to
my Conservative friend and those who sit in the Reform Party. In
our province they are now Reformers. They used to be
Conservatives. They ran up the biggest deficit in the history of
this country under Grant Devine. That is what the Reform Party
would do if it was in power.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to address this motion today, put clearly by a party
in search of an identity, in search of policies, in search of
anything. It has been searching for a leader and I think it is
still looking for him. I saw him coming through the gallery
earlier today, or maybe it was a look-alike.
It would appear that having gone through the metamorphosis of
being in government under Brian Mulroney, having led this country
into record deficits, massive debts and doing nothing whatsoever
for poor people in the country, it is now on a policy hunt, so it
put forward a motion which I would have thought would have come
from the NDP.
It is interesting to hear the New Democrats, particularly the
previous speaker, defend the government of Mr. Romanow. We
should give credit where credit is due. Mr. Romanow balanced the
provincial budget. It is too bad that Mr. Rae in Ontario did not
go to the same school as Mr. Romanow. That was a New Democratic
government, leading by its adopted principles, which
intentionally ran up deficits of $10 billion every year. It kept
piling up the debt and left the once strong and healthy province
of Ontario, arguably one of the engines of economic growth in
this country, over $100 billion in debt.
1625
To hear the New Democrats in debate on a Conservative motion on
poverty cite an example of great economic leadership by a New
Democratic government is really rather ironic. To try to pretend
that they have the answers on how to run the ship of state
financially is really quite laughable.
I want to focus on the Conservative motion which is before us.
The solution, the solution du jour we might call it, the solution
of the moment, seems to be that the way to help poor people in
this country is to cut taxes. It really is an interesting
notion.
At least members of the Reform Party are upfront. They would
cut taxes and have a flat rate right across the land. They think
that in some miraculous way that will trickle down and solve
poverty. The rich will get richer and somehow, according to the
Reform Party's mentality, that will help the poor. We know that
is not the case.
In the case of the Conservative Party, it is suggesting in the
motion that we increase the basic income tax credit, index the
tax brackets and index the child tax benefit. Most of the people
who are truly poor in this country do not pay taxes in the first
place. Even Homer Simpson would understand that.
I am at a loss to understand how this party in this motion could
try to perpetrate the fraud upon the people in this place and the
people of Canada that the solution is simply to reduce taxes and
that will make poverty disappear.
That party could have made some constructive suggestions. It
could have recognized, as we all do, that we have a void in the
provision of social housing. We have a responsibility, and I am
hopeful that our government will work with provincial governments
and municipal governments to put in place some serious housing
programs, which I know will be opposed by Reform. That is a
given. Anything that is in any way constructive, that in any way
would deal with social policy, will be opposed. We know we will
have that battle.
If the Conservatives really want to find a new identity and do
something to help solve poverty in this country they should
recognize what their leader recognized yesterday. I dare say, he
was assaulted, insulted and might have been attacked if it were
not for the RCMP intervening. The new leader of the Conservative
Party found out yesterday that popping in for a photo op might
not be the smartest thing to do when one has an angry mob on
one's hands.
What did they say? I will not use the words. I heard them on
CPAC. They are not for family hour viewing, so I will not repeat
them. In any event, expletives were hurled in the face of former
Prime Minister Clark. There was also a Reform member who tried
to get a photo op with all of these folks, thinking that by
snuggling in and cuddling up and being warm and friendly these
folks would realize that Reformers are really not the big, bad
right wingers from the west. The Conservative leader might have
realized that this was an opportunity to forge some kind of
coalition or position or relationship with these folks. They got
a very blunt message.
1630
Mr. Murray Calder: Whoops.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Whoops would be putting it kindly.
The leader of the Conservative Party was just about kicked and
had to be protected and taken away. The message was that the
leader of the Conservative Party created this mess in the first
place.
Was he not a former prime minister? Was he not a member of the
Brian Mulroney government? What did they do for us then? They
would stand here and say: “That was then and this is now. We
have changed”.
They will not be uniting the right in a couple of weeks although
I appreciate we hear rumblings that might occur. Why not put
forward some positive resolutions to deal with housing? They
must have the ability to contact the premier of Ontario. He
might return their phone calls. I am not sure he would return
mine. They could contact him and say “Why have you gutted the
housing programs and passed everything on to the municipalities?
Why do we not work together to try to come up with a national
housing strategy?”
If they put that forward in this place they might find that
there is not quite the criticism or the cynicism that exists when
we see this motherhood and apple pie in their trying to wrap
themselves in the issue to prove that they are a kinder and
gentler party than when they ruled the roost under the infamous
Prime Minister Mulroney. We do not see that kind of positive
suggestion.
The budget is coming down in the next few days, next Tuesday.
The Prime Minister, the health minister and the finance minister
have said that it will be a health care budget. There will be a
substantial investment in health care, in medicare, in taking
care of sick Canadians. Recently an accord was signed,
interestingly enough, by all 10 premiers including the Premier of
Quebec.
Lest I be accused of neglecting the Bloc, let me refer to a
comment made by one of its members who said that the best thing
that could happen to the country would be for the government to
be defeated. The best thing that could happen to the country
would be for a strong, united country working together to solve
poverty. The only way that could happen would be if we were able
to witness the historical demise of the Bloc.
Would that not be a lovely day for Canada? Then we could have
motions and debates that could rebuild this great country, build
on Confederation, deal with health care, deal with balancing
budgets, paying down our debt, reducing taxes and building
housing for the poor. These are things the government cares
about.
We do not talk in rhetoric. We talk in action. They will see
more of it on Tuesday when the new budget comes down. They will
continue to see the kind of leadership Canadians have come to
expect from the government over the balance of the mandate of
this term.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell
the hon. member opposite that I thought he would express more
compassion toward the poor. Poverty is an issue that concerns
everyone.
Earlier, criticisms were leveled at all the parties that try to
find solutions. As regards Mr. Clark, he at least had the
courage to meet those who were outside yesterday, unlike the
member's leader, who was nowhere to be seen. Mr. Clark showed
courage and we went with him. Some people were pleased to see us
and others were not, but one must face the music.
In his speech, the hon. member even gave the impression that he
finds poverty funny. I guess he is not concerned by this issue.
Perhaps there is no poverty in his riding. I would like to hear
his suggestions, because this debate is about finding concrete
solutions. Let us stop talking and start finding solutions to
help the poor.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the member for Shefford
is perhaps a minor exception to some of my criticism. In fact,
in September 1997 the member moved a motion that was debated on
November 19 which read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should review
the level at which the child benefit is indexed.
1635
She has at least shown some sympathy prior to this debate for
the issue of child poverty. I give her recognition and credit
for that as perhaps being a small beacon of light in a party that
searches for an identity. Perhaps it should have made her the
leader instead of Mr. Clark.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in February 1995 the federal government cut back
spending on social programs and transfers to the provinces by $6
billion, most of it for health care.
Is the member, who at least had a very progressive past, ashamed
his government did that? Did he stand in caucus and fight
against that measure?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I got the
date. Was it 1995 he was referring to?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Yes.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I was not in caucus to be able to
stand and do anything. In 1995 I was recovering from a rather
sudden career change, leaving politics for a couple of years due
to health and fatigue reasons. The voters were sick and tired of
me, I am sorry to say. I was out for a couple of years, only to
recover and come back and have the great honour of serving in
this government.
Let me say in direct response to the member that there are tough
decisions which need to be made in government. To inherit a
government as this government did in 1993 with a $42 billion
deficit, it has to look at what is in the cupboard and what it
can afford.
The courageous actions of the Canadian people, supported by the
policies of the government, have led us to the time today where
our economy has never been stronger.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a shame the hon. member across the way has such a gift of
presentation. He is a powerful orator but he lacks so much in
substance.
I follow on the comments of another hon. member. This member
was telling us in the Reform Party that when it comes to social
programs we are not there. Yet I remind him again about the $6
billion cut in social transfers. I was in the House when his
party voted against compensating some of the hepatitis C victims.
If we are talking about social conscience I would like to see him
demonstrate it in a number of those areas.
In addition, I will point out some of the expenditures that
party is concerned about that I would rather see go to those
truly in need. For example, there was a $1.3 million study for
the development of better bananas in Honduras.
Is that what he sees as a priority for the government? That is
where it is spending dollars that could go to people who have
legitimate needs in this country. I ask him to add a lot more
substance to his comments to match his ability at presentation.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a
compliment, I think. I will give some substance.
The Reform Party has been against the child tax benefit. It
voted against the government when it increased funding for the
community action program for children. It voted against the
government when it increased funding for prenatal nutrition
programs. It fundamentally opposed any expenditure increase
initiative to assist with child care.
I can provide substance all day long about the position of the
Reform Party. The Canadian people know they could never trust
the Reform Party to care about children. They could never trust
the Reform Party to care about the poor. They could simply never
trust the Reform Party.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a benefit to having sat through a Conservative
government as an opposition member and watching what the
Conservatives did and then watching them bring forward a motion
like this one. For the five years I listened to Tory budgets in
which they increased the deficit, increased interest payments and
reduced the capacity of the Government of Canada to invest in
Canadians, to invest in dealing with issues such as poverty.
Let me tell the House what they did on the issues brought
forward in the motion. The motion says the government should
increase the basic income tax credit to $10,000.
It was a Conservative government that deindexed the tax brackets
and therefore allowed more and more Canadians to become taxable
at very low income levels. They suggest we should index the tax
brackets. It was a Conservative government that deindexed the
tax brackets and therefore created a heavier burden on Canadians
as time went on.
1640
I find it a little ironic to be debating with a Conservative
member a motion to undo those measures which the government of
the party she represents put in place. That is what she is
asking us to do. I guess that is the luxury of moving from
government to opposition and being able to forget the actions of
one's government when it was in a position to take some positive
measures instead of the negative measures which the member now
wants us to undo.
By contrast, let me tell members of some of the things of which
I am proud that our government has done. Last year's budget was
the first time we have had the opportunity and the luxury of
looking at reinvesting. We chose to use some of the benefit of
our first surplus to deal with very low income Canadians. I
applaud that. I think that should be our priority.
We chose to increase the basic exemption from any income tax.
That was a modest increase, but it took 400,000 very low income
Canadians totally off the tax rolls. It reduced taxes for
millions of more Canadians. We also took off the 3% surtax but
not for everybody. We took it off for very modest income
Canadians and left it on for higher income Canadians.
I think those are the right priorities. We should leave the
most money we can in the hands of those in the country who have
the least. It also makes economic good sense because those
people who have the least spend what they do have on essential
goods and services. If they have a bit of additional money it
gets spent on essential goods and services produced by other
Canadians and it helps substantially in our efforts to further
reduce unemployment.
Despite the constraints of the last few years we also initiated
the first new national social program in a long time, the child
tax benefit, with an expenditure of close to $2 billion. We know
that has to increase. We know it has to go up and it will as
fiscal resources are available. It was a very important
initiative that will help every child across the country.
What does the Conservative member want us to do? She wants us
to increase the basic income tax credit to $10,000. That would
help a lot more low income Canadians. I hope we are able to do
more in that direction in the budget that is coming out next
week. It also reduces taxable income for somebody making
$100,000, $150,000 and $300,000. Guess who benefits most from
that reduction? It is not the lowest income Canadian who pays
tax at a low rate but the highest income Canadians.
We are not prepared to do that. If the Minister of Finance is
listening, I would certainly hope that giving greater tax relief
to high income Canadians than to low income Canadians is not
something that will be in his budget.
I really do not want to talk partisan politics but I think we
are heading in the right direction. The whole issue of poverty
is too important to leave superficially with the issues brought
forward in the motion. Health care needs more money. We have to
look at that in the budget. There is no secret about that. It
needs different approaches as well. This is an extremely
important issue for low income Canadians.
1645
Poverty and health are inextricably linked. We know that poor
children are much more likely to become seriously ill. So it is
important that we do the kinds of things in health care such as
the community action program for children's health, the prenatal
nutrition program and other investments in our young children to
ensure they will get a healthy start in life and remain healthy.
It is important for us to support the health and service centres
which link social problems with health problems and which deal
with the whole family and the whole health of the community so
our children do have a better chance to grow up strong and
healthy.
Money is important. A good friend said a long time ago “when
the problem is poverty I cannot think of anything better to throw
at it than money”. However, there are other things we have to
do. Our investments in health care and education are extremely
important.
One of the things I am currently concerned about is young
children growing up in poverty who are entering school without
any access to the technology that their better-off peers will
have as soon as they get into kindergarten. Our government has
done a number of things to make sure that every child has access
to those skills of learning, which are now basic skills of
learning in our schools, so that one barrier between well off and
poorer children is eliminated or at least alleviated.
There are so many other issues involved in poverty. While this
motion would have us give tax breaks to poorer people, and I hope
we will do that, it also gives tax breaks to very wealthy people.
It ignores completely the need to also invest in other areas of
our society and our economy to alleviate the problems of poverty.
I represent a lot of poor families and a lot of them would not
be helped one bit by this motion. The motion is aimed at working
Canadians not women who are living on extremely low incomes of
social assistance. The attitude and emotion about people
becoming self-reliant and self-sufficient ignores totally the
fact that those women with two or three children are also working
parents. The only difference is they do not get paid for it.
I find the motion narrow. It would deliver more tax relief to
well off Canadians than to those who most need it. I also find
it ignores the need to balance tax relief against the other areas
that we need to invest in. If we truly want to help those who
have been hurt most by hard economic times and by, I will admit,
decisions of governments, we need a supportive society and a
budget and programs that help them to deal with their situation
and create for all of us a healthier society.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a very quick question for my hon. colleague from
Ottawa.
Would she not say that one of those reinvestment programs that
she is suggesting for the future should have been and always
should have been a national housing program from coast to coast
to coast and not leave it to the provinces to look after, as one
of her previous members has stated?
The abandonment of a national housing policy by the federal
government is one of the major causes as to why we have such
homelessness in this country. The government says it was for
fiscal restraint. However, in my province of Nova Scotia that
has caused tremendous hardship for an awful lot of people.
Would the member not agree that would be a great reinvestment to
start on Tuesday with the budget?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would not presume
to second guess what might or might not be in the budget on
Tuesday afternoon. I will be here waiting with bated breath as
will my colleagues opposite.
1650
As the former chair of the executive committee of a municipal
non-profit housing corporation, I very much appreciate the value
of social housing across this country. I am very well aware of
the billions of dollars that the federal government continues to
invest in social housing.
I am also very well aware that we reinvested significantly in
the RRAP which allows people on very low incomes to improve their
housing situation. There is no question right now we are all
extremely concerned about this. I am counting on the federal
government to take a major role in alleviating that.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, some of
the comments my hon. colleague made during her speech I found to
be somewhat inflammatory and almost offensive.
What this member was trying to convey was that since we are the
government, we have the luxury of being there right now, that
everything is good in our economy and that everything that has
gone wrong in the past is the Tories' fault.
One of the reasons we have the growth in the last number of
years is that we have an export driven economy compliments of
free trade in the 1988 election. I think she might remember that
election because those members actually opposed free trade.
Second, the government likes to take a lot of credit for all the
jobs it created. Two-thirds of the jobs created in this country
were created in Ontario by the government of Mike Harris.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the member
opposite knows anything at all about trade, he knows that the
major benefits we have in trade right now are due to a dollar
that slipped from 87 cents to 67 cents on the dollar and are not
due to any trade agreement.
We have to be careful. Let me also point out to the member that
if he wants to give credit to Mike Harris for improving
employment in the province of Ontario, I would really like him to
point out to me how that was done.
I know what the Liberal federal government has done. It has had
results in every province right across the country. I find it
very hard to credit the Conservative government in Ontario for
benefits of federal programs that are being felt right across
this country fairly evenly. Mr. Harris really cannot take credit
for that.
I am not interested, nor have I ever been, in politics in
casting blame on one place or the other. I think we have the
situation we find when we get elected to government and it is our
responsibility to address it in the best way we can.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past 100 years there have been a number of
programs and efforts to address poverty and homelessness. That
has not worked out. We would not see it today if it was gone.
The member opposite has a small problem in Canada with 600,000
people, a very clear responsibility of the government to 600,000
people. How come government policies of both the Liberals and
Conservatives over the last 100 years have not at least been able
to provide housing for our aboriginal people, a lot of whom are
poor. Where is the plan for that?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to
speak specifically on this. There are other members in this
House who are far more familiar than I am with that but the
member is very well aware of initiatives in that area by this
government.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to today's motion. I am
very pleased that our caucus has actually taken the initiative to
select this very important subject that affects all Canadians.
Throughout the day we heard a number of different statistics
with respect to the number of individuals who actually live in
poverty. One in five children lives in some form of poverty.
December 10 represented the 50th anniversary of the declaration
of human rights which was written by a former constituent in my
riding of Fundy—Royal, John Peters Humphrey, who comes from the
town next to mine. I consider Canada to be one of the most gifted
and affluent countries in the world. Having citizens in any form
of poverty in a country with the resources and wealth we have I
consider a national shame. Given the resources and the
capabilities we have we need to do more for people who live in
the margins of our society, give them that hand up so they can
live with the dignity they clearly deserve.
1655
Poverty is much more than just a lack of money. It affects
children's health, education, welfare and general well-being.
I remember during the election campaign of 1997 there was one
day toward the end of the campaign when I campaigned just outside
of Havelock, New Brunswick. I might from time to time think of
myself as an idealistic person. I am someone who considers
himself to be a fiscal conservative who believes in certain
ideals and certain doctrines.
I remember campaigning at one door which will leave a memory
with me for many years. I think it will help to shape some of my
politics. I was there talking about some of the things I thought
we could do in order to grow our economy. After the conversation
at that door the constituent said to me “I like what you have to
say, but the thing which actually affects me most today is
whether I have bread in my cupboard or milk in my fridge”. In
this forum that is a very difficult situation for us to imagine.
Poverty exists in every riding in this country. It affects way
too many people in a society of this nature.
In my riding there are some initiatives which I would like to
take this opportunity to point out. It is what has been done on
a community basis in order to address the physical needs of some
of the poor, individuals living in poverty. I would like to
salute the Sussex Sharing Club, the Lakewood HeadStart
Association, the Kennebecasis Valley Food Basket, Chipman
Community Care, Minto Community Resource Centre and the Hampton
Food Basket.
I also know there are a number of initiatives that are done from
a church level and a community level as well. I can look at a
church in my nearby region, the United Church in Hampton and
Reverend Stephen Mills, in terms of some of the initiatives that
we have done for our local community.
This issue touches us on a more macro basis as well. Given the
non-partisan nature of the subject of poverty and the desire of
the Progressive Conservative Party, in fact all parties in the
House, to address poverty, I ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to continue this debate until midnight.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, the reason I asked that
is in the few hours we have had here today I think all
parliamentarians would like to have some constructive time to
continue to discuss this issue.
The deputy whip made the comment that lowering taxes would be a
bad thing for the poor. I am not exactly sure what she was trying
to say.
It makes no sense to tax low income Canadians, people who
actually make very little money.
1700
One of the initiatives we are speaking about today is raising
the personal exemption from around $7,000 to $10,000. That one
initiative alone would take two million Canadians off the tax
rolls overnight. Those are two million Canadians who simply
should not have been there in the first place.
When I think of public policy and taxation rates I look at them
from this standpoint. Many people believe, depending on where
they live in the country, that the poverty line is around
$21,000. If that were true we would be saying as a society that
it is okay to tax individuals who make $14,000 less than the
poverty line. I just do not think that is acceptable in any way,
shape or form.
We are also focusing on another sector within society, the
working poor. Those individuals get up every day, work hard and
are very proud, but every day they keep working they find
themselves falling further and further behind. One reason for
that is that it has been far too long since our income tax
brackets have been indexed for inflation. Some individuals may
be making a bit more money from time to time but are actually
taking home less money. Those are the persons who really need
tax relief.
In order to grow our economy the Progressive Conservative Party
is advocating providing Canadians with broad based tax relief but
primarily concentrating on lower and middle income Canadians.
We are looking at indexing the child tax benefit. In the fall
of 1997 the member for Shefford was successful in having a motion
passed in the House with respect to that issue. That shows her
commitment to children and to citizens who actually live in
poverty.
The issue of poverty affects a vast number of Canadians.
Canadians are becoming more and more sensitized to the issue.
They are now seeing that we have turned the corner with respect
to our fiscal house as a nation and at the provincial level in
some cases, for example with the record growth we are now seeing
in Ontario. We are at a state where we have a balanced budget
which is a good thing for all Canadians regardless of on what
side of the House members sit.
What I mean by saying that Canadians are becoming more
sensitized is that they want us to address these issues. In a
country as wealthy and innovative as ours we need to ensure that
all Canadians live with a decent level of income so they can have
decent shelter and food and their children who go to school can
have a healthier diet and function in school.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
those were interesting comments from the member. I concur with
much of what he said. One key issue of concern to me and to many
members of my party is the efficient use of tax dollars. Nowhere
today have we actually touched on that too much. We have talked
a lot about poverty and compassion for the less fortunate which
are good things for sure. I am concerned about whether we are
efficiently using tax dollars to meet the needs of those who are
less fortunate.
I am looking at some of the current expenditures of the Liberal
government. What is the member's position on some of these
expenditures? Could some of this money be better redirected to
those with legitimate needs? For example, the current Liberal
government has spent money on some studies.
On a study of feasting and the origin of inequality $75,000 was
spent. On a study of women's dress in the 19th century in
Istanbul $28,000 was spent. Also there was one for $1.2 million
to General Electric Canada which is a large corporation.
1705
Why are we spending tax dollars on these kinds of things if we
are here today talking about the legitimate needs of the less
fortunate? What is the hon. member's opinion on that?
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, the hon. member
highlighted a couple of examples in his question. Clearly there
are some places within government spending where some better
choices with the public purse can actually be made. I do not
think some of the initiatives he just mentioned would be very
high up on my priority list, to say the least.
I would not want to make a comment that we are spending enough
money on the poor and probably do not need to do too much. We
have to be able to challenge ourselves to ensure that we are
getting the best bang for our buck with respect to our social
programs.
I still think there needs to be a governmental role, whether
that be provincial or federal, to address those needs.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have
been some discussions among the leaders of the various parties
and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion:
That the subcommittee on the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act be authorized to travel to Abbotsford, Vancouver and Edmonton
during the week of March 1, 1999 and to Halifax and Moncton
during the week of March 15, 1999 and that the necessary staff
accompanying it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to
move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I think you would also find, based on
discussions between the leaders of the various parties, unanimous
consent for the following motion:
That Jill Wherrett, research officer for the Standing Committee
on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, be authorized to
travel to Toronto from February 17 to 20, 1999 in order to attend
the forum on aboriginal economic development.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. parliamentary
secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—POVERTY IN CANADA
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure today that I rise to speak to this very important
opposition day motion.
The issue of poverty is one that touches each and every one of
us as members of parliament, as parliamentarians and as
Canadians. One of the things we value and on which we pride
ourselves in Canada is equality of opportunity, not necessarily
quality of outcome which cannot be guaranteed by government.
There is no area of government that is more important if we are
serious about dealing with equality of opportunity than to ensure
that children in Canada are not living in poverty.
One in five children is living in poverty. The government likes
to say the fundamentals are strong. That is one of the
fundamentals, that one in five children are living in poverty.
That is absolutely atrocious. It is unacceptable in a country
like Canada.
The personal debt rates in Canada are an unprecedented high.
Personal bankruptcy last year set record highs. We have never
had as many people declare bankruptcy as have declared bankruptcy
last year. Personal disposable income has dropped 7% over the
past six years.
1710
John Kenneth Galbraith, an ex-patriate Canadian economist, once
said beware of governments who say their fundamentals are strong.
That is extremely appropriate for the government. Despite its
assertions, its fundamentals are not strong for the average
Canadian and most egregiously for the poorest of Canadians who
are not doing well under the government.
One of the most regressive and pernicious taxes on the poor in
Canada is EI premiums. The EI premiums are the most regressive
form of taxation that we now have in Canada. Someone making
$39,000 per year is paying the same amount of EI premiums as
someone who is making $300,000 per year. Yet when a lower income
Canadian needs employment insurance less than 35% are now
qualifying. This is scandalous. The government is effectively
doing the reverse Robin Hood theory. It is taking from the poor
and redistributing to everybody else. This is absolutely,
fundamentally unfair.
Our party believes that equity for all Canadians, starting with
the poorest of Canadians, is more important than padding the
books of the federal government. We believe that a Canadian
making less than $10,000 should not be paying income tax. We
believe very strongly in those principles.
The issue of equity and the issue of doing the right thing are
only possible when governments have economic growth to make it
happen. I do not have to remind anybody in the House,
particularly not the Liberals who at one time opposed these
initiatives, that the fundamental structural changes made by the
previous PC government, including free trade, the elimination of
the counterproductive manufacturers sales tax, the deregulation
of the financial services industries, the transportation sector
and energy, were the cornerstones that provided any opportunity
for economic growth to eliminate the deficit over the past
several years. It was those basic changes that provided the
strength for the Canadian economy to grow today.
A Conservative government, having recognized the need for those
changes then, implemented them. The Conservative government had
a vision for Canada that would provide economic growth and
opportunity to all Canadians. We did not anticipate that there
would be a government in Canada which would take advantage of the
changes it previously opposed when it was politically convenient.
It took that money and failed to deliver the equity to Canadians
that we value as a cornerstone of Canadian social policy.
Members opposite have argued today that increasing the basic
personal exemption would not be a good idea. Then I heard a
member make the ludicrous argument that increasing it by $500 was
a good idea because it would take 400,000 Canadians off the tax
rolls, but increasing it to $10,000 which would eliminate two
million people from the tax rolls was a bad idea. I would have
thought the logical corollary of his argument would have been
that if we further increased the basic personal exemption to
$10,000 it would be even better. Somehow this is Liberal
economic logic or lack thereof.
I am very concerned about the trends of the government in terms
of accountability relative to spending programs. There is the
issue of the millennium scholarship fund. There is not a member
of the House today who would not agree that investment in higher
education is an important activity and an important initiative
that needs to continue if we are to ensure that Canadians can
compete in the 21st century. The structure the government
chooses to engage in these types of programs is absolutely
ludicrous.
In the last federal budget the government took $2.5 billion out
of the federal treasury and away from Canadians for a millennium
scholarship fund that will not help any Canadian until after the
year 2000.
Even then it will only benefit 4% of students seeking higher
education. It is the Mother Hubbard theory on spending. Stock
the government's cupboard for the time being. It is fancy book
work. It is the type of accounting principle that offends the
auditor general. It is the type of social policy that offends
right headed Canadians because they know that if the money is
stocked away in some type of self-gratifying government program
for the future, it cannot benefit Canadians when they need it.
Canadians need help today and the poorest of Canadians need help
today.
1715
We believe very strongly that at this time we should be
increasing the basic personal exemption significantly to reduce
the disincentives for Canadians at lower income brackets to
participate in the workforce and to provide more money in their
pockets. We also believe very strongly that at this point it is
not just appropriate but right to eliminate bracket creep and to
reindex the tax brackets.
There are members opposite who say the previous Conservative
government was the party that implemented deindexation back in
1984. At that time that initiative, as were other tax
initiatives, was implemented to eliminate the deficit. Given
that some of those initiatives have obviously worked and we have
eliminated the deficit, now is the time to recognize the role
Canadians have played in eliminating that deficit and giving them
some money back in their own pockets.
One million, four-hundred thousand low income Canadians have
been dragged kicking and screaming on to the tax rolls since 1993
by bracket creep. This has to stop. It is fundamentally unfair
and we are calling for the government to fully index tax
brackets.
Next week will be the week of the federal budget. We have our
alternative program and I just want to share with members and
Canadians that a single earner making $20,000 per year will save
$694 with our tax relief versus a Canadian making $20,000 with
the current Liberal plan.
Last year the Liberals said they were giving tax breaks to low
income earners. The fact is someone making $10,000 per year,
according to the government's own figures, would only receive a
benefit of $80 per year. That is a pittance. It is an insult.
That is one cup of coffee per week at Tim Horton's, one per month
at Starbucks. That is clearly unacceptable.
This government does not get it. It is out of touch with
reality. It is out of touch with Canadians and very soon after
the next election it will be out of touch with power.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
want to ask my colleague whether he agrees with me that, if we
looked through the past fifty years of history, we would be hard
pressed to find such eloquent examples of governments
deliberately contributing to people's impoverishment. My
colleague will recall, because I know he is interested in
history and is a reasonable and educated man, that, in 1968, for
example, the Liberals talked about a just society. He will
recall, despite his young age—I think he must be several years
my junior—that the Liberals were going to create a just society
and eliminate poverty in Canadian society.
Would my colleague agree with the three measures I propose for
fighting poverty? The first, as the member for Shefford said,
is that social condition must be included in the Canadian Human
Rights Act. This would make it possible to invalidate provisions
in the Employment Insurance Act and in the Banks Act. The
second is to convince the banks to intervene in disadvantaged
communities. The United States has had a law since 1977 called
the Community Reinvestment Act. Can I count on my colleague to
promote these measures?
1720
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. The hon. member always has erudite
interventions in the House and has been consistent with his
intervention today.
He points out something very interesting, that the Liberal
government has betrayed the basic principles that the Liberal
Party of Canada based itself on for so long, social justice,
equality, recognizing that all Canadians deserve to succeed in
this great country of ours.
I was at a conference a couple of weeks ago, the international
democratic council meeting. It was centre-right parties around
the world and we were talking about different policies. They
asked to describe the difference between a political leader and a
politician. What we came up with after some discussion is that a
politician is someone who does what is necessary to get
re-elected. A political leader is someone who does something
that is right for the people they represent.
On the other side of the House we have a lot of politicians but
we do not have any political leaders.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member.
He mentioned Robin Hood, Mother Hubbard and the definition of
politicians and political leaders.
My question to the hon. member concerns financial information.
This motion includes something that is not particularly new. I
believe it was in “Let the Future Begin” which was to increase
the basic income tax credit from $6,459 to $10,000. This is
simply a rehash of the 1997 election platform on this issue.
Will the hon. member tell Canadians exactly how much it would
cost the treasury to increase the tax credit tomorrow from $6,500
to $10,000 and where would the money come from?
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his softball question. I feel like we are on the other side
of the House now and he is a backbencher asking a question to try
to make us look good.
The member is right to point out the consistency in our position
since before the last federal election. What a stark contrast to
his party's position. They change positions more often than in
the Kama Sutra. This year raising it would cost $1.8
billion. Next year raising it to $8,500 will be another $2.5
billion. The following year would be $3.75 billion to raise it
to the full $10,000. I was happy to be given the opportunity to
answer his question unequivocally. The money would come from the
economic growth that is available to Canadians. It would also
come from the fact that we do have a projected surplus this year
that will be quite significant. It will not come from more
boondoggle spending programs, the Mother Hubbard ones he has
referred to, that will benefit no Canadians today and few
Canadians tomorrow.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I do not
question the goodwill of the mover of the motion and I do not
question the compassion that has been very well expressed by
pretty well all the speakers on the opposition side today.
I admit that some of the social ills that have been described by
the members of the opposition do exist. But I reject the basic
premise of their arguments that suggests all the social problems
are based on the actions of the government. Nowhere in any of
their remarks did I hear mention of the changes that have been
happening all around the globe. The whole world is in the middle
of something called the technological revolution. Some people
view this as a period of transition and turmoil between the
industrial age and the information age. Historically such
revolutionary periods are periods of social dislocation. Some
people who live during those periods adjust quickly to these
changes and they prosper, but others find these periods of change
difficult and they experience economic insecurity.
To govern during such a period of economic revolution is both a
privilege and a challenge.
1725
Unlike the opposition, this government is not looking
nostalgically backward to a safer time and wanting to revive and
apply the solutions of the past. We do not want to go back to a
time, for example, when unemployment insurance was mainly a
passive income support system, a system which encouraged people,
generation after generation, to languish in semi-poverty with
little hope of a better future.
We want to motivate and actively support Canadians to enter the
labour market of the 1990s. For example, our youth employment
strategy and our Canada jobs fund are helping young people across
the country and workers in areas of high unemployment to get on
board the train that is rushing us forward toward the 21st
century.
We are proud of our post-TAGS program for fishers and our
package for Devco miners because these packages prove that we are
not abandoning some people who are in trouble; our family
supplement for families on EI; our national children's benefit;
our removal of 400,000 low income Canadians from the tax rolls,
our recognition on our part that some Canadians are struggling
and that we want to help them.
At the same time, though, it must be recognized that this
government has created the right climate of no deficit, low
interest rates, low inflation and lowering taxes, the climate
most conducive to job creation and, I might say, a climate the
previous government tried to achieve and failed.
We are also proud of our ever decreasing unemployment rate,
another phenomenon the previous government failed to achieve.
There is no purpose in being outraged at poverty. It is far
more intelligent to be looking at its causes to understand where
we are in the historical evolution of the country and to apply
measures to alleviate that poverty as we are doing. We want to
bounce people back into the labour force because a job is the
best economic security we can provide and we are doing those
things.
However, we are not denying that there are social problems out
there, poverty and homelessness. We approaching them one by one
because they are tasks of work to be done. This government has
its shoulder to the wheel. It has its intentions in the right
place. As we have sufficient money to tackle of these problems,
one at time we will tick them off the list that the opposition
has provided us with today.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, after the
comments I heard today from the government and all the
opposition parties, I have concluded that we must ensure
parliament is a co-operative place for the development of real
solutions to the glaring problem of poverty.
This is why I seek the unanimous consent of the House to strike
a joint parliamentary committee to study the serious problem of
poverty in Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member's proposal?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member from the Liberal Party mentioned one at
a time. Here is one person, Darrell Daniels from Port Alberni,
B.C. I would like her to say what she can do for him. He
writes: “I am 23 and I have lost hope. I went to Manitoba and
Alberta looking for work but all I found were part time jobs”.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
think that you may have misunderstood. I am sure that, if you
were to seek it again, you would find unanimous consent.
The Deputy Speaker: I shall put the question again.
Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I heard no. That settles it.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker. Darrell Daniels of Port
Alberni, British Columbia writes: “I am 23 and I have lost hope.
I went to Manitoba and Alberta looking for work but all I could
find were part time jobs”.
1730
He could not get enough hours for EI. He was turned down for
job training because he has never collected EI and therefore was
not eligible. For a young person like him, 910 hours of work is
far too much. He will now have to apply for welfare. What can
the hon. member and her government do for this one person?
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I would resist the
temptation to draw the same conclusion as the questioner. He
said that all the person could do was apply for welfare.
It seems to me that if a young person who is 23 years old can
only find part time jobs and part time work that will not add up
to a sufficient number of hours to qualify for employment
insurance, then there is one answer. This young person should be
being trained or be back in school and we have measures to assist
such a person to do that.
Certainly the idea of qualifying for EI is not a sufficient goal
for a young Canadian today.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being 5.30 o'clock it is
my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have
expired.
[Translation]
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.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-247, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation), as reported
(with amendments) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are two motions in amendment on
the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-247, an act to amend
the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation).
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.
[Translation]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-247, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 2 to
4 on page 2 with the following:
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify my reasons for
moving this amendment to Bill C-247.
During the committee's review of Bill C-247 prior to approval,
some scientists from Health Canada were there to answer our
questions and clarify a number of sections. On one provision in
particular, namely clause 1(b), concerns were expressed
regarding the actual impact of the clause at it stands.
Indeed, according to Ms. Colvin, from Health Canada, the scope
of this wording goes beyond human cloning and includes any
genetic manipulation, regardless of its purpose.
The issue is not whether or not we must prohibit this type of
manipulation. Bill C-247 merely seeks to prohibit human cloning.
Two clauses of Bill C-247 seemed to by saying two different
things, but the real and fundamental object of this legislation
is simply to prohibit human cloning. Any other form of genetic
manipulation should be discussed at another time.
The original intent of Bill C-247 concerned only human
reproductive cloning, and that has not changed. This bill is
obviously not the answer to all the issues.
However, things must be done clearly and accurately when we are
legislating in the area of medically assisted reproductive
technologies.
There must not be any grey areas or vague provisions preventing
us from knowing what is authorized and what is not. This is why
I am moving and amendment which clarifies the object of this
bill by amending clause 1(b) to read as follows:
On February 27, 1997, the scientific magazine Nature published a
research paper that people will talk about for a long time. The
creators of Dolly describe how the team of researchers succeeded
for the first time in history in producing a healthy lamb from
breast tissue taken from an adult sheep.
1735
Not long after the announcement that Dolly had been cloned, it
was learned that two monkeys had been cloned in Oregon from
embryonic cells. This was a first for primates.
We have all heard of Dr. Richard Seed, the American scientist
who has publicly announced his intention to clone humans for
sterile couples. Today, a technique using cells from aborted
foetuses could change the face of modern medicine.
Science is evolving at a dizzying pace, often to the advantage
of society. There are also cases, however, where society itself
needs to set limits for the progress of science, and the cloning
of humans is one such case.
Even if Bill C-247 is adopted, it will not put an end to the
debate on medically assisted reproductive techniques, far from
it. This initiative must be seen as a starting point. We
certainly have to start somewhere. This can lay the first brick
of a wall delineating where we, in conjunction with the
individuals, organizations and governments concerned, want the
line drawn between what we want as a society and what we will
not accept.
The key issue involved in cloning, once the possibility of
cloning merely for the purposes of reproduction has been
eliminated, involves mostly therapeutic considerations.
Let us imagine someone with Parkinson's disease. If human
cloning were possible, an embryo could be produced from an adult
cell from a patient and someone's egg. A few months later, the
embryo, which would be implanted in a woman's uterus, would
develop into a foetus genetically identical to the patient.
The foetus is aborted, the brain cells are extracted and grafted
onto the patient's brain, which will not reject them because
they are identical to its own cells.
Yes, indeed, the advances in genetics mean benefits for society.
But the fact that the research provides benefits must not
prevent us from imposing limits on its development, according to
values dear to the human race. Otherwise, certain unfortunate
science fiction scenarios could become real.
Scientists wonder why not have access to various human cloning
techniques in order to create full, living, but brain absent
clones.
Impossible, you say. Science, however, is at the point of
making this sad scenario possible.
In England, they have managed to alter certain genes to
transform the physiological development of animals. With this
manipulation, it is now possible to prevent the development of
the head, the trunk or the tail in some animals.
The same method could be applied to human embryos as well.
Instead of creating and keeping a human embryo as such, it could
be genetically reprogrammed so as to prevent the growth of
unwanted body parts.
Can we imagine the conception of an embryo that could ultimately
become a baby solely for therapeutic purposes, noble though they
may be? It is not just a matter of having something be possible
for it to be acceptable. The problem is controlling the new
powers developed by science and technology.
In conclusion, increasingly, scientific discoveries keep pushing
back the frontier of the possible.
The more humanity learns about genetics and reproduction, the
more it is tempted to apply these discoveries to itself.
All the possibilities that have recently come to light have
tested the limits of what is morally and socially acceptable.
In his book The Imperative of Responsibility, the philosopher
Hans Jonas wrote that modern technology has brought with it
actions on such a staggering new scale, with objects and
consequences so unheard of, that the old school of ethics is no
longer able to keep up.
With genetic discoveries evolving so rapidly, and human cells
less and less of a mystery, it is obvious that cloning for
reproductive purposes is no longer in the realm of science
fiction. It is upon us.
Is this what we really want? I think not, and Bill C-247 is a
response.
1740
Having said that, it is of the utmost urgency that we take the
time to consider the other technologies and possibilities that
genetic engineering has to offer, those that do not produce
quite the same reactions as human cloning but that will
nonetheless have an impact on the very composition of the human
race, such as gene therapy.
Before events overtake us, society itself must agree on a new
ethical framework. We must decide how far we are prepared to
venture into what was, only yesterday, beyond our reach:
defining humankind.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in support of this motion to amend Bill C-247. I feel that
this change will clarify the intent of the bill and represents an
improvement over the original wording.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I also support Bill C-247 itself,
although with some regret. I have no hesitation in supporting
the intent and content of the member's bill. My regret stems
from the fact that we are here today dealing with a private
member's bill instead of comprehensive government legislation. I
also regret that we are only addressing one lone aspect of the
many critical issues developing around reproductive technology.
It was 10 years ago that new reproductive technology was
critical enough for the government of the day to appoint a royal
commission to investigate. The Royal Commission on New
Reproductive Technologies spent four years gathering information
and formulating 293 resolutions. Among these was a
recommendation to prohibit seven specific activities under the
Criminal Code. Cloning was one.
By the time it issued its report in November 1993, the royal
commission had travelled to 17 centres across the country. Two
thousand Canadians participated in these hearings. Six thousand
more phoned in their views on toll free lines that had been set
up and 15,000 more responded to commission surveys. The
commission spent $28.3 million during this massive consultation.
What do we have to show for all this?
When the commission's report was released, the New Democratic
Party called on the government for quick action to implement its
recommendations. We challenged this government to convene a
meeting of federal, provincial and territorial health ministers
to establish a common framework for moving forward but that came
to naught.
Instead in 1995 this government asked researchers and health
practitioners to observe a voluntary moratorium on cloning and a
number of other practices. Needless to say this misguided
substitute for comprehensive legislation went nowhere. Only in
1996 did the Liberal government finally introduce legislation,
Bill C-47, that would have among other things banned human
cloning. Bill C-47 died on the Order Paper the next year and was
never reintroduced.
The Liberal government has been silent on cloning and indeed all
reproductive technology ever since. To let these issues that
impact so seriously on the lives of Canadians, especially women,
go this long without action is intolerable. There were problems
with Bill C-47, there is no doubt about it. But that does not
mean the minister just withdraws in fear never to be heard of
again.
How can the government say one day that cloning and 12 other
practices are so serious they should be criminalized and the next
day through its inaction say it is not important any more. It is
important. It is important to many Canadians. The response to
the royal commission showed that.
Not only do Canadians want action, they want the government to
stop dithering around and act now. They realize that it is going
to be a lot more difficult to regulate reproductive technologies
after the fact.
Cloning is no longer just science fiction. Everyone remembers
Dolly the cloned sheep. Rats, cows, monkeys have all recently
joined that circus. Now others, both professionals and amateurs,
have declared that they are working on human cloning.
American Dr. Richard Seed, who has attracted a great deal of
media attention with his cloning enthusiasm has announced he will
open a clinic in Japan specifically for the purpose of human
cloning. He has $15 million in backing.
Last fall a group of Korean scientists proudly announced that
they had successfully taken human cloning one generation of cells
closer to reality.
1745
There is a claim by a Massachusetts laboratory that a nucleus
from a human cell was inserted into a cow's egg which then
progressed to the 32 cell stage before it was destroyed.
These are just the experiments that have been publicized.
Organizations have sprung up, like Clonaid, with money and
hundreds of volunteer couples who, for a variety of reasons, are
more than willing to risk experimentation.
What is this government waiting for?
The health minister has a wealth of information to draw upon
from the royal commission and the debate around Bill C-247.
There is nothing standing in his way. He could quite quickly
consolidate his position on reproductive technology, consult
stakeholders, including women's organizations, about his
proposals and bring in new legislation.
We must send a clear message to the scientific community that
its efforts on human cloning are not welcome in Canada. Canadians
have unequivocally told the government that human cloning is not
acceptable. They have also, in good faith, come out to hearings,
filled out questionnaires and written letters indicating their
views on other reproductive technology issues. The government
has once again shown an appalling lack of leadership.
In an effort to fill that leadership void I am here today in
support of private member's Bill C-247. With the passage of this
bill one of the many reproductive technology issues will have
been dealt with in parliament. We can only hope that the
government will then finally see fit to do the responsible thing
and introduce comprehensive legislation to address the rest.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there are some categories of genetic manipulation which Bill
C-247 responds to and some which it does not. However, the broad
concept of genetic manipulation can be broken down into several
categories and sub-categories.
The unamended Bill C-247 dealt with cloning and germ-line
manipulation. The unamended bill prohibited two kinds genetic
manipulation, cloning on the one hand and germ line genetic
changes on the other.
We were supportive of the bill in its original form, prior to
the amendments. We have some reservations with respect to some
very important parts of the bill which were removed.
Most of us understand what cloning is about because of news
reports on Dolly, the very first cloned animal. With respect to
the second practice, we believe that subclause 1(b) of the
unamended bill should be retained. It reads:
Whenever genetic manipulation results in changes that can be
passed on to the next generation—and not all genetic
manipulation has that result—it is referred to as germ-line or
genetic alteration. This bill prohibits that kind of alteration.
It does not address non-germ-line genetic alteration that has no
consequences for subsequent generations.
I want to speak to the purpose of the prohibition of germ line
changes, which is found in the second part of the unamended bill.
The intention of subclause 1(b) in the unamended bill was to
prevent scientists, and rich parents as their clients, from
altering human beings who would then pass on their new gene
structures to subsequent generations, since that would result in
the engineering of the human race. Put differently, its purpose
was to prevent all artificial tinkering with the human gene pool.
The purpose of the second prohibition of the unamended bill was
to prevent eugenics. We all know about that. That has been
described and talked about before. We believe that there are
some real flaws and major moral and ethical problems with moving
in that direction.
There are implications in Bill C-247 for research on gene
therapies. The member from the Bloc acknowledged the concerns
expressed at committee stage by the Liberal member from East York
who argued that the bill might prevent researchers from finding
cures for genetic disorders. Briefly, the unamended version
allows individuals to be treated for genetic disorders as long as
the treatment does not result in the possibility of their
offspring carrying the genetic alteration. That provision was in
the unamended bill.
1750
In other words, the gene therapy must not involve changes at the
germ line. It is very important to make clear that the unamended
bill does not affect current gene therapy or current research on
gene therapy. Present day gene therapy, called somatic cell gene
therapy, involves manipulating cells in the body, except the
reproductive cells. It involves the insertion of a gene into the
patient. As we have said, the germ line is not affected.
The germ line genetic alteration prohibited in the unamended
bill would involve replacing affected genes in reproductive
cells—the sperm, the egg, a zygote or an embryo—with unaffected
genes. It is not feasible in human beings at present. It is
really still the stuff of science fiction. Some believe that
technological advances may one day make germ line changes
feasible.
That is why we need the unamended Bill C-247, the prohibition of
germ line genetic alteration. The germ line changes would
involve unacceptable health risks for the individual. The risks
associated with germ line alteration are much greater than those
surrounding what is called somatic cell gene therapy since any
mistakes would affect all of the embryo cells. An inserted gene
could interfere with other vital gene functions or conceivably
activate genes associated with cancer development or other
disorders. It would be kind of like making one move on a
chessboard. If we make a move on a chessboard it affects the
values or the functions of the other pieces. It changes the rest
of the scenario.
These risks have caused some to propose a solution, one that I
find ethically unacceptable. Some suggest that germ line genetic
alteration is not necessary since it is only needed when an
embryo is found that is abnormal. It is pointed out that it is
an easy thing to simply discard such embryos and implant only
healthy embryos. Therefore we would be using aborted fetuses,
discarding those embryos that we did not want and implanting only
healthy embryos. Therein lies some of the beginning of the
problems with not having this as a prohibition on germ line
genetic alteration.
We need the unamended bill to be retained because germ line
changes would involve an unacceptable health risk for the larger
society. Altering the genetic make-up of the human genome does
more than risk the future of the individual involved and the germ
line. The fact that humankind possesses a certain amount of
genetic mutation is what is believed to provide the reservoir of
the species to adapt to changes in environmental circumstances.
The human genome has incurred constant but subtle changes to its
structure in response to environmental demands. That has
resulted in certain recessive disorders which actually enhance a
person's ability to exist under certain conditions.
An example of this is the gene for sickle cell anemia that
provides resistance to malaria. It is impossible to determine
the possible benefits or risks of seemingly aberrant genes as the
scope of their interaction with other genes and gene products
remains unknown.
We need to retain Bill C-247 in its unamended form because germ
line changes, if possible, someday would lead to eugenics.
Contrary to what many suppose, the line separating therapeutic
and non-therapeutic genetic alteration is very fuzzy. Any
introduction of germ line changes to address the most
debilitating of childhood diseases, like cystic fibrosis, would
prepare society for changes intended to address genetic mutations
whose impacts would be delayed until adulthood, until much later
along. A predisposition to diabetes, heart disease, asthma and
various forms of cancer fall into that category.
At a later point germ line changes would be used to inoculate
people against various infectious agents such as HIV. Then germ
line changes to address problems such as mental diseases and
anti-social behaviour would be attempted, and the list goes on
and on from there. Some commentators believe that ultimately
genetic enhancements of all sorts that have nothing to do with
health would then be attempted.
The unamended Bill C-247 is right. It is an appropriate bill to
ban germ line genetic changes. It is foolhardy to hold out germ
line changes as the means to eradicate genetic disorders. The
potential risks involved range from the creation of even worse
disorders or the inadvertent loss of important traits we
currently possess to the collapse of social structure and ideals,
following a disregard for the overall, most important,
all-embracing concept of the sanctity of life.
1755
I would very much support, as I believe our party does, the
retention of all of Bill C-247 in its unamended form.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased as well to rise in the House and
have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-247, an act to amend the
Criminal Code as it relates to genetic manipulation or what is
more commonly known as human cloning.
I look forward to taking part in this debate. This is a very
laudable initiative that has been taken by my colleague from the
Bloc Quebecois. The amendment is one that has been clarified by
her remarks and by the amendment put forward, and the bill is
certainly a very positive one that we in the Progressive
Conservative Party embrace.
I commend the member for Drummond for her efforts in sponsoring
the bill. The issues surrounding human cloning and development
to the use of reproductive technologies touch upon many moral and
ethical concerns, but we in parliament cannot shy away from
challenges that are presented by the leaps and bounds presently
occurring in scientific research.
As mentioned by other speakers, Bill C-247 would amend the
Criminal Code by adding after section 286 a prohibition for
genetic manipulation that leads to human cloning. This in and of
itself is an important and necessary step.
It is no easy task to bring forward a private member's bill,
particularly to this stage in the legislative process. Bill
C-247 is a very timely motion in light of recent technological
developments that have resulted in, among other things, the first
successful cloning of sheep. I am not talking here about the new
Liberal re-election strategy.
As was once thought impossible becomes reality, we as lawmakers
must be prepared to act in advance of other new reproductive and
genetic technologies, which are NRGTs for short.
While not making too partisan a point I wish to point to the
former Progressive Conservative government's positive
contribution to this issue. When our party formed the government
we had the foresight to lay the groundwork on the development of
policy options which reflect on this matter.
In 1989 the P.C. government of the day established a royal
commission on new reproductive technologies chaired by Patricia
Baird. The Baird commission's mandate was to examine the social,
medical, legal, ethical, economic and research implications for
new reproductive and genetic technologies with particular regard
to their implications for women, reproductive health and
well-being.
Following extensive consultation with Canadians the Baird
commission report tabled its findings and the new Liberal
government in November 1993 had that in hand. That was five
years ago. Now the commission has highlighted the need for the
federal government to adopt a comprehensive public policy on new
reproductive and genetic technologies.
In response to the Baird commission the Liberal government
announced a voluntary moratorium on NRGTs in 1995 and that
continues to stand today. As other members have pointed out, the
effectiveness of this moratorium has been seriously undermined
due to its voluntary nature.
In 1996, for the record, the Liberals recognized the weakness of
the moratorium and introduced Bill C-47, the Human Reproductive
and Genetic Technologies Act. This law prohibited 13 specific
practices: the cloning of human embryos; the buying and selling
of eggs, sperm and embryos including their exchange for goods and
services for other benefits; germ line genetic alterations; the
transfer of embryos between humans and other species; the
creation of human animal hybrids; and the use of human sperm eggs
or embryos for assisted human reproductive procedures or for
medical research without the informed consent of the donor or
donors.
Those were among the initiatives. This comprehensive list was
certainly a welcome attempt to restrict the misuse of new
reproductive technologies. However sadly the bill died on the
order paper.
The Liberal government committed to developing in consultation
with the provinces, territories and stakeholders additional
legislative means. However that did not occur.
The Liberals did not consider Bill C-47 to be a priority and
since it died on the order paper, we have not seen any
reintroduction. I again commend the hon. member from the Bloc
Quebecois for taking such initiative.
1800
Furthermore, as with so many other pieces of important
legislation that died on the order paper from the previous
government, the Liberals have yet to introduce anything even
remotely similar to Bill C-47. We have remained in a vacuum with
nothing but a flimsy, practical, unenforceable moratorium.
Thankfully the member for Drummond has taken this initiative and
has attempted to fill the void left by the government's inaction.
Thankfully it appears that the government is prepared to put
partisanship aside and support this worthwhile measure.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I am pleased to
reiterate our support for Bill C-247. This legislation draws a
very clear line in the Criminal Code against human cloning. There
is a very eerie and perhaps unnatural black hole that we must be
cautious about leaping into without knowledge of where we are
going.
It is important to note that although Bill C-247 is an important
first step to fill the void left by the Liberals, there are
plenty of other legislative initiatives that have to be taken by
the government.
Indeed out of the 13 specific procedures that would have been
prohibited by the government's legislation in the last
parliament, only two are proposed for prohibition under Bill
C-247. Furthermore, this bill does not include a national
regulatory regime with a mandate to enforce controls on improper
genetic testing.
The Liberal government, therefore, has an obligation to
introduce a comprehensive piece of legislation similar in content
to what was introduced in the previous parliament. This would
build on the great merits that are presently before the House in
the means of Bill C-247.
Along with completing the work that has been commenced by the
member for Drummond, any legislation from the government should
also reflect the emerging consensus for a national regulatory
regime to manage the field of reproductive and genetic
technologies. This regime must also be managed in a way that
will protect the health and safety for those most affected and
those most affected, as was previously referred to by the member
from the New Democratic Party, are for the most part women. Women
are the ones who will be most affected by this area of scientific
change.
We are approaching the third anniversary of this government's
tabling of the Human Reproductive and Genetics Technologies Act.
In light of this dubious anniversary, I hope the government will
soon stop dragging its heels on this important issue and follow
the example set by the member for Drummond and introduce wide
ranging legislation to control new reproductive and genetic
technologies.
The health minister was very active, although perhaps
misdirected, in his previous portfolio as minister. I encourage
him to start moving in the direction set by the member for
Drummond.
I commend the member for this action. I give her the support of
the Progressive Conservative Party and we hope this bill will
receive the unanimous support of all members in this House.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to say a few words about this bill and the amendment. I have to
candidly admit that this is not a mathematical subject and so I
cannot stand here as a good expert on this matter. But I can
read. I have read the bill and I have some concerns specifically
about the amendment.
Members will find it unusual that we actually stand up in report
stage and speak specifically to an amendment that is proposed at
report stage. We will hold off the debate on the whole bill
until the whole bill comes back to the House.
I want to talk about the amendment that is before us right now.
It seems to me that it is, if not redundant, slightly different
from the clause before it. Perhaps just to give some clarity for
those people who do not have the bill before them, in Bill C-247,
section 286 of the Criminal Code is to be amended:
(a) manipulate an ovum, zygote or embryo for the purpose of
producing a zygote or embryo that contains the same genetic
information as a living or deceased human being or a zygote,
embryo or foetus, or implant in a woman a zygote or embryo so
produced.
1805
When I look at that, unless I do not understand, I see the
definition of cloning. They are taking genetic information from
a living or a dead person and putting the genetics together to
produce a new person.
This clause suggests that shall not be done. Also it
specifically says it cannot be implanted. That implies that it
cannot be done in a Petrie dish or in a human being.
The amendment that we have before us changes the very next
clause. I will read the original:
No person shall knowingly alter the genetic structure of an ovum,
human sperm, zygote or embryo if the altered structure is capable
of transmission to a subsequent generation.
My colleague has given a very good explanation of the
implications of that. We favour that restriction as well. In
other words, we are not about to get into genetic manipulation to
produce a new form of human being, a new species or subspecies of
our race.
It is good to be against that lest somebody takes it upon
themselves to create everybody from here on in with a Reform
genetic structure. That would perhaps make too much of a good
thing.
The amendment actually calls for the striking out of those
words. The motion as amended would be that “no person shall
knowingly alter the genetic structure of an ovum, human sperm,
zygote or embryo for the purpose of cloning a human being”.
Unless I missed something, this is a redundant second way of
stating what the first said. It is pretty well the same thing.
The only difference is that the first one said manipulate and
this one says alter.
We should be careful here because in making this change we do
two things. If we adopt this amendment, the one thing we change
is that we no longer restrict the manipulation or the altering of
the genetic structure of one of these basic building blocks of
life. We no longer restrict it from being done and carried on
from generation to generation.
The other thing we do is merely introduce what appears to be a
redundancy. I am afraid that if we have two clauses in a bill
that becomes law with slightly different wording, all this does
is give big business to the legal beagles around the country. It
adds to uncertainty.
My view on the actual amendment of striking these words and
replacing them is that it ought not to be done. Therefore I
recommend strongly that members in the House of Commons reject
this amendment.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as all members in the House have
acknowledged, the federal government has been concerned with the
issues of cloning and germline genetic manipulation for some
time.
In 1993 the report of the royal commission on new productive and
genetic technologies recommended banning these practices and
bringing forward a regulatory environment. The government
followed up immediately with a call for a moratorium on these and
other practices in 1995. That moratorium is in place and exists
today.
As a result of Bill C-47, the government understands the
concerns that Canadians have about the variety of egregious
technology, those things that we are worried about, not just
cloning and germline genetic manipulation.
We acknowledge the widespread desire for a comprehensive regime
to govern the unacceptable and regulate the acceptable
technologies.
The committee discussed Bill C-247.
1810
There is general agreement in principle that human cloning
should be banned. That was originally in the government Bill
C-47 and recommended by the commission that was established.
There are many days in this place where I think all members would
like to have a clone of themselves so we could be in two places
at the same time. That is a joke. We know that the idea of
having a complete replica of any human being, not just in this
place but anywhere, is not only scary but it is the kind of
serious ethical dilemma that we are all very clear on.
I want to be very clear that we do not support the ability to
clone humans. We support a ban on human cloning. At the same
time, in speaking to this amendment before us today, we recognize
that this is a very complex issue. What is proposed in this bill
is a Criminal Code prohibition. What we believe is required and
what this amendment points out is that we need not only
prohibitions but a regulatory regime.
What concerns me is the amendment that has been placed today by
the member for Drummond because it points out that we have
concerns, as I believe she has, with the original wording of the
bill. We do not want to, for example, stop research on those
technologies that I referred to as acceptable, the kind of
technologies that would lead to a perfect match for bone marrow
to cure leukaemia or a perfect match of a valve to fix a heart or
the perfect match of an organ.
I therefore say to the member and to all members that the fact
that this amendment has been placed at this time in the House is
of great concern to me. We have to think very carefully before
we try to frame complex legislation by amendment in this House of
Commons.
I have received communications from experts in this field
following the discussion at committee. Dr. Arthur Leader,
professor of obstetrics, gynecology and medicine, the
chief of the division of reproductive medicine at the University
of Ottawa, and president of the Canadian Fertility and Andrology
Society, would like to appear before the committee to express his
concerns and reservations.
In speaking to this amendment I believe we cannot support this
amendment at this time without having further discussion and
debate of the implications that it would have on this very
important topic.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill.
As has been stated by a number of members, I think of how
critical these kinds of issues are. It is good for us to reflect
for a moment on the impacts on some of the new technologies and
new developments that are almost exploding out there.
On these technologies, be it in the biotechnology area, on the
Internet or in other things, this House often wrestles with key
issues of what is in the public interest and how do we as
custodians of the public trust serve the people who put us here
effectively.
My primary and underlying concern on this bill is the
requirement for us to ensure that public safety, as these new
technologies come forward, has been properly addressed. I think
of some of the developments in pharmaceuticals and even in food
additives in the past that we were told were safe, that
supposedly were tested. People took the experts at their word
and either took the medication or consumed the product with very
grievous results.
Sometimes we are so concerned and compassionate to quickly bring
a product to market that may help those who are suffering or who
are facing a very traumatic physical illness or life threatening
illness.
It is incumbent upon all of us to be very cautious. In our
compassion to meet the short term need we may in fact cause a
very serious disaster.
1815
It is within that context that I support the bill and I support
the unamended bill.
As these things come forward in the future, as they will for us
to deal with, the overriding concern we must all have is what is
in the public interest. Let us make sure that the controls are
in place to allow the experts and those who develop these things
to do all the appropriate testing, the long term testing so that
we do not in our zeal to meet the needs of those who are facing
life-threatening diseases actually cause more trouble than good.
We know that sometimes even those involved in research and the
medical field are not always Snow White. There can be instances
of abuse or exaggeration and exaggeration upon exaggeration.
This is why we as custodians of the public trust must tread very
carefully and slowly in this area.
I would suggest this is not just with respect to the area of
human genetics and cloning but also in all kinds of
biotechnology. Today some of the most grievous weapons in the
world are biological weapons. When we start to manipulate the
gene structures of plants and animals and other types of things,
we have to be careful that the appropriate controls are in place,
that if an accident or a mistake happens there are ways to shut
it down quickly. We have seen what various viruses can do and
what a tragedy it would be if it was a man-made problem that
caused the deaths of millions.
At the same time, I am not saying that we should not explore
this, but do it carefully. There may be developments that would
solve the bone marrow transplant issue and many of the other
tragic life-threatening things we see today. We do need to move
into this arena I would say, but very cautiously and very
carefully so that we can maximize the long term benefits to the
people we are here to serve. We must make sure that we are not
putting any of them at risk.
I commend the member for the bill. I commend all the members of
the House who have spoken on this so eloquently. I think my
comments have encapsulated what many of the members have said,
that we do need to step carefully into this arena and make sure
that we are taking every precaution. As we do in
pharmaceuticals, certainly we need to do the same thing in this
arena.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
I will now lay Motion No. 2 before the House.
Mrs. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-247 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 3 the
following new clause:
“2. This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of
the Governor in Council.”
1820
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am obviously
extremely frustrated with this amendment, which reads as
follows:
For clarity, for the benefit of the public, this means that, if
passed, the bill will not be allowed to follow the normal course
and the government will be able to set the date when it should
come into force, that is probably never as the government is
likely to introduce its own bill to take all the credit—because
we all know how much this government craves visibility—for
prohibiting human cloning.
The purpose of this amendment is basically to make the coming
into force of the ban on human cloning subject to a government
order. On the surface, this amendment may seem totally
innocuous, while in fact it has a great deal of importance,
because we cannot afford to wait much longer. Immediate action
is required. We know how slow and superficial the government has
been on this issue. This kind of amendment is tantamount to
blocking the coming into force of the prohibition on human
cloning.
Ten years ago, already, the Baird commission was established.
The commission clearly indicated that it was urgent that we act
and legislate on reproductive technologies, one of which is
human cloning. Four years of studies, 40,000 witnesses and $28
million later, the Baird Commission tabled its report in
November 1993. We are now in 1999.
Ten years after the Baird commission was set up, no clear rules
have yet been established to regulate medically assisted
reproductive technologies.
Then, we had a voluntary moratorium which was ridiculed by all
the opposition parties and by all the relevant organizations.
This is unthinkable: a voluntary moratorium. We are supposed to
have a monitoring committee, but it never released any report,
and we have a voluntary moratorium. Who is checking in the labs
to see what scientists are doing in terms of genetic and cell
manipulation to perhaps clone human beings? Such research is
already being conducted in some labs, but does that mean it is
not going on in Canada? We cannot assume that. Therefore, this
voluntary moratorium is meaningless. As I said, people were
totally indifferent to it.
Then we had the advisory group set up by the government to
monitor the implementation of the moratorium and the
developments in NRTs, and to advise the Minister of Health in
this area. As I said earlier, we never heard from that
monitoring agency.
On June 14, 1996, the then Minister of Health introduced Bill
C-47. During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Health,
witnesses told us they had a number of reservations about the
bill, because it was inappropriate and did not deal with what
should have been regulated. These people told us certain things,
including the fact that human cloning and genetic manipulation
are two completely different issues and that they should be
dealt with separately.
The bill died on the Order Paper. It was fine with the
government to have it die on the Order Paper, because it did not
know what to do with it.
So, we were promised that the government would come back, at
some point in time, with a bill that would be more acceptable to
the scientific community and to the population as a whole.
We have been trying to ask questions at times, but the answers
are always vague. We are told to wait, as the minister said
today when we put the question to him. We are told that
appropriate legislation will soon be introduced.
1825
We have been waiting for 10 years. We have been hearing about
this issue for 20 years. We have had 10 years of promises but
nothing has been done yet.
The Bloc Quebecois has introduced Bill C-247, which, at least,
would be a first step. We are very conscious of the fact that it
does not solve the whole issue of assisted reproductive
technologies, but it would at least prohibit human cloning,
which is just around the corner.
I recommend that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Health read what is being written on this subject and she will
see that human cloning is just around the corner. It is not a
matter of waiting to hear what the scientists have to say. It is
here; the studies have been done.
So why does the government not prohibit human cloning under the
Criminal Code? Incredibly enough, it refuses to do so. It
continues to wait, but for what? For another scandal like the
tainted blood scandal?
Nothing has been done in Canada to fill the legal and moral void
surrounding medically assisted reproduction even though the
international community has been working for several years to
set acceptable limits in this field. Again, Canada is not
keeping pace.
Members of the international community seem unanimous in their
opposition to any form of human cloning. Concerns about possible
cloning attempts are legitimate. No one has yet been able to
show that this can be done without creating serious ethical
problems.
The scientific community, even the researchers who succeeded in
cloning Dolly, have stated that they have no intention of trying
to clone a human being in future. It is obvious that,
regardless of how stringent the legislation is that governs such
research activities, the issue of human cloning involves the
international community.
In this connection, the President of France, Jacques Chirac,
recently stated that the main problem with cloning was an
international one, in that this practice must be banned
world-wide, right now, not two or three years down the road.
First, UNESCO adopted a universal declaration on the human
genome and human rights which bans the cloning of humans in
article 11.
The World Health Organization also asked member states to take
steps at the legislative and legal levels to ban human cloning.
In March 1997, while I was present, it passed a resolution
stating that the use of cloning for human reproduction is not
ethical, because doing so violates certain fundamental
principles of medically assisted procreation, including respect
for human dignity and protecting the security of human genetic
material. I could also tell you about the European countries.
In the United States—Canada often looks to the United States
for guidance—President Clinton spoke out against cloning and
announced that the government would not fund any project
involving its use.
Where is our Prime Minister's statement on human cloning? We
hear it will be coming soon. Soon.
A number of countries in Europe and Asia have adopted measures
to ban human cloning or are in the process of doing so. We must
do our part to close the door on these practices, and Bill C-247
must be passed so it can be applied immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order
paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
December 4, I asked a question in this House but did not get an
answer—
Mrs. Pauline Picard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I must inform the hon. member that points of
order are out of order during adjournment proceedings. This is
where we are. These proceedings have started. The hon. member is
welcome to raise the matter tomorrow.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, my question was as
follows:
For the second time since 1996, the auditor general concludes in
a report that the federal government still does not have a
complete picture of the various environmental hazards posed by
the 5,000 contaminated federal sites.
It is a very important issue. The environmental liabilities
related to contaminated sites exceed $2 billion, excluding
radioactive waste management costs. The government must take
action now.
These pollutants come from government laboratories, military
bases, harbours and ports, airports, training facilities and
reserve lands.
The diversity and number of contaminated federal sites—more
than 5,000—show the scope and severity of the problem.
These sites contain PCBs, hydrocarbons, mine tailings, heavy
metals, other waste materials and chemicals. The presence of
numerous toxic substances reminds us of the urgent need to take
action. We must avoid spreading contaminants that could be
harmful to our health and our environment, which would mean
additional costs.
In his 1996, 1997 and December 1998 reports, the auditor general
reiterates that it is an important problem to which the
government seems totally oblivious.
In this context, I would like to know what the Minister of the
Environment has to say on this issue.
When will she be able to convince her cabinet colleagues that
this is a priority and that the government must act as soon as
possible, provide us with a complete list of environmental
hazards, adopt an environmental policy and announce that it is
providing the responsible departments with the necessary
resources to address the problem of contaminated sites?
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say I agree with the
hon. member that federal contaminated sites is an issue which
must be taken seriously.
Like my colleague in the House, I concur with the auditor
general's environmental representative, the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development, that there is a need for
central leadership and a consistent framework to enable the
federal government to address its contaminated sites.
To this end Environment Canada officials in co-operation with
Treasury Board are currently working toward future options and
will be advising the environment minister in the future. In
addition I point out that we also agree with the auditor
general's assessment that although a management framework is
conspicuously absent progress has been made in dealing with the
legacy of contaminated sites.
For example, we introduced a pollution prevention approach to
environmental management right across the board to prevent
further contamination. Over 4,000 federal sites have undergone
some form of environmental assessment and 300 more are currently
being assessed. To date over $130 million have been spent on the
assessment and remediation of federal sites.
We have worked closely with other governments testing new
technologies and developing management tools such as the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment national classification
system. We have encouraged and supported the work of the
interdepartmental committee dealing with federal contaminated
sites and progress has been made by Environment Canada in
addressing sites in its portfolio.
In addition to carrying out a comprehensive site inventory
Environment Canada has completed phase 1 and phase 2
environmental site assessments at Environment Canada sites across
the country.
Clean up at two high priority sites has been concluded and
remediation is under way at another four. Such work is
integrated with Environment Canada's environment management
system which underpins the department's sustainable development
strategy.
I thank the member for her interest and encourage her to
maintain a watchful eye on our progress. Improvements of this
magnitude will not occur overnight. We are committed to
developing a long term solution to what has been a long term
problem. The minister will be happy to report back further.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)