36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 221
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 4, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
1005
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Human Resources Development and Status of Persons with
|
| Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| PETITIONS
|
| The Family
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Animal Abuse
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1010
| Air Transport
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Housing in Nunavik
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Young Offenders
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Canadian Wheat Board
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| The Senate of Canada
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Yugoslavia
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-71. Report Stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 1
|
1020
1025
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1030
1035
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1040
1045
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1050
1055
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1100
1105
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1110
1115
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1120
1125
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1130
1135
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1140
1145
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1150
1155
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1200
1205
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1210
1215
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1220
1225
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1230
1235
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1240
1245
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1250
1255
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1300
1305
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1310
1315
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1320
1325
| Mr. Ted White |
1330
1335
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1340
1345
1350
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE STEVE CHIASSON
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1400
| KOSOVO REFUGEES
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| DR. CROSBY JOHNSTON
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| WORLD WAR II
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| ROCKY ELEMENTARY STUDENTS
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1405
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| JASON LANG
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| GRAND PRIX D'EXCELLENCE-MODE QUÉBEC
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1410
| CANADA POST
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| SHAG HARBOUR FIRE
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| MEMBER FOR CALGARY SOUTHEAST
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1425
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| RAIL SAFETY
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| PREMIER OF ONTARIO
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. John Manley |
1430
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1435
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1440
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| RAIL SAFETY
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1445
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1450
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. John Manley |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1455
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION PLAN
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| STATISTICS CANADA
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1500
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments during Question Period
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| 1999 BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-71. Report stage
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1510
1515
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1520
1525
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1530
1535
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1540
1545
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1550
1555
| Recorded division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Report stage
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1600
1605
| Mr. John Cummins |
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1625
1630
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Motion
|
| Natural Resources and Government Operations
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Report stage
|
| Division on Motions in Group No. 2 Deferred
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Motions Nos. 11, 12, 25, 27, 28 and 29
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Motions Nos. 30 and 31
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Motion No. 32
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Motion No. 33
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Motions Nos. 34 and 36
|
1635
1640
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1645
1650
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1655
1700
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1705
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1710
1715
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1720
1725
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1735
1740
1745
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1750
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1755
1800
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1805
1810
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1815
| Mr. John Bryden |
1820
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 221
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 4, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[Translation]
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 two
petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
The Speaker: I have the honour, pursuant to section 66 of
the Official Languages Act, to lay upon the table the annual
report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the calendar
year 1998.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(a), this report is deemed
permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official
Languages.
* * *
1005
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the report of the Canadian branch of the
Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, as well as the
financial report.
The report relates to the political committee meeting held in
Cairo, Egypt, on February 23 and 24, 1999.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, a
unanimous report, namely the fourth report of the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities.
[English]
I would like to express special thanks to our committee clerk,
Danielle Parent-Bélisle, and researchers Sandra Harder and Bill
Young for diligently meeting all committee deadlines. I wish to
personally thank all members of the committee for their
tremendous collaboration and co-operation on the modernization of
Canada's social insurance number system.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present to the House a report from the Canadian branch of the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 48th
Commonwealth parliamentary seminar which was held from March 2 to
March 13, 1999 in Westminster, United Kingdom.
* * *
PETITIONS
THE FAMILY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these petitions
keep pouring in. Today I have another 109 signatures on a
petition that calls for fairness for families who choose to have
one parent stay at home to look after their children instead of
farming them out to others. There are 109 names, mostly from
people of Sherwood Park and Gibbons, in the wonderful riding of
Elk Island.
ANIMAL ABUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area who
are concerned about cruelty to pets. They point out that there
is mounting evidence of a link between animal abuse and domestic
violence, and violence against people in general, and that
essentially the Criminal Code regards animals as property and
offences against them as little more than property offences.
1010
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to work toward
swift and effective action that works to modernize Canada's laws
dealing with crimes against animals and that the penalties for
such actions be made strict enough to act as a deterrent against
such behaviour.
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am tabling in the House today a petition
signed by 2,000 constituents in the riding of Charlevoix.
In the light of past events, the number of passengers and the
amount of traffic annually at the Baie-Comeau airport, the
petitioners ask Parliament for a reassessment of the safety
criteria and the construction of a control tower or flight
information station to ensure greater air safety.
Federal government cuts to regional airports must stop, because
they jeopardize passenger safety.
HOUSING IN NUNAVIK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to table a petition from the Inuit community of
Kangirsuk in Nunavik.
According to the petitioners, between 16 and 20 people are
living in three bedroom accommodation. The Inuit are very upset
at the housing conditions in Nunavik. They consider the
situation intolerable. It is causing increased incidence of
tuberculosis, infectious disease and social problems.
The federal government must honour its obligations under the
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement as far as housing in
Nunavik is concerned.
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to present three petitions on behalf of the
good people of Dauphin—Swan River.
The first petition asks the House to aid in the ongoing problems
with young offenders in this country. Crimes committed by young
offenders, such as murder, rape, arson and robbery, have
increased in recent years and stronger laws have to be enforced.
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the second petition the petitioners request parliament to
advise the government to mandate the Canadian Wheat Board to
deliver its grain shipments to the port of Churchill, which
offers the most advantageous cost to producers, and that it
require purveyors to guarantee seamless car interchange between
CN, CP, the Hudson Bay Railway Company and other short lines.
THE SENATE OF CANADA
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the third petition the petitioners of Dauphin—Swan River
request parliament to advise the government to summon a fit and
qualified person, democratically elected by Canadian citizens
residing in Manitoba, to take a place in the Senate of Canada
whenever a seat becomes vacant.
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed
by a number of Canadians, including those of my riding of Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
The petitioners call upon parliament to amend the decision to
participate in NATO military action against Yugoslavia, to call
upon our allies in NATO to cease their participation in the
undeclared war against Yugoslavia and to support a peaceful
solution to the crisis in Yugoslavia which is fair and acceptable
to all sides.
The petition contains some 2,700 signatures.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-71, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
on February 16, 1999, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): A motion in amendment
stands on the notice paper regarding the report stage of Bill
C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled
in parliament on February 16, 1999.
[English]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on.
[Translation]
I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That
Bill C-71, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 13 to 43 on
page 3 and line 1 on page 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, earlier I was listening to the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who was not
pleased because we want to delete some lines in his minister's
bill. But we are extremely happy to propose the deletion of
these lines. We hope that all parliamentarians in this House
will realize that our motion only makes sense.
Bill C-71 includes measures that are clearly inadequate, such as
those designed to fight poverty, particularly child poverty.
The legislation also includes measures that are outrageous. I
will just mention the unilateral change in how the Canada health
and social transfer is distributed among the provinces.
As for child poverty, one would have expected that, in this
budget, the Minister of Finance and the whole cabinet would have
shown a little more compassion.
There is some improvement with regard to the national child
benefit. This is clearly not enough, given that the Minister
of Finance could have taken that measure as early as last year,
let alone this year, with the huge surpluses that are
accumulating daily in the federal treasury.
Last year, that is during the fiscal year that ended on March
31, 1999, the Minister of Finance accumulated a surplus of $15
billion. He used almost all of that money to pay off part of the
debt. The minister could have taken a more balanced approach.
There is balance and there is balance; a balanced approach
should also be taken to making choices about how the tax dollars
of Quebecers and Canadians should be spent.
The Minister of Finance could have set aside a few billion
dollars of this surplus of $15 billion, instead of handing it
over to creditors who do not need it. He could have waited a
few more months. He could have used this money to further
increase the national child tax benefit.
Do people realize what this increase in the child tax benefit
will mean in dollars for low and middle income families? It
will put an additional $180 to $350 a year into their pockets.
This benefit for Canada's poorest children is not a lot when
compared to the substantial tax relief the Minister of Finance
made available to top income earners.
Here is an example: the savings for someone earning $250,000 a
year will be $3,000 a year starting this year and continuing in
subsequent years. A child who probably goes hungry every day
gets an additional $350 a year at most, while someone with an
income of $250,000 gets a $3,000 tax break.
Did the Minister of Finance make the right choice? From the
standpoint of equity, social justice, and compassion, it is the
worst choice a finance minister has made in quite a few years.
Let me give the figures again: a surplus of $15 billion for the
fiscal year just ended. This year, if the tax dollars continue
to come in at the same rate, the Minister of Finance will have
over $20 billion in the surplus at the very least.
It seems to me that he could have made an effort. He could have
kept back some of this money to help poor families.
1020
This clown rises just about every day in this House to proclaim
his desire to improve the lot of the most disadvantaged members
of society and of the children of Canada who are living in
poverty. He ought to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
For years we have been waiting for some action from this man,
and none has yet been forthcoming.
It would have been very simple for him for several years, and
this year even more so, to plug up the tax loopholes, as we have
been promised every year since 1993. He had even told us that,
in 1999, the famous family trust loophole would be eliminated.
We will recall that, in 1996, the auditor general had uncovered
a scandal involving two family trusts with total assets in
excess of $2 billion, which had been transferred to the United
States without a single cent of tax being levied, a loss of some
$600 million or $700 million in taxes to Revenue Canada.
Those trusts were allowed to escape. This year, the Minister of
Finance promised that this leak and the tax loophole that made
it possible would be plugged. This has not yet happened. The
Minister of Finance has not yet done anything about the tax
loophole which makes tax evasion possible for millionaires and
billionaires, with his blessing, while Canada's poorest children
get $180 a year from him.
This is unfair.
It is not logical to see children going hungry, while tax
loopholes are being maintained for millionaires. These loopholes
save them hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. To give a
tax saving of $3,000 to those with an income of $250,000 and
over but only between $180 and $350 to the poorest families in
this country does not make any sense.
The Minister of Finance is also still talking about the tax
reductions to middle income taxpayers. These, however, are not
real. There is talk of broadening the base for GST credits,
which is good news. But when one looks at what this means at
the end of the day, given how much taxpayers are paying out,
since ours is among the highest taxation levels in the world,
this is all smoke and mirrors.
Let us see, since 1986, how Quebec and Canadian taxpayers have
had to pay out because the tax tables and the entire tax system
are not fully indexed.
Between 1986 and 1996, the fact that income tax on supplementary
income did not take into account the increase in the cost of
living, the GST credits did not reflect the change in the cost
of living above 3% inflation, federal family allowances were not
fully indexed as they should be, the child tax credit had to be
paid back, all this and the fact that all Canadian tax measures
are not indexed meant that between 1986 and 1996 average Quebec
families paying tax to Ottawa—for a while yet, perhaps several
years—paid $7,000 more than they should have paid had the tax
tables been fully indexed.
Residents of Ontario subject to the same mechanisms as Quebec
taxpayers paid $10,000 too much. Had the tax tables been fully
indexed, we would have had this as net income in our pockets
over a ten year period from 1986 to 1996.
The cup is nowhere near our lips. We are nowhere near
substantial reductions in taxes, when our tax system
systematically robs us because taxes are not indexed. This is
the first thing the Minister of Finance should have done when he
took office, had he been a little more dynamic and stopped
watching the economy work for him and the provinces and the
unemployed doing his work by eliminating the deficit and
increasing the surplus. But he did not.
We have a lazy Minister of Finance, who lets things go as they
will, but takes all the credit.
He does not say that every year he creams off the employment
insurance surplus, which represents several billion dollars.
1025
We are now talking $20 billion that were literally grabbed by
the minister from the fund. But he does not mention that. He
does not mention that he starved the provinces, through the
Canada social transfer, of cash needed to fund health,
post-secondary education and social assistance. No, the minister
says nothing on that score.
He does not mention that it is the unemployed, the workers
contributing to the employment insurance fund and the provinces
that did the job for him. He is taking all the credit. He is
no doubt getting ready for the leadership race. This is
outrageous. It is despicable to play petty politics on the backs
of the poor, as the minister is doing, while taking credit for
the sacrifices made by others. This is shameful.
As for the Canada social transfer, the Minister of Finance had a
little surprise in store for us in the last budget. Without any
warning, without informing anyone, he decided that, to reward
some provinces, particularly Ontario, which was so quick to get
down on its knees to sign the social union framework agreement,
but also British Columbia and Alberta, he would give them a nice
present, again without informing Quebec.
Ontario was probably in the know. Mike Harris reacted so
strongly during the first few minutes of the budget speech, that
he could not possibly not have known.
The minister offered these provinces to change the method,
based on population, used to distribute the money from the
Canada social transfer. The result of this was that Quebec lost
$350 million annually, while Ontario got about 50% of the Canada
social transfer.
My motion today seeks, among other things, to change the
calculation method announced without warning by the Minister of
Finance, and to revert to criteria based on the province's
needs, as was previously the case.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise and debate Bill C-71 today. I will start by
addressing the amendment from the Bloc Quebecois.
I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleague from the
Bloc but I simply do not know of any fairer way of dispersing the
CHST other than on a per capita basis. While I understand his
concerns, I must disagree with him and say that per capita is the
way to go.
Having said that, I certainly have grave concerns with Bill
C-71. I think it is an example of the failure of the government
to understand the real legitimate concerns of Canadians. To put
this into context, I simply have to refer to the remarks by the
Prime Minister that we read in the newspaper this morning. He
said that Canadians did not need to have tax relief in a big way
any time soon, that he would basically take his time reducing
taxes and that what we really needed was bigger government. He
said that we needed to spend more money on making government
bigger.
I do not think I can find words to express how much I disagree
with that whole approach that the government is taking. We see
it again in Bill C-71 where we have a piece of legislation that
is absolutely bereft of tax relief at a time when Canadians have
made it very clear that we need to have tax relief.
I want to back up for a second. Last year we saw the government
go about $3 billion over budget in its program spending; this
year it was $7.6 billion roughly. At every turn, the government
is taking steps to ensure that the surplus never gets big enough
that there is money to actually give back to Canadians in the
form of lower taxes. It is critical that starts to happen.
Across the hallway in the finance committee right now, we have
experts from around the country who are coming to talk to us
about the issue of productivity. Again, the government seems to
think that we can make the country more productive by spending
more on social programs and by having a children's budget in the
next budget. We reject that.
We say that the way to make everybody better off, the way to
make children better off is to start lowering taxes. If we do
that, people will not only have more money in their pockets
directly because taxes will have come down, but we will have all
this increased activity in the economy. When that happens, there
will be more jobs created, more people actually paying income tax
and ultimately more revenues coming into the government for
important things like paying down debt and even reinvesting in
health care.
1030
Government members seem to think it is a better approach to take
that surplus. They assumes it belongs to them and not the
taxpayers, which I think is crazy. It is standing on its head
the idea of delegation to the federal government from the people.
They take that money and spend it in a way they think is best,
not realizing that 30 million Canadians have different priorities
they want to spend that money on.
I emphasize the government's approach is wrong headed. The
degree of tax relief it proposes to offer is of such tiny
magnitude that it could not possibly have the impact it hopes it
will have. It is a question both of direction and of degree.
I also want to refer to a red herring which the Prime Minister
tossed out in his remarks as reported in this morning's
newspaper. He said that we do not want to be like the United
States and if our taxes are cut to the degree of the United
States we will somehow be like the United States and have all the
problems it has. I want to tackle those comments head on.
I reject the idea that prosperity is purely a United States
phenomenon. It is ridiculous. It is a red herring. The Prime
Minister is desperately trying to create the spectre of a U.S.
style economy with U.S. style health care and all the things
Canadians have made very clear they reject, simply so he can get
out of lowering taxes.
I suggest to the Prime Minister and to the government across the
way that it was not very long ago when we were the economic
betters of the United States. We had taxes that were lower but
still had our own country. We had our own set of values and we
were not at all like the United States. We had prosperity that
equalled and was even better than that of the United States. Why
can we not have that again? I think we can. We can have our own
priorities and be prosperous.
What does the government have against an improved standard of
living? After all, the industry minister pointed out that our
standard of living has fallen behind that of the United States.
According to the industry minister our standard of living fell
behind those of the poorest deep south American states of
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana.
The official opposition believes we can have prosperity and
still be uniquely Canadian. Because we have low taxes we do not
need to be exactly like the Americans. The Prime Minister is
dragging this issue out so he can avoid the whole debate about
tax relief, simply because he would much rather spend that money
and have his bureaucrats and people in government spend that
money as opposed to leaving it in the pockets of individual
Canadians who desperately need it.
The standard of living of Canadians is being eroded every day.
Canadians have made it clear they would like to see that money
used to redress some of the inequalities in the tax system.
We had a debate in the House not long ago brought on by
questioning of the junior finance minister by the official
opposition. We pointed out that single income families were
discriminated against in the Canadian tax code. We should be
using that surplus to give some tax relief to single income
families that are struggling to get by. They have seen their
standard of living eroded. They want to give their children and
ultimately their grandchildren a better life than they have had.
I think that is exactly what all parents aspire to.
They will not get if if the surplus is used to build bigger
bureaucracies, big social programs, and make government bigger at
a time when government is full of waste and continues to misspend
that money. Government is not omniscient. It does not know what
people will use that money for in their individual private lives.
People should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves.
For all their talk across the way about compassion, I must point
out that we could be using that surplus to reduce the
unbelievable levels of taxation on Canada's poor.
1035
Believe it or not, the government takes $6 billion a year from
Canadians earning less than $20,000 a year in taxes: every year
$3.7 billion in income taxes and $2.3 billion in payroll taxes.
The Liberals talk a good game about cutting taxes and trying to
help the poor but at the end of the day they tax the hide out of
Canada's poor. That is unbelievable. It is time to reverse that
trend. It is time to start to push up those basic exemptions a
lot further than the piddling tax relief they obtained from the
government in the recent budget. It is time to lower rates. It
is time to eliminate the inequalities in the tax system to get
rid of bracket creep, the inflation tax the government has
profited by over the last several years at the expense of
taxpayers.
Bill C-71 is inadequate. I do not think it addresses the
priorities of Canadians. It continues to tax at ridiculous
rates. It is time to reverse that trend and use that surplus to
start to ease the burden of long suffering Canadian taxpayers.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I was looking forward to speaking to report stage of
Bill C-71. I certainly understand the situation my colleagues
from the Bloc and those from Newfoundland are encountering with
respect to transfers to the provinces. However we have to look
at the issue in a broader way and use very understandable
language.
It is very clear that poverty is increasing in the country. I
do not think anyone could argue that. We have 500,000 more
children living in poverty since the Liberals came to power. The
Liberals are bragging that the country is doing better than ever.
I certainly would not want them to start saying that we are not
doing very well, because then definitely there would be a lot of
people in trouble.
There is nothing in Bill C-71 to help the children living in
poverty. The same children who were hungry before the last
budget are still hungry today. That will not change unless the
government changes its direction. Unfortunately we have an
official opposition that is pushing the Liberal government to cut
even further.
Earlier a Reform member referred to social programs as being a
waste. I find that very unfortunate. I hope people who need
social programs recognize what is being said in the House
sometimes by the same parties that are trying to tell Canadians
they care about what is happening to poor children.
Perhaps some in the House would like to talk about the poor
bankers, but I would rather talk about poor children and the poor
parents. My goal is to try to help the children and the
teenagers who are living in great difficulty.
[Translation]
There are serious problems in this country. There are students
who accumulate $40,000 in debt during four years of university.
They have a mortgage on their home and have still not even found
a job. Someone should talk with them and begin to give them
some hope.
Since June 2, 1997, when I was elected, I have not seen much
done to give hope to young people, to single parent families
living on welfare or inadequate salaries. These people cannot
afford day care.
If we look at what the Liberals promised in 1993, a national day
care program was right up there. What became of this promise
that was so important in 1993? They have had enough time to
implement this program. But instead they decided to go after
the surpluses.
And where did they look? In the EI fund, which belongs to
employees and employers and which is there to help employees
through periods of unemployment when times are tough.
1040
The Minister of Finance is quite a creative fellow. The
President of the Treasury as well is starting to take a pretty
creative approach to the pension fund of federal employees. The
two of them went after $25 billion in the EI fund and $30
billion in the pension fund respectively.
Questions are in order when people contribute to a pension fund
and, overnight, the government can decide to lay claim to it and
say that it belongs to all taxpayers. A look needs to be taken
at who actually contributed to this fund.
When the government cut the EI program, the result was
widespread poverty.
Today the 500,000 children who are poorer than they were in 1993
have not benefited from a better economy. That is not true. It
is a known fact that the ones who benefit from a better economy
are the richest people in this country. The gap between rich
and poor is wider than it has ever been in this country.
The decisions taken by governments have helped one group, the
people who already had money, while causing suffering to many
families. We see the results in our communities. We see the
results of a lack of job creation. We see the lack of
understanding of the situation in the Atlantic provinces, when
we hear comments made here about those people not wanting to
work.
The reality in our regions must be seen first hand. We live in
regions where the jobs are seasonal. Last week, they were
calling for 20 centimetres of snow down there, while people were
going around in shorts here in Ottawa.
The tourists wandering around Parliament Hill are not doing the
same on the beaches of New Brunswick, at this time of year. We
can still see ice on the beaches.
This must be understood: we live in a country of great
diversity. This requires a strong central government with a
desire to continue to help the entire country, not just the few
richest provinces, which is what we are seeing today.
It is a great pity that we again had a budget that does not
respond to the needs of everyone in the country, just those of a
few provinces and a few groups. The rich get richer and the
poor get poorer. Children who went hungry before the budget are
still hungry, and will continue to be. One day, I hope, we will
have a government with a conscience.
The Minister of Finance should visit food banks, as I did a
month or two ago, and meet the families that have to rely on
these food banks. We must get it out of our heads that people
are just pretending that they need to go to food banks. Not too
many people get up in the morning and muse about which food bank
they will go to, to get their groceries.
The majority of people going to food banks need help. The
Minister of Finance should have dinner in one of these places
every now and then, instead of eating with his friends, the
bankers. He might reconsider some of the decisions he is making.
The problem today is that too many people making decisions are
associated with just one group. The Prime Minister put the
Minister of Labour in charge of the homeless issue, but we have
yet to see any related budget or structure.
Very little action has been taken.
I am convinced the minister is prepared to do her job. However,
she must be provided with the necessary tools to do it properly.
I am convinced that, so far, she has not been given the
resources she needs. She will not be able to do her job until
she gets those resources.
I hope that, in the future, opposition parties will start
looking after the interests of the poor in this country. This is
difficult to do when the official opposition's goal is to lower
taxes. But at what cost? Some provinces need help. Our party
says that a tax reform is in order, because there are people who
should not be paying taxes, while there are others who do pay
taxes but should be paying more. We all recognize that, but we
must also recognize that social programs are needed.
We need to help those who are suffering.
The $42 billion deficit has been eliminated.
1045
Who paid off part of that deficit? It is the unemployed, the
elderly and the young university graduates with debts of $40,000
or $50,000. It is these people who eliminated the $42 billion
deficit. We must help them, because they are in need.
Bill C-71 clearly does not meet the needs of all Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-71, the budget
implementation act.
I am going to address some specific and very important issues
which I feel the budget has not addressed fully. Then I will
speak in a more general sense about tax relief. The time
constraint of 10 minutes does not allow for a detailed discussion
of some of these issues, but I will focus on a few specific areas
that I feel the government has failed to address.
The first area the government had an opportunity to address more
fully was EI premiums. The government says that it has reduced
EI premiums over a period of time, but the fact is it has
maintained EI premiums at a rate that is significantly higher
than the necessary rate of $2 per $100 contribution. That rate
would be enough to sustain the EI fund even during an economic
downturn.
The question that has to be asked is why would the government
want to maintain a direct tax on jobs, a payroll tax that
directly reduces the incentives for companies to expand and hire
more workers at a time when we have unemployment rates in Canada
at twice those of the U.S. Why would the government want to do
this?
The government has slashed benefits to an extent that only 30%
of those making EI contributions can actually withdraw or qualify
for EI benefits when they are in need. At the same time it is
maintaining unnecessarily high premiums to create a surplus that
can help pad the government's books in other areas. The
government is trying to make its numbers look better.
It is consistent with the government's actions in Bill C-78.
That legislation will effectively provide the government a
mechanism by which to access the $30 billion surplus in the
superannuation fund. Again the government is trying to find any
means by which it can pad its books, use the money for other
unrelated spending and create a less transparent process, a more
Byzantine and circuitous fiscal process.
The government hopes that Canadians will not be able to figure
out what is going on with the federal budget process and that
Canadians will not realize the degree to which a real tax cut,
significant broad based tax relief, is possible in Canada. At
the same time, this provides the government with the opportunity
to spend more of Canadians' money on programs it deems are
important.
There is the issue of the seasonal worker. In the finance
committee we are talking about productivity issues. I would
assert that the issue of the seasonal worker in Canada is one
that should be incorporated into this discussion.
There was a time in Atlantic Canada when much of the workforce
was employed seasonally, particularly in the fisheries, forestry,
agriculture, and other industries which are inherently seasonal.
The government through its changes in the EI program has
effectively eliminated the opportunities that once existed for
seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada.
The government thought that if it eliminated the potential for
seasonal workers to draw EI, more of them would be working. I do
not know where the government's leap of faith came from, but the
fact is the result of its policy has been perversely to create
disincentives for individuals who did work seasonally to work at
all.
Currently these disincentives have been created for those who
did work in seasonal industries in Atlantic Canada, Quebec or
rural Canada. Those people did work at least part of the time
and contributed.
They are facing a direct disincentive to working at all. Many of
them are on provincial social assistance programs.
1050
This has caused an increase in poverty. This has caused
increased strains on the provincial governments which are facing
other cutbacks and now have to face a higher social burden
because the government has tried to create this huge surplus
within the EI fund to pad its books.
The issue of high marginal tax rates in Canada has to be
addressed. I recently participated in the Canadian Tax
Foundation's annual conference. The theme came up over and over
again that our high marginal tax rates, particularly relative to
those in the U.S., need to be addressed. While the government
has tinkered a little bit around the fringes, it has failed to
deal not just with tax reduction but with a more holistic set of
tax reforms.
There has not been meaningful tax reform in Canada since the
late 1980s under the previous government. This government is
ignoring some of the significant issues we have, particularly the
huge tax gap between Canada and the U.S.
Innumerable reports have provided information to the government
on how to reform both personal and corporate taxes to create a
more competitive environment, better productivity, less
disincentives for Canadians who want to succeed here in Canada.
The latest of these reports was the Mintz tax report that came
out in June to which the government has not really responded. In
all likelihood that report will collect dust because the
recommendations are so good that the government is afraid to
implement them. The political will is not there.
In 1994 Industry Canada worked with the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business and other organizations to write the report,
“Breaking through Barriers: Forging our Future”. It was a
great report that addressed tax issues and regulations and all
kinds of policies that should have been dealt with. Again, the
government has shelved the report.
The industry minister said earlier this week that in the
upcoming budget he would like to see 50% of the budget dedicated
to productivity and 50% dedicated to lower taxes, the inference
being that lower taxes have nothing to do with productivity. This
is the same industry minister who said a few months ago that high
taxes may help improve productivity because they would make
people work harder. They would have to work harder to pay the
burden of a bloated government.
Yesterday we read the Prime Minister's comments in the
National Post that the so-called brain drain will not be
reversed through lower taxes alone, that it would take the kind
of positive actions we have already taken to foster economic
dynamism. Effectively the Prime Minister is saying that only the
government can create positive action and foster economic
dynamism. The Prime Minister is still focused on a 1970s command
style economy. He is ignoring the fact that true economic growth
can only come through unfettering the Canadian public from an
over-burdening tax system that continues to pummel productivity
and continues to pummel initiative.
The Liberals still believe we can spend our way to higher levels
of productivity and that somehow we can create initiatives
through government that can somehow exceed the level of growth
that is possible from the private sector.
It is interesting that one of the members opposite said “Let's
hear it for Brian Mulroney”. I think he has an incredibly
important point. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney reduced
the deficit as a percentage of GDP from 9% in 1984 when it was at
$38 billion in 1984 dollars to around 5% by the time he left
office. He reduced government program spending growth from 15%
to 0% by the time he left office. He implemented the free trade
agreement, against the wishes of the Liberals of course, and the
GST. By the way, I read recently the current finance minister's
comments on the GST back when he was a critic, that the Liberal
government would be tearing up and getting rid of the GST.
The fact is those were the types of policies and initiatives,
the long term approach to very serious issues that Canada faced
then, which this government should be trying to effect and
produce now.
1055
Instead of taking a crisis management knee-jerk reaction
approach to issues, instead of using Liberal focus group and poll
driven economics as opposed to true economically sound and rooted
policies that will drive productivity and growth into the 21st
century, the Liberals continue to focus on the short term
politically palatable. They ignore what in the long term will
provide the type of growth Canadians need in the 21st century.
They ignore the types of initiatives that will actually generate
a Canada that in the 21st century will be leading the world in
productivity instead of being embarrassed by the fact that Canada
continues to lag and is underperforming relative to the other
economies.
I look forward to the comments of the other members.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the
parties' representatives as they spoke on this motion. With the
exception of the mover of the motion and the Reform Party which
spent all of five seconds on the particular motion, I do not
believe there is very much support in this House for a motion
that attempts to gut the equal per capita formula that is in
place. That is in fact saying that what we are attempting to do
in providing each and every Canadian with an equal amount of
transfer from the federal government to the provincial government
is somehow unfair. Essentially the Bloc is saying that it is
unfair for the federal government to treat each and every
Canadian regardless of what province they come from in a manner
that is fair and equitable.
What we have done is eliminated the cap on CAP, a program and an
initiative which was put in place in 1990 by the previous
Conservative government. It limited growth of the CAP payments
to Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Now that our fiscal
situation has improved, this government is in a position to
correct this inequity, which is what we are doing with Bill C-71.
All provinces, including Quebec, will get the same amount of
money per person of the new CHST health money. It is only fair
that Canadians regardless of where they live receive equal
federal support for health and other social programs.
When the Bloc and the Government of Quebec cry foul, they are
really distorting the facts to suit their purposes. The figure
they talk about does not in any way include the new funds the
Government of Quebec receives under the equalization program.
When we count the equalization programs, Quebec will be getting
34% of the total increase in federal transfer payments announced
in the last budget. That is quite a bit higher than Quebec's 24%
share of the Canadian population.
I find it somewhat disturbing and obviously quite ironic that
the Bloc would get up today and ask that members of this federal
House support a motion that essentially says to Canadians that we
do not want to treat them in a fair and equitable manner, that we
do not want the federal government to transfer moneys to each and
every province of this federation in a way that reflects their
population so that an equal per capita amount of money is
transferred. I find that disturbing.
I call upon members of this House to support the bill and to
vote against this motion. Members would find it very hard to go
back to their constituencies and say that they supported as
members of parliament a motion in the federal House that said
that we do not want to treat each and every Canadian in an
equitable manner.
With that being said, there is not a lot more to say on the
motion with one exception. The Bloc member said that there were
unilateral changes made to the transfers to the provinces. I
must correct that statement with some fact.
I point to the number of meetings over the past couple of years
that our finance officials had with the finance officials from
the various provinces and their counterparts. They dealt with all
questions involving transfers to the provinces. At each of the
meetings the subject of the CHST allocation among the provinces
was raised.
1100
At a meeting of ministers of finance last June the province
presented a document proposing an amended allocation formula,
whereby all provinces were to receive an equal amount per capita.
Two methods were proposed and the government chose one method
that was the fairest to the less well off provinces. The current
legislation allows for moving in this direction and removing the
disparities completely in the years to come.
I mention the equalization program because it is important to
note that along with the technical improvements being proposed to
the equalization program again Quebec receives more than its fair
share in that respect as well.
I want to turn for a second to each comment made by the various
parties so far. The Bloc talked about helping kids but did not
feel that a transfer to the provinces was essentially
responsible. I am sure members of the Bloc would not at this
time be proposing, in their minds at least, that the government
intervene in programs of provincial jurisdiction.
Transfers are a method of the federal government providing
support to provincial programs, delivering social programs and
helping children. I find it ironic the hon. member would say
that the government has not been able to assist children in the
province of Quebec when it has been increasing equalization
payments. There are increases in the CHST allocation over five
years. These moneys are within the control of the provincial
governments that support and deliver programs which help poor
kids in the provinces.
Bloc members also think the equal per capita formula was a gift
to Ontario. For some reason they feel that treating each and
every Canadian in an equitable and fair manner is a gift. I do
not consider it a gift. I do not think many members of the House
consider it a gift. I think members believe it is the very least
government can do. The expectation of Canadians is that
governments will treat each and every Canadian in a fair and
equitable manner.
I suspect that motion will not receive very much support in the
House, with the exception of members of the Bloc. I do not
profess to know how they think. I think that is beyond my
ability and probably the ability of most members.
I turn to Reform Party members who indicated that they did not
feel anything was wrong with this part of the bill. However they
felt other parts of the bill raised some concerns. The Reform
member went on to say that big social programs were the focus of
the government and made reference to the Prime Minister's remarks
in the paper this morning.
I am not sure most Canadians would consider an $11.5 billion
transfer to provinces for health care to be a return to big
social programs. Essentially we have restored cuts that were
made to deal with the deficit. We have indicated our commitment
to continue to fund health care and to continue to provide
transfers to the provinces. I do not consider health care and
education big social programs. I consider them to be at the
centre of what the country needs to continue to prosper.
Health care is a very important component of the country, as are
education and skills training. Many high tech companies talk
about skills training. If hon. members had an opportunity to
look at the recent edition of Maclean's, they would see it
talked about the recruiting methods of American companies, what
Canadian companies need to do, and how Canadian companies need to
compete and create that kind of work environment. I agree we
need to participate in that domain. As a government we would do
what we could.
We continue to say that a balanced approach will continue to
provide health care and education, which certainly are priorities
of the government, as is the tax burden which Canadians continue
to shoulder. We have indicated that we will continue to reduce
taxes. We have provided $16.5 billion over the last two budgets.
We will continue to do more. However, we will not turn around
tomorrow morning and put forward a $10 billion tax cut that will
put us back into deficit. Canadians would not support that. We
have indicated that we will continue our measured approach.
It is easy for opposition parties to say do it yesterday, but
government has a responsibility to Canadians.
Our responsibility is to ensure that we do not go back into a
deficit and that we do not add to the phenomenal debt we had. We
pay an exorbitant amount of interest on that debt. We need to
continue to reduce it. We need to continue to reduce taxes. We
will do so, but at the same time we will not jeopardize health
care and education, which are Canadian priorities.
1105
Very quickly I will turn to what the Conservative Party talked
about in terms of EI. When we took office EI premiums were $3.30
per $100 of employment income. We have reduced the EI premium
over $5 billion since coming to office. We will continue to
provide a very equitable way of dealing with it.
I reiterate that Bill C-71 is crucially important for Canadians.
It provides the tax relief for which they have asked. We will
continue to do more as we continue to reflect Canadians
priorities.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to discuss the ongoing assault by the Liberal government
on the Canadian taxpayer, this time propagated through Bill C-71.
The last time I rose in the House to discuss the budget I
chronicled the failure of the government to adequately protect
the environment. I told the House that despite the fact
taxpayers were paying more, they were getting less in
environmental protection. I told the House how the budget for
Environment Canada had been so deeply slashed that the department
could not even enforce many of its current regulations, never
mind any future considerations. The House also heard of the
failure of the government to take serious action to clean up the
contaminated sites which spread like cancer across this beautiful
country.
Today I will speak to the budget in a broader sense, outlining
the harm the government's reckless tax and spend policies are
having on our country.
When the Liberals came to power in 1993 the Canadian taxpayer
was reeling from 30 years of excessive taxation. Like a punch
drunk fighter, the taxpayer was dazed and confused after repeated
blows to his after tax take home pay and the level of government
service.
For year's the government sucker punched the taxpayer, nearly
knocking him out with nickel and dime jabs, a 7% shot below the
belt, an upper cut to health care services, and a resounding
haymaker to the tax equality of single income families.
Each time the taxpayer was nearly knocked out, the government
showered cold cash on his nearly lifeless body offering up a coal
mine here or some cheap western gas and oil over there. No
subsidy was too large, no project too small. They were all
showered with cold cash, cash that came from the blood and sweat
of that same taxpayer. Take it out of one pocket and give it
back to another. So it went for 30 years.
However, when the Liberals came to power in 1993 they had a
chance to change all that. They had a chance to clean up
government. They had what we call a golden opportunity. They
could have seized the moment and cut out government waste. They
could have followed through on their promise to scrap the GST.
They could have taken charge of out of control government
departments.
Best of all, they could have revived the taxpayer. They could
have given him the best health care that money could buy. They
could have helped his family by streamlining the tax system. They
could have promised him a future by fixing his pension plan. They
could have given him a safe secure job through increasing
national productivity.
Unfortunately the Liberal government blew that chance. Instead
of reviving the taxpayer with the sweet smells of tax cuts, the
government body slammed the taxpayer by dropping the Canadian
health and social transfers by 31%.
These cuts in federal government transfers caused great distress
across the country as the provinces had to scramble to make up
for the lack of federal money. Hospitals were closed. Medical
staff were let go. Emergency rooms were filled to overflowing.
Canadians heard stories of patients sleeping in the hallways
because there were not enough beds. Patients were made to wait
weeks, sometimes even months for surgical procedures. Wealthy
patients often elected out of the Canadian system and fled to the
U.S. where they could buy the care they needed. A two tier
health system exists in the country today. Year after year the
assault continued with the cumulative reductions soon totalling
over $20 billion with no end in sight.
The government made a big deal out of the budget this year,
boasting that it would increase government transfers to health by
$11.5 billion. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance bragged that the budget was a well thought vision for
tomorrow.
Let us have a look at what tomorrow will bring.
First, we will notice the increase in CPP premiums coming off our
paycheques. Under the government's proposals for the Canadian
pension plan Canadians will see their CPP premiums skyrocket over
the next four years.
1110
Next Canadians can look forward to reduced after tax income,
thanks to the government's refusal to fully index income tax
brackets. This insidious tax is costing taxpayers hundreds of
thousands of dollars as brackets fail to keep up with the pace of
inflation. This is a way the government can increase revenues
without seeming to increase taxes, but indeed it is. This
discriminant policy places a disproportionate burden of the
increase on the shoulders of those who can least afford it, the
poor.
Canadians can look forward to a reduced standard of living
vis-à-vis their American neighbours. High taxes and onerous
regulations have stifled the Canadian economy and have driven
many of our best and brightest educated at taxpayer expense out
of the country.
An hon. member: Name one.
Mr. Rick Casson: I will. Just pay attention. In a rare
scene of a cabinet minister coming to his senses, even the
industry minister echoed the calls of the Reform Party for lower
taxes. Imagine that.
Is that the parliamentary secretary's well thought vision for
tomorrow? In spite of the $11.5 billion the government is adding
to the health care system, the fact remains that federal
transfers are still $4.3 billion less than when the Liberals took
power.
If I go back to our earlier analogy, how does the taxpayer feel?
Is he still reeling from the effects after that 30 year beating?
The Liberals probably think he feels pretty good. After all, he
was just given a free flag. In case that did not cheer him up,
maybe the heritage minister can give him a copy of the dumb
blonde joke book that he is paying for.
It seems a bunch of Liberals are going around western Canada
trying to figure out how western Canadians feel. As someone who
is trained in the fine art of grassroots representation,
something members across have a little trouble with, I can say he
is not doing so well. He is starting to feel the crushing burden
of the national debt which has topped $580 billion, 94% of which
was rung up since 1975. Each year two out of every three dollars
he pays in income tax are gobbled up by interest charges on the
national debt.
His family is feeling the pinch of these high taxes. Despite
having the same household income as his neighbour, he is paying
24% more in taxes. That does not even include the cost of living
expenses.
Feeling somewhat overtaxed and under appreciated, our friend
went to the hospital to see what ailed him. When he got there he
was told there would be a small wait. “No problem”, he said.
Then he asked how many people were ahead of him. “Only about
188,000 or so”, said the nurse. “If you would please sit down,
we should get to you within the next year”.
Instead of resuscitating Canadians with the tax relief they
deserve, the Liberal government continues to spend, spend, spend.
The budget announced $14.1 billion in spending initiatives over
the next four years, including the remainder of this fiscal year.
The government is expected to reap $156.5 billion for 1998-99,
about $5.5 billion higher than what the finance minister
predicted last year and about $12.5 billion higher than what he
predicted the year before.
The finance minister calls these differences errors of prudence.
This sleight of hand accounting will allow for plenty of new
spending initiatives.
A recent poll taken by Compas showed that between 96% and 98% of
people in each of the provinces believe that controlling taxes,
spending and debt are important. Nine out of ten say that tax
relief, not new spending, is their number one priority. These
numbers are not at all surprising when one considers that the
average taxpayer pays $2,000 more in taxes today than what he did
when the Liberals took power six years ago.
The country needs to get competitive again. In December 1998
the chief economist of CIBC Wood Gundy said:
From a tax competitive standpoint, Canada ranks dead last in the
G-7. While virtually every other G-7 economy lowered its
personal income tax burden over the last 15 years, Canada's rose
sharply, both as a percentage of GDP and of household income.
If there is one message that I want to hammer home today, it is
that Canada needs a tax break and it needs it now. Canadians
cannot wait for the finance minister's grand plans of tax breaks
spread over the next 15 years. We need them now.
Here comes the person the parliamentary secretary was asking
about. Just a week or two ago a constituent of mine, Professor
Kurt Ellenberger, an accomplished musician and respected
instructor at the University of Lethbridge, accepted a position
with an American university. Kurt told me that he could not turn
down the chance to double his after tax income.
He said he could no longer bear to see his wage increases gobbled
up by bracket creep. As a result, the University of Lethbridge
and the community have lost a talented musician and teacher.
That is just one example of brain drain in this country.
1115
How many more Canadians are going to have to leave before the
government wises up and implements some tax breaks?
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to support the motion of my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to delete lines 13 to 43 in clause 4.
In essence, this would re-establish the calculation formula
planned at the time when the Minister of Finance announced the
Canada social transfer in 1996. I must point out what the
Canada social transfer is, or what it was, since it has just
been changed again.
The Canada social transfer is a set of transfers to the
provinces made by the federal government in the past for health
care, post-secondary education and social assistance. I remember
that the 1995 reform of the social programs took two years. At
that point, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development, which travelled around the country
consulting people. I recall the type of consultations we had.
There were demonstrations everywhere, because people were
concerned about what was going to happen with the cuts to
employment insurance and the changes to the social programs.
By putting all that into a single fund, the government seized
the opportunity to cut payments to the provinces. Quebec was
hit particularly hard. There was nothing to be proud of, but it
is a fact. There were more unemployed and poor people in Quebec
than the Canadian average.
I might point out as well that there is a link between cuts to
employment insurance and the transfers to the provinces and
today's debate.
The intent of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in his
motion is to bring things back to the way they were in the 1996
budget. It must have meant something. It was planned.
I will mention it in conclusion, but we had not just the word of
the Minister of Finance but his written word that the government
perhaps did not agree to it all, because there were cuts, but
there was a formula. This is the commitment the Minister of
Finance made to carry out this reform, to bring everything
together in the Canada social transfer.
With its 1996 budget, the federal government established a
mechanism to reduce current disparities in per capita
entitlement between the provinces by half by 2002-03. The
mechanism in question would have increased the per capita
weighting from 10% in 1998-99 to 50% in 2002-03.
That was what the Minister of Finance promised. But, in the 1999
budget, without a word of warning to Quebec, the federal
government is proposing to completely eliminate these
disparities in three years. The new increases under the CHST,
including the one for this year, will be distributed equally,
per capita, in every province and territory.
The budget proposes a weighting of 70% in 1999-2000 and 100% in
2002-03.
Because of this unilateral decision by the federal government,
Quebec will lose out on more than $350 million annually. This
explains why Quebec is getting only 8.3% of the $11.5 billion
increase in the CHST over five years, while Ontario will get
47.2% or almost half.
In the circumstances, we should not be surprised to see Ontario
MPs take turns applauding this measure, because it is to their
advantage.
1120
They have short memories. Now they have harsh words for the
member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, when all he is saying is that
this was not what was promised. These were not just idle words
from the Minister of Finance. This was a promise made in the
budget. That is all the member is saying.
Today, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is being called all
sorts of things I would rather not repeat, is accused of being
nuts, wrong, unfair, and told that the concept of need took
precedence over the concept of per capita distribution. That
was the Minister of Finance's plan and philosophy in 1996.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot merely raises this
point. Great consternation is stirred up on the other side. They
say “My goodness, what he is proposing is insignificant, wrong,
and far-fetched”. Is the Liberal side saying that what the
Minister of Finance proposed scarcely three years ago was
far-fetched and wrong? All those adjectives can be applied, for
that is what the commitment by the Minister of Finance was.
Recently, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claimed that
the provinces had called for this change on June 15, 1998.
There is a connection with the social union, which was accepted
by the other provinces, but not Quebec. The others accepted
that in future provided there is advance notice of three months, I
believe, the federal government can change provincial social
programs as it sees fit.
Quebec did not accept this, because it is unacceptable to
Quebecers, and the premiers of the other provinces accepted so
that they would get some money.
I know that there are some words that cannot be said in this
House, but when principles are cast aside in favour of money,
there is a word that springs to mind: intellectual prostitution,
at the very least. This is terrible, scandalous.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claims the provinces
asked for this change. This is no excuse for the government's
not giving any advance notice of its intention to modify the
transfer formula in its 1999 budget. There was no advance
notice. At any rate, had there been one, it would have been
only seven months, whereas the social union framework agreement
calls for a minimum of one year. The Liberals reneged on their
own signature on social union.
That is not all.
The Prime Minister said that the premiers' letter of January 23,
1999, concerning the reinvestment of the new transfers in health
satisfied him and that he considered it a sort of agreement on
health.
The Prime Minister broke his word in the weeks before the
budget, since the letter on health care asked the government to
totally reverse, within a reasonable timeframe and through
existing arrangements under the Canada social transfer for
health and social programs, the cuts it had made in its
transfers in recent years.
One aspect concerns me increasingly and that is respect for and
the promotion of democratic process. One of the conditions of
democracy is that information be provided. There is, however,
another condition.
People who give their word or who agree on a commitment must
honour it afterward. Otherwise, it means nothing.
Again yesterday—I would just refer to this matter of particular
concern to me, shipbuilding—we debated for an entire day a
motion of the Progressive Conservative Party, which, in the end,
had used word for word the resolution passed by Liberal Party
faithful at their latest convention. Most Liberal members were
probably in the hallway, sipping coffee or something, but I
asked whether they remembered being at that convention. They did
not say yes, of course. They nodded their heads, but did not
recall having voted on this resolution. However, they did vote
in favour of it.
But in the House, that means nothing.
It is like the election promises in the red book. They are
meaningless. The Prime Minister said he would scrap the GST. He
did not do it. At one point, he also said he would tear up the
free trade agreement and change it. He did nothing of the sort.
1125
We could make a long list of such commitments and broken
promises. We could talk about promises made during election
campaigns and at conventions, but the issue today is a
commitment made by the Minister of Finance in his 1996 budget to
reform the Canada social transfer.
To put all this together and to make his cuts more palatable, he
said “I will tell you in advance how the amounts will be
calculated and how much the provinces will be getting”. He said
that for two or three years and then, suddenly and unilaterally,
in another budget speech, the minister said “This is it. It no
longer works that way”.
We must condemn this kind of about-face.
People are losing confidence in the Canadian political system
because they are increasingly aware that it is plain rubbish.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-71, an act to implement
certain provisions of the budget that was tabled recently in
parliament.
While this bill has many parts to it, I intend to speak
primarily to concerns that I have with part 1, regarding the
Canada health and social transfer, and part 5, regarding the tax
on fuel and tobacco for some aboriginal bands. I am particularly
concerned with the sections of the bill that affect my riding and
will therefore address these concerns.
My constituents in Nanaimo—Cowichan, indeed all Canadians, find
it galling that this Liberal government has the intestinal
fortitude to actually feel good about its historical actions with
the Canada health and social transfer.
The Liberals are big on emphasizing that they are putting $11.5
billion back into the health care system. Let us be very clear
about this. This is money that the Liberal government took out
of the health care system to start with. This was money that was
in the health care system to begin with.
When the Liberals came to power in 1993, the Canada health and
social transfer per taxpayer was $1,453. By the time this budget
is fully accounted for, this amount will have dropped by 31% to
$1,005 per Canadian. Anybody who can do the simple math realizes
that the Liberals are putting in less than half of what they took
out of health care in the past five years. These are the facts.
The Liberals can point fingers in any direction they want in
trying to spin doctor this, but the undeniable truth is that they
have taken far more out of the Canada health and social transfer
than they have put in. They laid the groundwork for our present
two tiered health system and they must be held accountable for
their actions.
I know they will squeal and probably bleed over this accusation,
but the truth must be spoken. They have slashed the Canada
health and social transfer to the point where it seems to be
beyond repair without a major overhaul of our health care system
in Canada.
I know that every member on this side of the House could tell
horror stories about the quality of health care in their riding.
Let me offer an example from my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan.
The Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is the main hospital for
central Vancouver Island. It directly serves a population of
approximately 85,000 people and offers support to a further
60,000. In the past weeks, the hospital has experienced a
serious overcapacity of intensive care patients and patients on
ventilators. This is nothing new. Due to Liberal cuts in the
Canada health and social transfer, this life-threatening
situation has been ongoing for some time.
The most perilous date recently was Wednesday, April 7, only a
few weeks ago. Chaos reigned supreme on that day. At one point,
four ambulances were lined up outside the emergency room. Inside,
the intensive care patients and heart monitor patients were
backlogged. In total, the 12 intensive care beds were filled
with critical patients. Half of them were dependent on
ventilating machines. Another four intensive care patients were
being attended to in the emergency department. Six telemetry
patients were in the recovery room because the hospital's ten
telemetry beds were full.
I know this is beginning to sound like a very bad soap opera,
but it gets worse. In the waiting room there are another four
patients experiencing chest pains who have not yet seen a doctor.
1130
The Nanaimo hospital was so full that other Vancouver Island
hospitals were looked to for assistance. Guess where the only
available bed was? Port Alberni. That hospital is almost two
hours away by road, and it is not the best road either I might
add.
Sadly this is not a Hollywood soap opera. This is a real
Canadian nightmare. Elective surgery patients are being
cancelled three, four, up to eight times. Think of the mental
anguish to those patients. This is unnecessary pain and
suffering. It is lost productivity. These are lives hanging in
the balance. Why is there such chaos? Why are lives hanging in
the balance?
Of course the Minister of Health would have a variety of
excuses, but let us say it like it is. There is a lack of money
in the system and the system itself is in need of massive reform.
The Liberal government has taken a world class medical system and
ruined it.
On February 12, almost three months ago, I called for a review
of Canada's health care system. Canada's health care system is
in crisis. We need an immediate overhaul of the entire system.
Today, in the House, I reiterate my call for a full review of
Canada's health care system.
The Liberals have decimated the level of health care for
Canadians. Something needs to be done, and done soon. Although
the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is one of the most
drastically affected in all of Canada, the same story may be
heard at any number of locations all across the country.
This simply is not good enough. It is not acceptable in a
country of our stature. This bill is simply band-aid treatment
for the life-threatening wounds the Liberals have inflicted upon
the Canadian health care system.
Now I turn my attention to part 5 of Bill C-71, which allows
some first nations bands the right to impose a 7% value added tax
on fuel or tobacco. Besides being, as a Reformer,
philosophically opposed to any new or increased taxes, I feel
that I need to explain to the House one example of a similar
situation in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan.
Not long ago one of the local aboriginal bands wanted to impose
a tax on all tobacco sales. Under Bill C-93 they were allowed to
make a bylaw imposing a direct tax on consumers of tobacco at a
rate prescribed in the bylaw. This was to be used as a means of
raising funds for the band. Under Bill C-93 clear guidelines
were laid out as to how the band could proceed with this.
At first glance, this may not seem to be much of a problem.
However, to say that there was intimidation in this whole
scenario would be an understatement. In this case the band bylaw
has never been published, nor was it publicly advertised as Bill
C-93 stated that it had to be. The contents of the band bylaw
are then unknown. Therefore, the tax collection, calculation and
distribution are all unknown. Talk about misrepresentative
taxation.
Furthermore, the vote by the band members was held on welfare
cheque day. Lo and behold, to receive one's cheque, one had to
vote. This kind of thing goes on time and time again at the band
level and it is directly a result of Liberal bills like this one.
According to the information I have, as of last June the band
had collected $1.6 million and the distribution of these funds
was to include housing for individuals through the welfare office
of the band. Despite requests by band members, this information
does not appear to be forthcoming.
At that time no housing was being worked on and nothing was
projected. Big money and no action.
This story has an all too familiar ring to it. As we have seen
all too often, if one is not a part of the chosen circle within
the band, the support services do not come one's way.
As can be seen in this case, and as has been brought up time and
time again in the House, the real issue at stake is one of band
accountability. The media is filled with cases of band money
disappearing, being unaccounted for or misspent. This simply
will not do.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can say
all she wants, but the Indian affairs system is broken even worse
than the health care system. Today the health care and Indian
affairs systems are prime examples of why there is such a high
level of mistrust among many Canadians over the Liberal
government's action. Let us remember that 62% of Canadians voted
against the Liberal government in 1997 and these are good
examples of why they did.
1135
Democratic leadership of all stripes must be accountable to the
people it serves. The grassroots aboriginal people are crying
out for real leadership, accountable leadership, leadership that
can look at the grassroots concerns and bring solutions to them.
Accountability is a large part of such solutions.
The health care system affects everyone at some time. Whether
we use it on a regular monthly basis or sporadically every few
years, we will all use it. The problem is that in creating the
crisis in our health care system the Liberals just do not get it.
They do not have a solution. They do not know how to get
themselves out of the quagmire they have created. It is out of
their control.
Much the same could be said about the sad way the department of
Indian affairs has paternalistically dealt with our first nations
people. This bill is only a small example of the problem that
exists. The Nisga'a agreement is another example. Once the
doublespeak and rhetoric is wiped away we find another
bureaucracy out of control.
In matters of both health and Indian affairs the government has
failed. For these reasons I cannot support Bill C-71.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with great
pleasure that I take part in today's debate on Bill C-71, the
Budget Implementation Act, 1999.
First, I must say that this is the first time I have spoken to
the 1999 budget brought down by the federal government. I am
pleased to speak today because, through its budget, this
government has implemented measures that have inevitably had a
major impact on Quebecers.
I say this based on what we see in our ridings when we visit our
constituents during recesses, when we go door to door, when we
meet with local citizens and organizations.
Last week, I met with representatives of the Comité logement de
Rosemont, an organization that has for many years called on the
federal government to invest in housing. In ridings such as
mine, the list of applicants for social housing grows daily.
For years now, these groups have been fighting to increase the
availability of social housing for the neediest members of
society, and have called on the federal government to back large
housing projects and invest in housing.
If poverty is to be eliminated, people must be able to do three
things: put food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a
roof over their head.
Since 1994, this government has frozen all spending on housing.
Quebec is not receiving its 25% share under existing programs
and projects. Local organizations have told me that the federal
government must include new funding in the 1999 budget.
Unfortunately, this budget contains nothing for the poorest
inhabitants of my neighbourhood. It contains nothing for
Quebec's neediest.
There are nine different parts to Bill C-71 to implement the
budget. First, there are the fiscal arrangements between the
federal government and the provinces.
The second part concerns the pension plans of the Canadian armed
forces and of the RCMP. The third measure is the suspension of
arbitration. The fourth concerns the management of public
funds. The fifth involves the Sliammon first nation. The sixth
part concerns the child tax benefit.
Finally, the ninth part concerns farm product marketing
programs.
Today, I would, primarily, like to draw the attention of the
House to the changes in the formula for calculating the
transfers the federal government established in the latest
budget. The transfer calculation formula in the 1996 budget
provided for a demographic weighting of 10% for 1998-99.
1140
This figure increased to 50% for 2002-03. What we have to
understand today is that the 1999 budget will have the effect of
increasing the demographic weight criterion in the calculation
of the transfer to 100%.
The members of this House from Ontario, those on the government
side, among others, are perhaps unaware of the effect these
changes in calculation may have on Quebec, but the changes are
significant and unacceptable. They are unacceptable not only
for the Parti Quebecois government of Quebec, but for the people
of Quebec, in health care, education and social assistance
services they will receive in the coming years.
It must be pointed out that these changes in calculation will
penalize Quebec considerably, by reducing its share of the $350
million yearly. Inevitably, other richer provinces will profit
from this penalization. Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia
will get a larger share.
In the forecast increase in the 1999 budget, transfer payments
are raised by $11.5 billion. Only 8.3% of that will go to
Quebec. Let us look at what will go to the other provinces.
Take a neighbouring province, Ontario, as an example. Quebec
will receive 8.3% of the $11.5 billion. But what will Ontario
receive? It will receive 47.2% of the $11.5 billion. This does
not make sense. The only consequence of changing the
calculation is that the richer provinces will benefit.
Earlier, while in my office, I heard the parliamentary secretary
comment “What do these Quebecers have to complain about? The
decrease in transfer payments will be made up with an increase
in equalization”. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Finance needs a reminder of what equalization payments are
for. They are there to help the poorest provinces. Does this
mean Quebec is a poor province?
If this government really wants to help the people of Quebec
with health, education and social assistance, it will not only
have to increase equalization payments, it will also have to
increase what I might call productive spending.
We know what productive spending means in Montreal area ridings:
they are what goes to purchase goods and services. They are
what gets the economy going and encourages economic growth.
They are what makes cities like Montreal able to compete with
other major world cities.
The only consequence this budget will have for Montreal is to
place it in a non-competitive position. There must be major
changes in this method of calculation, which has never worked in
Quebec's favour.
1145
Not only is the formula unacceptable, so are all the measures in
this budget.
The people hurt most by this budget are the unemployed. The
Liberals opposite had promised help for the unemployed. I
remember hundreds and thousands of Quebecers rallying on
Parliament hill five years ago to tell the government that the
reform by the then Minister of Human Resources Development would
have a major impact on women, youth and the middle class. These
Quebecers were looking for a sign of hope, some breathing room,
in this budget. They found nothing.
I will be told that, five years ago, these people had no cause.
But that was not the case. The statistics speak for themselves.
In the case of youth alone, 75% qualified for EI in 1990, as
opposed to 25% today.
In conclusion, there is nothing in this budget to improve the
situation of Quebecers. The formula offers nothing for Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak on the motion by the Bloc party which says it
would like to delete the component of clause 4 dealing with the
provincial share of the cash contribution under the CHST from
April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2004.
At the outset I would like to say that my party opposes the
motion. While we are on the subject of the CHST, the Canada
health and social transfer, let me dwell on the issue.
Contrary to what the government has been saying, that it is
restoring funding to the CHST, it is actually restoring partial
funding. In 1993 when the Liberals took power the CHST per
taxpayer was $1,453. Taking this into account, today the CHST
transfer after what is stated in the budget will be $1,005. There
is a decrease of $448, a 31% decrease compared to the year 1993.
I fail to understand how the government can say that it has
restored the funding.
Perhaps many of us saw the documentary on the CBC last night on
the health care crisis in our country. The nurses across the
country, the front line health care workers, are saying enough is
enough on the cuts. The documentary clearly pointed out what is
wrong with our health care system. It all started with the
federal cuts to the transfers to the provinces which resulted in
the provinces cutting as well. This was when the federal
government could have easily changed its spending focus and
capped the health care funding, but no, it elected not to do
that.
In last night's documentary the nurses were saying that they
were sick and tired of cuts, of overtime, of part time jobs. The
stress and the pressure were so heavy that they could not do
their jobs. The nurses feel they need to create a personal bond
with the patient and they cannot do that because of all the cuts.
One of the nurses pointed out that all the governments are
saying that they will hire more nurses. Where will they get the
nurses? It takes four years to train a nurse.
Where will the trained manpower come from? Not to mention the
fact that nurses are now moving south. We have heard time after
time that headhunters from the U.S.A. are in our country offering
incentives, bonuses and career development for them to move
south.
1150
Naturally we are facing this crisis in our health care system as
a result of the government's cut in the budget. Now the Liberals
will probably say they are going to throw some more dollars
toward it, but it is not going to address the issue.
I got a call last night from a constituent of mine in Calgary.
She said she was scared of the erosion of the health care and
education systems. This woman has contributed and lived in this
country for over 70 years and she is expressing fear for the
future. Her exact words were “I do not know what is in store
for my grandchildren”.
Canadians are scared. It arises from the fact that the
government is not able to get its spending priorities in order.
It has cut health care when it could have cut something else. Now
it is putting money back.
There is the education system as well. Imagine the government
coming out with this millennium fund. It is only going to look
after 300,000 students. What about all the rest? I have two
daughters in university. They are not going to be subject to
anything. How are they going to be helped? Right now their debt
is $20,000 and they have not even completed their degrees.
Yesterday I got another call from a constituent who is fiercely
concerned about high taxes. Actually, I get calls every day in
my office. Constituents walk in every day with one single theme,
high taxes. They are tired of working harder and their standard
of living does not seem to be rising. Their disposable income is
not right.
One constituent said something very interesting. He said
“Perhaps we should let Canadians have the gross amount they
actually earn and then 15 days afterward they can send the taxes
in that are charged to them. Only then would Canadians recognize
how much money they are losing in taxes, how much money the
government has been taking from them time after time”.
Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister say there is no bracket
creep. That is something new we have heard. Canadians are
facing higher taxes and deterioration of health care and
education. Canadians are saying enough is enough.
Lately we have heard the debate on productivity. One minister is
saying productivity is low due to higher taxes. The finance
minister is saying that everything is hunky-dory. He was not
taking anything seriously despite the fact that all evidence
indicated there was something wrong with our productivity, that
there was a brain drain.
The Leader of the Official Opposition talked about the brain
drain last year and the finance minister would not acknowledge
it. He only woke up when Nortel and the big guys said “Yes,
there is something wrong. We are going to look at this whole
situation”. Then he woke up. Now he has said he is going to
meet with the high tech leaders to see what is wrong.
Let me say what is wrong. I was in Toronto last weekend and I
visited individuals in a high tech training program. The
principal told me that in that class over the last six months
they had lost six students who had moved to the U.S.A. Canadian
taxpayers are paying for it. Why have they moved to the U.S.A.?
Because of the lower taxes. It goes back to their disposable
income so they can address the needs of their children.
1155
Then we come along and say “No, no, but we have the health care
and you have got to pay for all those things”. Yes, but there
is also frivolous spending by this government. There is the
millennium project where the government is spending money. I do
not know why we are spending money on that project.
The Minister for International Trade today in committee said
that he was very proud to take young entrepreneurs to the Silicon
Valley. That is great. I applaud him for that initiative, it is
good. Our young entrepreneurs need that. I understand he also
said “We are a good exporter. We are a good exporter of our
bright young individuals”. We are good exporters after we have
spent so much money on them.
Our economy has high taxes, brain drain and low productivity and
the government has been refusing to acknowledge it but the
government is slowly acknowledging it as the opposition parties
keep hammering it. It needs to be addressed, but not with a
band-aid solution, not with the government saying that it will
throw a little money here and a little money there. It needs a
comprehensive solution.
I hope that the finance minister when he wins his leadership bid
will try to give tax relief as an election goody. The days of
election goodies are over. Canadians will challenge that. They
now know not to put their trust in the government any more.
Before I sit down I must say that something has to be done about
Revenue Canada which is becoming more and more unreasonable in
going after Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this particular
motion.
I should say at the outset that we oppose this motion. We oppose
this motion because it deals with certain provisions of the
budget and it introduces provisions which are contrary to the
priorities and values of the New Democratic Party. We recognize
that the Liberals' political choices are certainly not the
choices of our party.
This budget was touted as a health budget. The government put
forth this health budget on the basis that it was injecting $11.5
billion to health care funds. We have to look very closely at
what this really means.
We note that this money is spread out over a five year span. It
will only bring health care spending back to 1995 levels in five
years, and even then only back to 1995 levels. This budget is not
attached to any comprehensive long term planning. Rather it
allows the pressure for two tier American style health care to
grow. There is no delivery on the Liberal promise to build
national home care programs or a pharmacare program. In reality
it provides only a perception that health care needs are being
addressed.
We know when we look at our health care system that there is a
lot of pressure. People are overworked. People are underpaid.
More and more is demanded of the system. There are long waiting
lists in various hospitals. This budget does very little to
address those issues.
The finance minister has given the wrong prescription for the
health care crisis. The dosage is too low and the recovery is
too slow. This was supposed to be a health care budget, yet we
see no real leadership when it comes to health care.
Let us put this budget in perspective. We note that the Liberal
cuts to the Canada health and social transfers, that is, the
entire social program funding envelope, since 1995 now amount to
$21.5 billion and more than half of that has been in health care.
This year's budget puts back only $2 billion, not quite the cause
for celebration that we have been led to believe.
Members of the government keep repeating $11.5 billion, $11.5
billion.
In reality they have not emphasized the amount that has been cut
from this budget. What they want us to believe and to forget is
that the $11.5 billion will be spread over five years.
1200
This budget also failed to address a number of very important
issues. It failed to help the hundreds of thousands of Canadians
who are still looking for work. It failed to improve benefits
for the unemployed. In fact what we have seen take place in the
past is just the opposite of helping the unemployed. We have
seen the government seize funds belonging to the unemployed. It
wants to put these funds into the general account to pay down the
debt.
This budget has failed to combat the homeless crisis. All we
have to do is walk down our streets. Even as we walk from the
House of Commons down Rideau Street we see many homeless people
who are sitting by the side of the road. Yet this budget does
not really deal in any concrete fashion with that particular
problem.
It has failed to reduce the GST. It has failed to provide
federal funding for our highways. In many parts of our country
the highways are in severe need of repair. In my home province
of Nova Scotia there is a need for highway work. We know that if
the highways are not in good shape it reflects upon the potential
for tourism. Tourists do not want to come to a province or to a
part of the country to drive on poor highways. The government
has failed to address that particular issue in its budget.
It has failed to provide proper tax relief. Instead it has
eliminated the 3% surtax for people earning $50,000 to $65,000.
It addresses the concerns of those who perhaps least need it,
whereas the poorest in our country do not receive any real relief
from this budget.
One very important issue which has not been addressed by the
budget is infrastructure money. The government had a program,
which has now come to an end, whereby infrastructure money could
be shared among the federal government, the provinces and the
municipal governments. This program certainly aided in providing
much need infrastructure in many of the small communities
throughout our province.
I can tell the House of a need in my riding, a need that is felt
by a small black community. The families do not have adequate
water. We may think that in this day and age how is it possible
that people do not have an adequate water supply? What makes it
even more striking is the fact that this community lives and
borders the lake that supplies water to Halifax and Dartmouth.
The main water supply is directly adjacent to this small
community, yet it is not hooked into the water supply. The
people are drinking from wells where the water has been deemed to
be unsafe and lacks the proper aesthetics that drinking water
should have. People have wells that run dry in the summertime.
Quite often they have to call upon the local fire department to
deliver water to them. They live next to this large, pure lake
which boasts the best treated water in North America and they are
not hooked up to it.
These people have been attempting to obtain a hook up to the
main water supply. Unfortunately, because they did not come in
on time under the previous infrastructure program, they now do
not have access to that kind of money to assist them with this
project. The cost of the project is very difficult for people
who are living on fixed incomes, many who are widows, older
people, people with only a small income. To hook up to the water
supply may cost many of them $20,000 or $30,000 because of the
frontage charges for their properties.
It comes down to a matter of priorities. I have been pursuing
this issue on the federal level. I have tried to seek whatever
funds might be available from any of the programs that the
federal government might have in the area of health, the
environment and so forth. However, I have been unable to secure
any meaningful funding from the federal government to assist in
this project going ahead.
Where does the government put its priorities? Where are the
priorities when it comes to serving the needs of people? When I
see projects being approved under the millennium partnership
program, such as projects to fund a dumb blond joke book,
projects to establish mermaids for western towns which are not
even near the sea and various other projects, I question the
validity of the priorities of the government in meeting the real
needs of people.
1205
People can be without water, yet we can find funds to create
books which poke fun at various segments of our society. This,
to me, is wrong. The government has the whole process of its
priorities wrong and this budget simply illustrates that fact.
We have to start getting back to the meaningful things in a
budget, the things that will assist those people who are
unemployed, that will give aid to people who are in need of
health care, that will provide home care for people who need it,
medicare and so forth. These are the kinds of issues that must be
dealt with in a realistic way in our budget.
It is for this reason that I find it very difficult to stand and
support a motion which calls for CHST payments to be made to any
province because the CHST payments are not being directed in the
proper direction and they are not being used to help people. We
must get back to the real root causes of helping people to
accomplish the things that must be accomplished to enable them to
lead full and productive lives.
We see right across our country all kinds of examples of things
going wrong in our society. A lot of these things stem from the
quality of life within our communities and homes. It is
incumbent upon the federal government to provide the kind of
financial support and programs that make it possible to have a
good quality of life in our homes, communities and throughout our
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address Bill C-71. A number of things were said on
this bill and many more could be added to stress the importance
of this legislation, which deals with several aspects of the
federal government's finances.
I want to emphasize three points. First, I will discuss the
issue of the transfer of federal funds to the provinces. Then I
will deal briefly with the national child benefit, before
concluding with a suggestion to the government to improve public
finances.
As for transfers to the provinces, earlier, someone who is
rather thick and who sits across the floor accused the Bloc
Quebecois of not having any respect for the per capita formula.
It goes without saying that the Bloc Quebecois and all the
democrats in this House respect that principle, but this is not
what is at issue when we are dealing with transfers to the
provinces.
The federal government was petty and dishonest in the way it
went about changing the formula. That formula was based on a
number of factors, including population, but also on other
factors that are not strictly related to the population. There
were even some clearly defined agreements and announcements. In
the 1996 budget, the government clearly stated that, if changes
were made to the formula used to calculate transfers to the
provinces, 50% would be based on population until 2002-03.
That is not what happened. In fact, the federal government
changed the formula used in the calculation of transfer payments
without telling Quebec and the other provinces, and the new
formula it imposes upon them will come into effect in 2001. Not
only was this change not announced, but there was an agreement
in place. At least, that agreement was mentioned in the 1991
budget. Moreover, this was done only a few weeks after the
signing of the social union agreement, which stated clearly that
the federal government would not change the formula without
giving the provincial governments at least 12 months notice.
Again, the federal government did not keep its word and changed
the formula, which means that Quebec will lose $350 million a
year for three or four years. Quebec will lose nearly $1 billion,
maybe more, because of a cheap trick by the federal government.
1210
What I find particularly appalling is that the Prime Minister
and the Minister of Finance, the two most powerful people in
this government, are not protecting Quebec's interests, in spite
of the fact that they both come from Quebec and that Quebec has
the right to demand that the formula be maintained as agreed, in
other words that it not be changed until 2002-03. This is a
cheap and dishonest move, and the Bloc Quebecois has stirred up
a lot of discussion on this issue.
I see this as anti-Quebec behaviour on the part of the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance. And there are more
examples of anti-Quebec behaviour.
For example, I could speak for some time on the social union,
the millennium scholarships, and the way the government is
trying to harm Quebec's interests.
On the one hand, these attacks have been more pronounced since
1995 and the referendum. On the other, the Liberal government
and the Prime Minister seem to lack the courage and political
will to develop fair economic policies.
A case in point is the national child benefit. As we know, the
needs are huge in Canada. In spite of the fact that the
government had promised it would reduce it, child poverty in
Canada is worse now, in 1999, than it was in 1993 when the
government came to power.
There are many other examples. The member for Rosemont mentioned
housing, from which the federal government withdrew completely.
Employment insurance is another one.
These are instances of gross social injustice. On the one hand,
this government has been multiplying its attacks against Quebec,
there are countless examples of this. On the other, it seems to
be somewhat indecisive, weak, and lacking in courage when it
comes to social and justice issues across the country.
I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister something that
might help him be remembered in the future. I read this morning
in La Presse that he was bemoaning the fact that very little was
made of his accomplishments. The fact of the matter is his
government did not accomplish anything. He has done nothing we
might remember him by.
If the Prime minister wants to do something that will stick in
the memory of Canadians and Quebecers, I suggest he abolish the
other place, where people sleep and snore, wasting $60 million
of our hard-earned money.
If the Prime Minister had the courage to do what has to be done
to abolish the other place, he could recover the $60 million
wasted on 104 senators, who do very little work, and use this
money to meet the needs of the poor, the children and the
unemployed, as well as for housing.
To illustrate how the $60 million could be better spent on other
projects than for those 104 friends of the government, this
amount could be used to create some 20,000 summer jobs for young
people.
If, as he says, the Prime Minister is really concerned by the
future of young Canadians, he should take his political
responsibilities and abolish the other place, take the money and
spend it on summer jobs for youth.
If 20,000 jobs could be created in one year, this means that
over a period of ten years 200,000 jobs could be created for
young people by using the money which is presently being wasted
on the other place to maintain 104 friends of the government.
There are ways of doing this. Indeed, I sent a document in my
riding of Quebec East, in which I proposed a way to empty the
other place.
1215
The solution would be to reduce the other place's budget, which
now stands at $50 million, to $104, that is $1 per senator per
year. There is not one single senator in the world who would
accept such a budget. This would encourage senators to retire
and to enjoy a comfortable pension.
If the Prime Minister introduced in next year's budget for the
Senate a provision allocating $104 for the next fiscal year, I
am convinced that a majority of members of the House would vote
for it. We have the authority to do so, because we have
political legitimacy and we represent voters.
This budget could not be rejected by the Senate.
Senators do not represent anybody. They represent nothing but
political parties, special interests, or the Prime Minister's
interests. This would be a way to emptying with the Senate
without abolishing it. This kind of budget would encourage
senators to retire. Those who wanted to stay on with a salary of
$1 a year could do it on a voluntary basis, or for the love of
their country, but not to collect a big pay cheque and numerous
costly benefits for very little work.
Today, in 1999, we have no need—and it is even scandalous to keep
it—for the other place, we do not dare and are not allowed to
name in this House.
In my view, it is an abomination that a proud democratic country
should tolerate such an institution.
This proposal is on the table, and concrete and realistic means
have also been suggested. Now, it is only a matter of political
will, a political will the government could muster to meet the
needs of all Canadians. If the Prime Minister wants to leave an
achievement of lasting memory, let him take up this challenge.
Let him reduce the budget of the other place and use the savings
to create jobs for young people. With 20,000 jobs a year, we
could get 200,000 over a period of 10 years.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak today to the implementation
of parts of the budget and to the proposed amendment, which we
oppose for many reasons.
Basically, I would like to talk about the budgets over the last
six years and to what I feel budgets are supposed to do.
For about 30 years, I have always felt that budgets were
supposed to be drawn on a priority basis. We were supposed to
collect the money through revenue sources and then determine how
to spend the money in a manner that would be beneficial to
Canadians across the land. It is not how we spend this money to
benefit a few here or a few there, but how we spend the money
where Canadians will receive the best benefit possible from the
revenue collected, keeping in mind that we must determine what
some of these priorities are.
I will come up with a list of priorities by saying we should add
health care to that particular list. It certainly plays a major
role in the lives of most Canadians. We all want to be healthy.
We all want to have access to maintain that health.
Education certainly has to be high on the priority list. It is
something that will benefit all Canada. The better educated our
youth are and the more we offer in opportunities for education,
the benefits will be felt throughout the country for the good of
all Canadians.
1220
One of the most elemental duties of the House of Commons or a
government is to make legislation that will provide for the
protection and safety of the lives and property of its citizens.
This is pretty elemental and should be a high priority.
When we have a military unit, the primary purpose forever being
in existence for defence is to protect the sovereignty of a
nation and to be ready to go to arms if ever necessary to do
that.
Then we have our industries which we want to make sure provide
good jobs that will make our communities feel much better in
their standards of living and the lifestyles that we would all
like to be accustomed to.
If we take a look at the industries around, we recognize
agriculture as being the number one industry in the nation. It
has to be looked after, as most Canadians agree, because it is
very beneficial to keep a vibrant industrial base going in this
land, particularly at the agricultural level.
If we looked around the nation, we would see people who are in
genuine need. We would see the poverty and say “we must address
this”. There is no reason why we should live in the greatest
country in the world and still have poverty to the extent that it
is in many places, particularly on native reserves.
On the reserves I have visited, I have seen the conditions that
our native friends are living in, the grassroots people who are
fighting hard for some accountability and for a lifestyle that
their children can grow up in and enjoy, that can give them some
hope, education and opportunity for their futures. Instead, we
see people living in squalor and committing suicide. We are
doing a very poor job. This should be a high priority.
What about the environment? There is nothing better than to
live in the greatest country in the world and have an environment
that is liveable, with water that is safe to drink and air that
is good to breath. We have to work on all those things. Those
are the kinds of things that I believe a budget should be
addressing.
Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, I have seen a
deterioration in these priorities, particularly over the last six
years. This federal Liberal government took around $20 billion
in transfer payments from the provinces. Instead of looking at
the public accounts and finding out where the billions of dollars
were being spent, and not necessarily for the good of all
Canadians, it cut immediately from the priority lists. This was
done to the point where we now have a health care system with
line-ups and people suffering because they cannot get the
treatment they need. I have a family member who will not get an
urgent operation until August.
People begin to point at the provinces and say “Shame on, you,
Mike Harris, Ralph Klein and all the provincial premiers, for
having done this”. Nobody remembers that it was this Liberal
government that cut those transfers and put the pressure on the
provinces to do something as a result of a decision made here and
one that was not beneficial to the Canadian people.
We hear about all the difficulties in the education programs
being delivered in our primary, elementary and secondary schools
and what they are causing.
Because of the depletion in the police forces, they are no
longer able to do the job. The RCMP, where a number of officers
are needed in the field, no longer have the staff available
because their numbers have been decreased.
Here we are on the verge of a war and we have a military unit
that is not properly equipped. It is outdated. That needs to be
reinforced and helped. It is a priority.
We have an agricultural industry that is nearly collapsing in
the west in particular, but in other parts of the country as
well. There were people who suffered last summer. We have
debated in here on how to deal with it and we have done that
dismally.
1225
We hear of 1.5 million children living in poverty in this land.
I heard that in 1993 when I came here. Nothing has been
happening there.
Every day we get reports. Recently, we received one from the
auditor general stating how deplorable it was the way the
government deals with aboriginal people on reserves. It stated
that there was no excuse for them having to live under the
conditions they do and that we are not doing a good job.
What I am saying is that we are drawing up budgets that attack
the very things that ought to be priority while we continue to
fund special interests and give away free flags because it is
such a wonderful thing to do.
We strike all kinds of weird committees. When I look at the
public accounts, I cannot help but wonder why we spend thousands
of dollars for a committee to figure out what kind of recipes we
can use blueberries in.
There is one committee that always rips me up, I guess because
of my age. When we put together a committee to study seniors and
sexuality and spend thousands of dollars for this committee to do
that, it makes absolutely no sense.
We give grants to big business. Since when was a government
ever supposed to be in the business of supplying money to the
private sector big business companies in order for them to
survive and thrive? I always thought that in an entrepreneurship
one invests and takes one's chances. If one does a good job in
management, it will work.
CIDA comes up with all kinds of projects. It just amazes me when
I look at public accounts and see where we spend the money.
Multiculturalism. It is a wonderful thing that we have
multicultural people in our country. In the beautiful community
of Strathmore, Alberta, they put on a program once every year,
which I attend at a cost of $25. I was more than pleased to put
up my money.
Fourteen nations were recognized in the community the last time
I was there. Many have different cultural backgrounds and
different roots. They put on illustrations of food from the old
country. They put on arts and entertainment to show us what kind
of a background they come from. They all had a great weekend
working together and doing this. These people were from all
walks of life and from all backgrounds. It was a great weekend
and we all paid for it ourselves. We paid admission and it went
well.
After it was all done, each one of the participants
congratulated each other, patted each other on the back and said
“Well done”. They went back into their communities and became
Canadians. They are Canadians.
We spend thousands and millions of dollars because we, the
government, have to promote this or that. It is time that we
started lining up these priorities. If we did that, and if we
remembered what this country is all about, then we could take a
look at these budgets and not only address these priorities, but
also provide the kinds of tax cuts that the Canadian people
deserve.
We are completely out of proportion with the rest of the world
in taxing our people, and it has got to stop. We have to start
putting budgets together that implement addressing priorities.
We must stop the foolish spending that the government is so
capable of doing and start today to look after the needs of
Canadians.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-71, the budget
implementation act, 1999. I am pleased to enter the debate
because what I hear from the opposite side is not really
reflective of what the 1999 budget is all about.
The Bloc Quebecois continue to whine about the per capita
adjustment in the budget. Let me go over some of the history of
the equalization payments and the CHST transfer.
Over the last number of years there has been a cap on the
transfers from the federal government to the provinces of
Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia to deal with health care,
secondary education and welfare. That cap was there because of
the economic prosperity in those provinces.
1230
Now that we have returned to a point where we have some fiscal
responsibility and have eliminated the deficit, it makes absolute
sense to go now to an equal per capita payment on the CHST. It
means that we are returning to equity.
A member of the Bloc Quebecois said that he would not support
the aspect of the budget which dealt with bringing the budget
back to a fair and equitable arrangement under the CHST. The
provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta would be put
on an equal footing with the other provinces. They have not been
over the last many years. His argument seems to be totally
illogical, but we all know the motivation of Bloc Quebecois
members. They want to create an impression that Canada is not
working and is unfair. Their agenda is to promote the single
minded issues of Quebec.
Let us talk about equalization. If we look at transfers from
the federal government to the province of Quebec, not only do we
have the CHST which deals with health care, secondary education,
post-secondary education and welfare, but we have equalization
payments. The equalization payments for the province of Quebec
in this budget are around $5 billion. They are more than 50% of
total equalization payments given to all provinces and
territories in Canada.
What a shame. What a disgrace. The province of Quebec was
strong; it was an economic powerhouse before the separatists
became engaged in Quebec. What a tragedy that Quebec, because it
is a have not province now, has to participate in the lion's
share of equalization payments from the federal government. Why?
It is a poor province. Why is that?
[Translation]
Unfortunately, Quebec is a poor province because of the policies
the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are implementing
there. It is unfortunate. It is a tragedy.
[English]
I would like to talk about some of the positive aspects of the
budget because members opposite totally ignore them. The member
for Wild Rose spoke about the model he sees in budget building.
In other words, a budget should reflect the priorities of the
Canadian people.
Perhaps the member for Wild Rose did not read the last budget.
It had $11.5 billion directed into health care, one of the
largest single transfers under the CHST in modern history. Of
that $11.5 billion, $3.5 billion goes to the province of Ontario.
The people of Ontario were saying very loudly that we need to
deal with health care. We have hospitals that are crowded. We
have waiting lists.
The delivery of health care is a provincial responsibility, but
we provide funding to the provinces through the CHST, the Canada
health and social transfer. I will try to clarify some points
around that.
Although the member for Wild Rose is from Alberta, he postulated
that the reason health care was threatened in Ontario and other
provinces was that the transfers from the federal government had
been reduced. What a neat little theory. I hear it in Ontario
from time to time, more often than I would like, and I would like
to correct the record on it.
If we look at the reduced transfers under the CHST to the
province of Ontario since 1993, they amount to less than $1
billion per year. In contrast I will outline what the Government
of Ontario has done. It implemented tax cuts, which is great. We
have been implementing tax cuts. We would like to implement more
tax cuts.
In the last budget we had to redirect more money to health care
because the Government of Ontario said explicitly and implicitly
that it values tax cuts five times more than topping up federal
transfer reductions. The 30% tax cuts in Ontario, and I gather
Mr. Harris will announce more today, are great.
We will be announcing more tax cuts, but we have to keep topping
up health care and education because the Ontario government keeps
gutting those programs. One day, hopefully in the next budget or
the budget beyond, the federal government will get into massive
tax reductions.
1235
We have already provided for $16.5 billion over the next three
years but we need to do a lot more. When the Government of
Ontario says it will reduce income tax by 30%, it costs the
federal treasury about $5.5 billion a year. Our reductions in
federal transfers to the Government of Ontario were less than a
billion a year. That says tax cuts are five times more important
than topping up the federal transfer reductions to the Government
of Ontario.
It is very simple. When the member for Wild Rose talks about
priorities, the Government of Ontario is reflecting those
priorities. In the next month or so the people of Ontario will
have their chance to express their view on whether that was the
right set of priorities.
In the gallery are some school children, young adults from my
riding of Etobicoke North. They attend Mississauga Private
School. I would like to give them an insight into what the
government is doing about youth employment.
The 1999 budget builds on the Canadian opportunities strategy
announced in 1998. It makes available an additional $455 million
over three years for the youth employment strategy used to create
employment opportunities for young Canadians. That money is
providing youth internships and summer jobs. In my riding of
Etobicoke North right now I am signing off a Human Resources
Development Canada program that will create 170 summer jobs.
We have also shown some leniency with respect to student loans.
We allowed tax deductibility of interest on student loans in the
1998 budget. We allowed for deferral of repayment of student
loans. We made tax provisions so that Canadian families could
put more money into their registered education savings plans
which are tax deductible, put together a little nest egg to help
educate their children.
In the last budget the Prime Minister and our government
announced the Canada millennium scholarship program of $1.3
billion or $2 billion. It is a huge amount that will be used to
help students who have good academic records but maybe not the
means to go through university or college. Our government is
responding to youth.
I have seen youth internship work in my riding of Etobicoke
North at Humber College which trains students to work in the tool
and die industry. Our government subsidizes the company which
hires them so that they can be trained on the job. They take
classroom instruction and go to the tool and die company. Some
95% of those students get jobs. I have been at some of the
ceremonies where students receive awards.
This budget is a good news budget. While the Bloc Quebecois
keeps whining, if I can use that term, about the transfers, the
province of Quebec is a net beneficiary and the province of
Ontario is back to a fair and equitable transfer of funds under
the CHST.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member who just spoke will
remain in the House to listen to my speech. I have rarely heard
so many falsehoods. Maybe ignorance is bliss.
This morning, the Globe and Mail reported that Quebec business
leaders are highly optimistic. I quote “Quebec business leaders
are more optimistic than they have been in five years. Not since
the election of a sovereignist government in Quebec has the
province been basking in such optimism.
Quebec anticipates increases in sales, profits, price
reductions, an increase in employment and a drop in inventories,
all conditions needed for economic growth”.
When the hon. member says that Quebec is poor, he is treating
Quebecers like a colonized people. This is exactly why
we want out.
The hon. member should come to Quebec. He should see how we
live, how dynamic a people we are, how we are getting known,
especially Montreal, as the best centre in Canada for the new
economy.
1240
The members opposite should stop thinking that they are the
fathers of Canada, that the rest of the country relies on
them. I happen to think that the attitude of the federal
Liberals from Ontario is one of the main reasons we will leave
the country. We are sick and tired of their paternalistic
attitude, especially when they convey falsehoods like the
previous speaker just did.
Why are we so disgusted by the CHST? Because it will cost Quebec
$350 million every year. The federal government has unilaterally
decided to change the rules of the game and now Quebec will only
get 8.3% of the extra $11 billion in transfers over five years.
How can you expect Quebecers to be satisfied and say “we have
24% of the population and we get 8.3% of transfer payment
increases, so everything is fine and dandy?”
I think there is something positive in all of this in that it
has inspired the Bloc's position. In our view, now that these
types of transfers are based on the population, we will simply
keep the GST payments and the federal government can keep the
corresponding Canada health and social transfer, and that will
allow us to put money into productive spending. This is a
fundamental problem in Canada: for 100 years, productive
spending has been going to Ontario and that province has been
systematically benefiting from the establishment of high
technology centres. The maritime provinces and Quebec have had
to make do with transfer payments. That is the kind of balance
that Ontario has imposed upon Canada, and it is unacceptable for
the country as a whole.
With regard to the budget, yesterday, the Prime Minister told
Quebecers “I do not understand why people are not aware of the
good things we do. We are unable to show who we are”. When a
bill that gives Quebec only 8.3% of the $11 billion increase in
CHST payments comes before the House the very next day, one can
understand why Prime Minister is not welcome.
One can understand also why he is not welcome when he lets the
issue of the millennium scholarships drag on for a whole year
just to gain visibility. There were actions on the part of the
Bloc Quebecois, the Government of Quebec and the Quebec National
Assembly in this regard. The latter was unanimous on the
millennium scholarships, not only the sovereignists, but also
the Quebec Liberals, who are federalists, as well as the ADQ.
The leaders of the three party wrote the Prime Minister of
Canada to tell him “You absolutely must respect the resolution
adopted by the National Assembly. Our jurisdiction over
education must be respected”.
Maybe we will finally get results because Quebec is united and
able to formulate requests, but let us think of all the time lost
because we must always spend more energy than Ontario to get our
fair share.
It is the same thing with productive spending. Anybody here
would be ready to replace transfer payments with productive
spending. If the federal government gave us our fair share of
productive spending, it would not take us long to outpace
Ontario in terms of economic development.
I will point out what I would have liked to see in the budget.
I would have like a new balance in EI. Last week's consultations
in the regions by the federal Liberals regional prove me right.
The Quebec section of the Liberal Party of Canada is travelling
around Quebec right now. There, as elsewhere, their own
grassroots members are telling them that what they are doing
does not make sense.
For example, a former liberal candidate in the 1997 elections,
Jean-Guy Doucet, asked the Liberal establishment to re-examine
some aspects of EI. “There are major irritants and unfair
elements that need to be corrected” he said during the
preliminary meeting leading to the provincial convention of the
Liberal Party of Canada.
The message is coming from their own grassroots members. You saw
it in Trois-Pistoles, where there were more demonstrators than
people interested in the consultation. It was the same kind of
reaction in Trois-Rivières. In Gaspésie, the Minister of Human
Resources Development was even
shut out.
Are they waiting to be shut out, to be unwelcome everywhere in
Quebec before acting and coming up with answers? We were hoping
the budget would include something on employment insurance so as
to give back some credibility to the program, but not so.
We were also hoping to find a shipbuilding policy. This is the
kind of productive spending we had in mind. The federal
government is sorely lacking in initiative and innovation; all
it had to do is copy a number of measures that are implemented
by the provinces, particularly Quebec, to revitalize the
economy.
1245
Why does the government not do so? Perhaps because the weight of
federal Liberal members from Ontario is too heavy, they are just
cruising along or they do not particularly care about nationwide
development. Whatever the reason, the results are obvious. The
government continues to want to send transfer payments to the
regions while setting aside productive expenditures for Ontario.
This is a fundamental option that leaves no choice to Quebecers
but to leave this country.
There are also more concrete elements. Last week, a report was
tabled on amateur and professional sports. I want to draw the
attention of the House on a specific measure in that report.
That measure could easily have been incorporated into the
budget. We could have had the consent of the House to
incorporate that measure and give it immediate effect. I am
referring to the granting of a tax credit to parents whose
children are involved in competitive sports.
Such action would have clearly reflected our belief that the
physical and mental health of our children are perhaps the best
way to avoid unacceptable situations.
The government could also have included measures to promote
regional economic diversification. Again, there are no such
measures in the budget. This is a straightforward budget, a
budget that allows those who have more money to keep it.
With all these shortcomings of Bill C-71, clearly the Bloc
Quebecois will be forced to vote against it. The interests of
Quebec are at stake.
No member from Quebec will vote in favour of this bill and
agree, with the increase in Canada social transfer payments, to
Quebecers having only 8.3% of the $11 billion increase. Not one
of the members from Quebec voting in support of it, when
visiting their riding and being asked whether they did their job
this week, whether they defended the interests of Quebecers,
will be able to stand and say “Yes, we did a damn fine thing.
We arranged for Quebec to get only 8% of the increase in the
Canada social transfer payments”.
Nobody on the other side will be able to say that.
When the Prime Minister of Canada says “No one knows about the
good things we do”, it is true, because, when it comes to good
things like that, there is not one member on the other side with
the courage to mention it in his or her riding and reveal that
he or she has become more the defender of Ottawa in Quebec than
the defender of the interests of Quebec in Ottawa. That is the
difference between the members of the Bloc Quebecois and those
of the majority, who keep limiting our rights, trying to put a
straitjacket on Quebec.
The member from Ontario who spoke before me would do well to
take note of this message. Perhaps, in the next federal
election, the federal Liberals in Ontario will hang on to a
certain number of important ridings. However, the way things are
going, they will certainly not have the small majority of five
members they have at the moment.
They will receive a clear message from all the regions in Canada
“Out with the current Liberal government”.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to be able to stand in Canada's parliament this
afternoon to debate the issue of the budget.
If I go by the things that people in my riding talk to me about,
then the budget, taxes and the way the government spends our
money are the biggest issues.
I had the privilege of standing at a couple of trade fairs a few
weeks ago. One was held in Sherwood Park in my riding, which is
probably the largest trade fair in the province. Around 25,000
or 30,000 people came through in the two and a half days we were
there. In Fort Saskatchewan there was another very large sample
of people. Almost all of them brought up the question: When
will we ever get a tax break?
To speak to Bill C-71, which is a budget implementation bill, is
indeed an honour and I think a high responsibility. I will do my
best to represent the wishes of the people in my riding as I
speak.
In a prologue to my speech I would like to comment on some of
the things that have been said here. Until today I have said to
many people that one thing about the Bloc members is that they
are very focused. Their issue is one issue. They want to take
their province out of our wonderful country and every speech
which they give, every time they rise to speak, is focused on
their goal of separating from Canada.
I profoundly disagree with that goal. We know that the majority
of people in Quebec do not want to leave Canada. Bloc members
are really riding a dead horse. They are flogging it to try to
make it run, but it will not go anywhere. However, today they
have switched horses. Today they are not talking about
separation. Today they are talking about wanting more from
Canada.
1250
Unfortunately, the whole program of transfer payments to the
provinces is very convoluted. I have done a little study of it
and the more I study it the more convoluted it seems to become
and the more difficult to understand. However, the public
accounts indicate that in proportion to the population Quebec has
had above average transfers, that is, averaged over the
population of the whole country. If we take the total number of
contributions and divide that number by the population of the
country, we get a smaller number than the contributions that are
given to Quebec divided by its population. Quebec is above
average. I do not think Quebecers would generally want to
acknowledge that, but it is the truth.
Today we hear them talking about being against this one part of
Bill C-71. In fact, what we are debating at report stage is
their amendment to remove that part where the federal government
transfers money to the provinces for health care, for the CHST.
The reason they are giving, and it has been quite clear in their
speeches, I do not think they have tried to obfuscate it, is
because the amount of money they will be getting will be going
down and they are against that.
I have a lot of respect, not only for the people of Quebec, but
for the members of the Bloc party who were sent here by their
ridings to represent their ridings. I have a lot of respect for
them individually. I believe they are doing well to speak this
way and to put this amendment forward because they are doing it
to protect their constituents, which is a legitimate role in
debate in parliament.
However, if we look at the larger picture for all of the
country, and of course this is where they are sort of out of the
picture, it seems to me eminently responsible and eminently fair
that the amount of money that is transferred by the federal
government to fund programs, which in some cases are administered
by the provincial governments, should be equal with respect to a
per capita contribution.
I regret that in the House we cannot use props. I taught for 31
years and I would have been lost without the use of a blackboard
in the old days, or the whiteboard with all the colours nowadays
and the overhead projector and the computer generated image on
the screen. I wish I could show a chart of some of these things
because I think we would communicate much better. It is
unfortunate that we cannot do that in the House, as they do, for
example, in the Congress of the United States.
If I had the ability to communicate in that way I would draw a
picture of a huge barrel. All of the taxpayers of the country
would contribute money which would be put into that barrel. Some
time ago I computed at what rate we were putting money into that
barrel. Actually it is not a difficult thing to do. I think we
have around $150 billion a year in government expenditures.
Clearly money goes into the barrel if we are going to spend it,
either by borrowing or from another source. We have in the
neighbourhood of 15 million taxpayers, so it works out very
easily to about $10,000 per person that we put into this barrel.
My question to the members of the Bloc party and to all members
of the House is, what is an equitable way of distributing that
money with respect to the support of education, health care and
social services in the different provinces?
1255
When it comes to health care and education, I really think an
equal per capita grant for all of the provinces would be pretty
fair. The cost of educating a student, whether in British
Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick or any one
of the other provinces, would be reasonably close. It would not
be exact. We know there are different costs of living. There
are different costs of getting an education in different parts of
the country, but it would be really close.
The same is true for health care. There are some variances. If
there is an area with a dense population it is more economical to
provide health care to that population. If there is a larger
area with the same population it costs a little a more. There
could be a small adjustment for a sparse population.
If we talk about a sparse population, I do not think that Quebec
is more sparsely populated than any other province in the
country. We have more densely populated areas in the south of my
province and in all provinces. When we get away from the south
there are sparsely populated areas where we have the costs of
medical helicopters and so on.
Speaking specifically to this amendment, I think the House of
Commons should be against it. If I may be so bold, I am going to
appeal to the members of the Bloc who represent their ridings and
constituents to consider voting against this amendment, in the
interest of fairness, in the interest of getting along with each
other in our country. Rather, let us look at budget
implementation which gives fairness on a per capita basis.
I would also like to say that while they want to amend this bill
because their actual contributions are going down, that is a
tacit recognition that their per capita contribution from the
federal government is higher. If we move to an equal per capita
rate and theirs goes down, logically they have admitted that
theirs is too high in comparison to other Canadians.
I would also point out that in the same budget, but in a
different bill, we implemented the matters of the transfers to
the provinces through the transfer payments. In that particular
instance Quebec is getting a great deal more money, while the
transfers to provinces like Manitoba are being reduced, and we
did not see those members proposing amendments to change that.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to have the opportunity to
participate in the debate on Bill C-71 and in particular to
address the amendment proposed by the Bloc.
Let me begin by starting where the Reform Party left off. I take
some umbrage with the last speaker's comment. What we are
dealing with here is more than a mathematical equation. When we
address health care needs, if we are at all serious about
formulating good policy, we have to look at need. Surely the
member from the Reform Party understands that a straight cap will
not necessarily reflect the needs, particularly the acute needs
in various regions of this country. It certainly would not
reflect the third world conditions that we now see in northern
and remote communities in all parts of the country.
We must go beyond looking at a straight per capita formula and
start looking at questions of ensuring that our publicly
administered health care system can be funded to the extent to
which it is the dominant mould by which we provide health care in
the country.
1300
I would urge the members of the Reform Party to look very
carefully at how the ratio between public and private spending is
shifting. Under the present system and under the formula
proposed by the Reform Party, we will soon see private control
over our health care system dominate completely.
It would put at risk the fundamentals of our health care system,
the very notion of a universally accessible health care system.
Certainly if not in a direct way, in a most insidious way we
would see the end of medicare, the end of the five principles
under the Canada Health Act and the end of our system that is the
envy of the world over, a single tier, universally accessible,
publicly administered health care system.
Having made those introductory comments in response to Reform's
proposition, let me say how important it is to have this
opportunity to participate in the discussion on the 1999 budget
particularly because it has been called the health care budget.
It is important to have this debate because the government has
denied us opportunities on every front to ensure that we hold the
government accountable for its expenditures particularly when it
comes to health care.
I want to say for the record that if it were not for this
opportunity today, we would have little chance to scrutinize the
government's expenditures in any area, particularly health care.
The estimates process at the committee level has become a
charade. There is very little opportunity at the committee
level, because of the way the government controls the committee
process, to ensure that we have ample time to scrutinize the
expenditures of the government. That particularly applies in the
area of health care. Based on the committee of which I am a
member, given the dictates of the Liberal government and its hold
over the committee system, we will be lucky to have four
sessions, maybe eight hours of discussion on an incredibly large
and costly part of our system.
I want to take every opportunity I can to speak on health care
because of the arbitrary and autocratic way in which this
government has operated. It has taken away so many opportunities
for true participation by members of the House and for true
democracy to prevail.
This government has tried to portray the 1999 budget as a health
care budget. The question for all of us today is does it in its
details actually accomplish that objective and meet that
description? We have heard today and from Canadians everywhere
that it does not. One could actually say that the government has
presented us with another example of smoke and mirrors, another
attempt at illusory politics, another way to disguise the real
issues.
What the government has done in this budget when it comes to
health care is that in five years time it will get us back to the
level we enjoyed in 1993 when the government began its very
massive cutback and offloading in health care. I do not need to
repeat the statistics. Canadians are fully aware of them. They
were as shocked as we were when we realized the full impact of
this budget and what it actually meant in terms of federal
support and federal responsibility for quality health care.
The best way I can put it is to recognize that when all is said
and done, federal spending as a percentage of all health care
spending amounts to 12%. Just think back. That is a long way
from the notion of 50:50 cost sharing as was once the case. In
actuality it truly happened; we used to have a 50:50
federal-provincial cost shared arrangement on health care. That
is certainly a long way from the 25% goal that many experts in
this field have recommended as the bare minimum for government.
1305
Where are we at? We are at 12%. Where is private spending in
this country? It has grown to 30% of all spending on health
care. It does not take much calculating to figure out what that
actually means and what kind of system we end up with. We end up
with a two tier health care system, no ifs, ands or buts.
Some would say that we already have a two tier health care
system. Absolutely. Why do we have a two tier health care
system? Because the federal government dropped the ball,
offloaded responsibility, cut back to the point where it has
created a wide open climate for private investment to insert
itself and encroach on a whole area once considered absolutely
sacred as a public service. How does that show up in the lives of
ordinary Canadians?
It shows up in Alberta where the provincial government continues
to advance the notion of a private hospital. There has been no
retreat from that despite public outcry. It shows up in Prince
Edward Island in the form of the possibility of a hospital that
will be run on one of the so-called public-private partnerships.
It shows up in the fact that privately funded MRIs, magnetic
resonance imaging machinery, are springing up all over the
country and are available on a two tier basis. People who have
the money can get access. Those who do not, tough luck. It shows
up in the form of private eye clinics springing up all over the
country.
An hon. member: So blame them.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, yes, I blame the
Liberal government. But Reform members who are advocating and
talking about accommodating the notion of a parallel private
health care system are seeking the same objective as the Liberal
government. Both parties are seeking the dismantling and erosion
of medicare to the point where we will have nothing but an
Americanized, privatized two tier health care system.
Our plea today is to reverse this agenda. The federal budget
made a tiny step in that direction by putting back some of the
money it took out of the system in 1993. But it is not enough to
stop that encroachment on the private sector. It is not enough
to stop the waiting lists. It is not enough to ensure access to
quality health care services for all Canadians. It is not enough
to take the stress off nurses who feel they are not able to
perform their lifelong goal of providing quality care for
patients because of the financial pressures on the system.
If we all share that goal and for the sake of medicare, if the
Reform Party truly accepts this notion of the universally
accessible publicly administered health system, then for
goodness' sake let us join together in convincing the government
that it must reverse the trend. The government must ensure there
is adequate support for the provinces in our health system. The
government must show leadership to ensure that the principles of
the health care act apply to every aspect of our health care
system to stop the emergence of a private two tier health care
system.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-71 this afternoon. This is a bill which
addresses certain of the provisions contained in the 1999
budget.
A number of areas are involved; in fact, the bill has nine
parts. In the next few minutes, I would like to address one of
them in particular, which concerns tax arrangements between the
federal and provincial governments.
As we know, the federal government collects taxes, lots of
taxes. Not just personal or corporate income taxes.
There is also indirect taxation, the sales tax, the famous GST.
As well, through employment insurance, it collects another large
amount, far in excess of what is needed to operate the
employment insurance program.
1310
In fact, when one sees all the tax and employment insurance
collected by the federal government, one quickly realizes that
the totals far exceed the budgetary requirements resulting from
the federal government's responsibilities.
This is, moreover, what prompts the federal government to
habitually and repeatedly, I am tempted to say sneakily,
interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction. The federal
government spends money where it has no right to even be
involved, instead of the provincial governments whose
responsibilities these areas are.
The consequences are obvious. Individuals and corporations are
being taxed excessively.
Workers pay some 35% or 35% too much in contributions to
employment insurance. In all this, we can draw a simple
conclusion: the federal government should reduce its tax bases.
It is also clear that, in the agreements on transfers between
the federal and the provincial governments, the federal
government gives them money so they may assume their
responsibilities in the areas of health, higher education and
social services.
Very simply, what we realize is that, with one hand, the federal
government recovers its money and, with the other, it gives it
out, to a limited extent, to the provincial governments so they
may assume their responsibilities.
There is only one justification for this approach, that of
redistributing to the less fortunate provinces money collected
from taxpayers in the more fortunate provinces so that each
province may fully carry out the responsibilities under its
jurisdiction in the areas of education, health care and social
services.
This may have been the case in the past, but it is no longer so.
In fact, in the budget brought down in February by the Minister
of Finance, the concept of a redistribution according to need
was dropped. Redistribution is now according to the number of
individuals living in each province. That is what they call per
capita redistribution.
If the money is given to each province on a per capita basis and
not based on its relative wealth, then the federal government no
longer has any reason to collect from taxpayers money it will
give them back anyway.
Since health, education and social services come under the
jurisdiction of the provinces, it would be much better to let
the provinces themselves adjust their taxes according to their
needs, instead of watching the federal government act like a Mr.
Know it all and take it all and then try to redistribute the money.
About two weeks ago, I attended the Bloc Quebecois general
council, in Rivière-du-Loup. We talked about tax issues, among
other things. We discussed the Canada social transfer, which is
of course mentioned in the 1999 budget, since the government
just changed its nature by redistributing the money under an
equalization system.
In one of our workshops, it was suggested that Quebec should let
Ottawa deal with the Canada social transfer and opt out of it,
but be compensated by getting the full amount of the goods and
services tax. The GST revenues are more or less equivalent to
the Canada social transfer. In other words, under that
arrangement, Quebec would neither win nor lose from a financial
point of view.
1315
However, both sides would win in that the duplication of the tax
collection process would be eliminated. In Quebec, rather than
collecting both the GST and the TVQ, there would be only a
single collection, and the total amount collected would remain
in Quebec.
As we saw this morning, we often hear comments to the effect
that Quebec benefits from the Canada social transfer and similar
money transfers between the federal government and our province.
This issue would become a moot point. It would no longer apply,
since Quebec would no longer benefit—if you will—from the
Canada social transfer, since it would get an equivalent amount
through the GST.
But there is more.
It will be recalled that, when the federal government
implemented universal medicare just over 20 years ago, it agreed
to share the cost with each province. But, over the years, the
federal government has reneged on this arrangement, with the
result that it now pays just over 10% of provincial health
expenses.
The big problem with the federal government is that its promises
are never good for very long. In fact, Ottawa's share of social
transfer payments has dwindled over the years.
There is no denying that, if Quebec were to opt out of the CHST
and keep the whole GST, it would be safe from further erosion of
the CHST by the federal government because it would control its
own GST.
There are a good many advantages to the formula put forward in
Rivière-du-Loup during the Bloc Quebecois' general council. The
first is that it eliminates double taxation from the outset.
Taxes would be collected once in Quebec, and remain there. The
Government of Quebec could then adjust the amount collected to
keep pace with its socioeconomic and cultural needs.
The other advantage is that Quebec would be safe from the
federal government's policy changes. The federal government
would be able to play around all it wants with provincial
transfer payments.
Quebec would not have to worry because it will have opted out.
There are many who claim that transfers are a good deal for
Quebec when, as they know very well, a per capita CHST would
mean disgracefully disproportionate spending by the federal
government on goods and services, and research and development.
A per capita transfer would mean a 6%, 7%, or 8% increase in
federal spending in Quebec, which is not what it is getting.
I see that my time is up. I could go on and on.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to follow the remarks of my colleague from the
Bloc Quebecois although on some matters we may see things
differently.
The budget that was brought down by the government can cause us
to reflect on other times. It can cause us to reflect upon times
when there was a commitment by the federal government in Ottawa
to ensure that there were national standards across the country
regardless of what community one lived in, regardless of what
city one lived in, and regardless of what province one resided
in.
It ensured that the harmony of Canada—and I think that is a
word we can use with some sincerity—was kept in place because
people across the country knew it was a generous country. As a
country we shared with one another. Those provinces that were
well-to-do because of certain government policies or certain
natural resources shared with the provinces which found
themselves not as well off for whatever reasons, because of
government policies or because of transitions in industry and
whatnot.
1320
However, changes adopted by this government and begun by the
prior Conservative government began to erode public confidence in
the harmony and in the fact that whether one lived in rural
Alberta, Manitoba or Saskatchewan one had entitlement to the same
benefits as those who lived in urban centres.
When I discuss the new funding formula based on a per capita
basis it leads into a discussion about who is entitled and who is
not, and what is the real hidden agenda of a government that says
it will pay so much money per person without taking into account
all kinds of other factors such as unemployment in a particular
region or health care concerns in one province or another.
It reflects a move toward an urban Canada. Not only the per
capita funding but also the decrease in funding coming from the
federal government over the last 10 years has forced the
provinces to realign their priorities. The downloading of cuts
on to many provinces has meant that they have had to slash health
care, about which my colleague in the New Democratic Party has
already spoken so eloquently, and to cut back in terms of
education and social assistance.
The people listening to this debate or who will read
Hansard should be aware that there was a time when the
federal government cost shared with the provinces on a 50:50
basis the costs of social assistance. This to me was only fair
in light of the fact that many government policies have a direct
impact upon whether or not people are employed. If people are
not employed they fall on to social assistance rolls, sometimes
through no fault of their own.
I come from a community and province which have a great
understanding of that. I can point to the recent announcement in
January by the Minister of Natural Resources in my own community
that will result in the end of the coal mining industry in Cape
Breton, resulting in perhaps 1,100 people falling on to the
provincial social assistance rolls.
The federal government has decided that it is no longer
committed to the economic welfare of the people in Cape Breton.
That is a decision it can make. It has a majority. It can
decide if it wants to abandon those who are most in need. That
appears to be a decision it makes with very little remorse and
indeed very little concern.
What does that mean for the province of Nova Scotia as the
government turns its back on men and women who have been employed
in a crown corporation in my community for some 25 or 30 years?
There are men and women, miners who have gone underground, who
have injured themselves and are no longer able to retrain in the
new technological workforce.
What does it mean when the government abandons such people in
the cavalier and callous manner it has chosen? Many of these
families will fall on to the provincial welfare rolls or
provincial social assistance rolls.
What does that mean for the province of Nova Scotia? Not only
does that province lose the $300 million a year spin-off from the
Cape Breton Development Corporation mining industry. It means
that it has to come up with the social assistance money to
provide for these families that have been abandoned by the
federal government.
Somewhere in the resources of a province that is already
considered a have not province we have to find the money to
provide for these families. That means that the province has to
cut further in other areas of its jurisdiction. That means that
the children of the families on provincial social assistance
because of the abandonment of the federal government will go to
schools with fewer resources than the children in Ontario.
Perhaps I should say in Toronto because the northern parts of
Ontario and Manitoba and the rural parts of Saskatchewan will
find themselves suffering the same fate as we move to two
solitudes.
Those two solitudes will not be French and English but urban and
rural. Because of the measures brought in by this budget people
who reside in large urban centres will perhaps find themselves
with the necessary resources to complete the social safety net
that we have grown to know. By urban I do not mean cities of
30,000, 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000. I mean large urban centres of
one million, two million, three million or four million.
1325
In reality, those who live outside those urban centres will find
themselves in a struggle with scarce provincial resources for
things like education and health care. They will find themselves
forced to migrate to the urban centres where those services may
be provided.
That is essentially what is happening if we look at the country.
This is why the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland was so adamant in
his objection to the type of funding and the formulas proposed by
the government. He understands that his province is suffering an
outward migration, as are my own community, the province of
Prince Edward Island and all other have not provinces.
Within provinces the rural communities are suffering from the
migration of their young people, the greatest resource they have,
to the urban centres, which I think is the underlying policy of
this government.
I go back to what will happen in my community, to the province
of Nova Scotia, as a result of this federal government's
abandonment. I talked about the impact on schools. Let me talk
about the impact on the environment. There was not a shred of
evidence in the budget to indicate a commitment by the government
to clean up the environment or to ensure that we have a
sustainable environment for the next generation.
I appeared before the Standing Committee on the Environment to
talk about a major concern of mine and I think of most Canadians,
the tar ponds in Nova Scotia. I urged members of the committee
to see the tar ponds for themselves. I was well received.
The chair of the committee asked a pointed question of me. He
asked what was the municipality's commitment to clean them up. It
told the chairman that the municipality had no money. The
municipality just had most of its tax base hived away by the
Minister of Natural Resources when he decided to lay off 1,100
coal miners in my community.
What is the municipal commitment? It is to try to sustain some
sense of order in a community which finds itself reeling because
of federal government's decisions reflected in its budget and
budget priorities.
I want to make a few other points. There is a real lack of
creativity in the budget. We talk about how to stimulate
economic growth, but there was nothing in the budget to look at
community economic development. There was nothing in the budget
to talk about tax credits for investment in communities with high
rates of unemployment. We are not only talking about the
maritime provinces. We are talking about every province in this
federation which suffers regions of high unemployment and unfair
conditions.
Let me conclude by saying that I welcome debate on this
legislation on behalf of the constituents in Sydney—Victoria. I
urge the federal government to reconsider its commitment to
ensuring that Canadians in every part of the country, whether
they be urban, rural, eastern, western, French or English, have a
national standard of which we can all be proud.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
debate today has been fairly wide ranging. We are discussing the
Budget Implementation Act for the 1999 budget and in particular
the Bloc motion that refers to the speed at which the government
dispenses money.
For the first time in a long time I have heard the Bloc arguing
that the government is dispensing money too quickly. That is
usually something Reformers are arguing in spades. In fact, part
of the reason I rose today was to talk about how the Budget
Implementation Act authorizes the finance minister to spend far
too much money once again and far too quickly for most people.
1330
A couple of weeks ago we received a rather lengthy document sent
out from Heritage Canada telling us about all the spending that
has been done at the millennium bureau of Canada. I remember the
Prime Minister making the promise in the House a year or so ago
that we would not be having a big send up party and nothing left
at the end of it.
In looking through the spending at the millennium bureau of
Canada I have come to the conclusion that it is an almost
unbelievable binge of questionable spending. To me, it looks
like a bunch of giveaways that have absolutely nothing to do with
leaving us something after the party. I can give some good
examples. The folder which came from Heritage Canada had each
province in a separate booklet. I made a quick scan through it.
It was unbelievable some of the spending that was going on.
The millennium bureau seems quite happy to have been dispensing
$145 million on all sorts of crazy projects. The bureau is quite
proud of the spending. It is almost guaranteed that the average
taxpayer would be appalled at what is going on with the
dispensing of money to special interest groups, especially as
many of the projects have only the vaguest connection to the
start of the new millennium, especially when we consider that the
true start of the 21st century is not until December 31 in the
year 2000. It is not at the end of this year, it is at the end
of next year. Everyone has been caught up in this millennium
fever in the wrong year.
I will give some examples of the sort of spending at the
millennium bureau which in my opinion and my constituents'
opinion is the dispensing of money far too quickly and is a
complete waste. It should not have even been in this budget at
all.
There are impressive undertakings such as $15,000 to detail the
experiences of garment workers in Canada. Tell me how that
relates to the millennium. There is $300,000 for concerts
featuring a separatist singer; $15,183 for the Apple and Cider
Interpretation Centre in Quebec; and $5,333 to build two giant
mastodons in Carroll's Corner, Nova Scotia. Any of these projects
may be justifiable as standalone projects, but they do not have
anything to do with the millennium. They are an excuse to spend
money.
I will give a few more examples from B.C. and Ontario in
particular. McDonald's Corners/Elphin Recreation and Arts will
receive $2,003 to help organize the building of a labyrinth on
the grounds of the 1868 McDonald's Corners schoolhouse. They
claim that the project will be constructed of willow bushes which
grow about two metres annually allowing them to be harvested for
use by local artisans, and that this living labyrinth with its
roots in earlier millennia will provide lasting effects into the
new age. Frankly I am absolutely convinced that the artisans will
forget to harvest the willow, so we are going to be on the hook
for more grants next year to trim the bushes. Of that I am
pretty sure.
There is a really big one in the Vancouver area. The Vancouver
Symphony Orchestra thinks it would like to break three Guinness
world records with a grant of $129,667, almost $130,000. They
are going to amass the world's largest collection of musicians to
perform O Canada, Beethoven's 9th Symphony and a new work which
will reflect the music of the future.
According to the project description “The orchestra along with
more than 21,000 students and possibly as many as 40,000 from
throughout British Columbia will enjoy a once in a millennium
experience”. We can be sure of that because the millennium only
comes once in a millennium. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. This
is a project description to justify $130,000. “It will increase
their appreciation for music and their self-esteem and over the
long term discourage crime, drug abuse and participation in gang
violence, a worthy legacy for a new millennium”. That is a
quote directly from the project.
Another example, “The Canadian Canoe Museum will steer
unerringly into the new millennium”, says the millennium bureau,
“with $1,057,933 to develop a new 15,000 square foot exhibit in
the Canadian Canoe Museum in Peterborough”. The project summary
states, “The travelling and educational exhibits will focus on
the canoe as a unifying national symbol that brings Canadians
together as we enter the new millennium”.
1335
If members are not yet convinced that these projects are a
complete and utter waste of money, let me give another one. The
Friends of the Ruins of St. Raphael's will spend its grant of
$146,000 on ensuring that the fire gutted ruins of St. Raphael's
Church survive as an interpretive site well into the new
millennium. This church burned down 30 years ago. I do not know
why nobody has rebuilt it but obviously not too many people are
interested. For some reason a special interest group has managed
to extract $146,000 from taxpayers to ensure that it remains as
an interpretive site well into the new millennium.
The Waterfront Trail Artists of Etobicoke are guaranteed not to
have any problems with bird droppings in its project. The Flight
of Passenger Pigeons, thanks to a $13,614 grant from the
millennium bureau, involves only birds made of papier mâché. The
project organizers hope to convince, and they still have to do
this, 2,000 students from 13 area schools to make life size
replicas of the extinct passenger pigeon for display in their
schools and public places.
In addition, “those too young to sculpt will draw their
passenger pigeons”—sketch them instead—“and have their
messages attached to the sculptures, bringing the total number of
messages to 4,000”. The project says “the replicas will
remind people of the fragility of our environment and the
importance of nurturing it in the next millennium”. I suspect
that the papier mâché pigeons, once they get a little wet, will
gradually disintegrate and the paper will blow all over
Etobicoke, Ontario and make a huge mess, probably more than the
real passenger pigeons would have made if they were alive today.
This is another big one also in B.C. Unfortunately, some of the
big ones have gone to B.C. The Leadership Initiative for Earth
will use $599,514 to help finance the building and sailing of a
sustainable Lifeship 2000 tall ship. “The life story of every
tree used in its construction will be documented”. This is very
worthy. I do not how they are going to get the life story of
every tree. I know if we cut them in half we can count the rings
and that tells us how old they are, but I have never read
anything else in there that tells me what they were doing along
the way. I am not sure if we are going to get $599,000 worth of
action out of that project.
In an absolutely rare display of common sense, the millennium
bureau turned down a project that emanated from North Vancouver.
It was called the Multicultural Mask experience. It was
submitted by Earth Muffin Productions of North Vancouver. I
think most of us know what earth muffins are. It was submitted
by Earth Muffin Productions but it was turned down mainly because
the proposal, and I quote from the turn down letter, “did not
demonstrate a sufficient level of support from the community or
other financial partners”. I wonder why. I did read about the
project and it was appalling.
That is the millennium bureau. It is a big excuse to spend
money and is a real example of the waste that is in this budget.
In the last couple of weeks when we have talked about the west,
members on the government side still seem to think that throwing
money at things is the way to make friends. They keep talking
about the western diversification fund and how wonderful it is to
throw away hundreds of millions of dollars, as if westerners want
money spent on them. They do not. They would get rid of the
western diversification fund in return for tax decreases. That
is what should have been in this year's budget.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only am I
pleased to speak to this bill, but I was really anxious to do
so. For the benefit of those who are listening, this is the
budget implementation bill. It therefore contains a number of
technicalities. I will not address technicalities, but the
substance of this bill, which brings into being the finance
minister's budget.
1340
In Quebec and among Bloc Quebecois members, this budget was
received with anger because, without any warning, the Minister
of Finance changed something that had been agreed between the
federal government and the provinces. I am referring to social
transfers.
The Minister of Finances has decided that the Canada social
transfer, which used to be proportional, would now be calculated
on a per capita basis. As a result, the Quebec government—whose
health care system had been seriously affected by the federal
deficit reduction efforts and cuts in transfer payments—is now
shortchanged to the tune of $350 million over 5 years.
That it angered the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois
government and Quebecers at large was to be expected.
I suspect that, so far, nobody has understood where I am coming
from. I will try to explain in a straightforward manner what the
finance minister has been doing since he came to power. I will
start with a history lesson.
In the late 1960s, the federal government came up with the
Canada Assistance Plan to help the provinces assume the costs of
poverty. In fact, through the CAP, the federal government was
covering 50% of the provinces' expenditures to provide help to
people in need over and above benefits. This had been going on
since 1969.
When the Liberals took office in 1993, the first thing they did,
in their first budget, was to cut social spending. They had just
announced a major reform of social policies. They had asked a
committee to travel across Canada to listen to what Canadians
and Quebecers had to say about social programs.
This great desire for reform, from which no specific proposals
were really expected, led in 1995 to the announcement of radical
changes by the Minister of Finance, who decided to group social
transfers for education and health into one single transfer. Up
to that point, the large amounts of taxpayers' money spent by
the federal government on health and education and called social
transfers were made on a per capita basis. In other words, until
the Minister of Finance decided to make changes in 1995, federal
transfers for health and education were based on the population.
As I said earlier, there was also a specific plan called the
Canada assistance plan, which was based on poverty.
It took poverty into account. What did the Minister of Finance
do as he was getting ready to make drastic cuts? He grouped all
transfers for education, health and poverty into one single
transfer.
1345
Therefore, population could no longer be the sole criterion, nor
could poverty in each province apply completely either.
So the government announced that it would establish an average,
with the result that Quebec, which had a little more than 25% of
the Canadian population, received approximately 28% of the
total. Why? Because when we had the Canada assistance plan,
Quebec received 34%. This means there is a real poverty problem.
It does not mean that Quebec does not have a great future as a
state, but that there is a serious historical problem of
poverty.
It was announced that we would very gradually go from 28% to 50%
only of the population criterion. What did the Minister of
Finance do in his budget? He decided that in three years poverty
would no longer be taken into account. The federal government
does not take poverty into account in the equalization formula
and we know that the poverty level is different from one
province to another. The federal government will no longer take
that into account. This is what we wanted to condemn in all
possible ways.
I must say that the federal government used a trick to slip
Quebec a lump of coal. The government took advantage of the fact
that the equalization formula would allow Quebec to receive,
because of good economic performance, in Ontario among others,
an amount of $1.4 billion. Was this a novelty, a reform, a gift?
No, it was the result of prior commitments and agreements.
The federal government, taking advantage of what was Quebec's
due on the one hand, took advantage on the other hand by doing
away with something that had been in place since the late 1960s,
and had been planned as something quite different: the
recognition of the weight of poverty and assistance to the
provinces with the heaviest burden of poverty.
Under such circumstances, Quebec could not do otherwise than to
react sharply, particularly since it had been hit especially
hard by the employment insurance reform. This reform was also a
desire to do away with inter-regional subsidies, to use
technocratic jargon. This meant that, where employment
insurance was concerned, Quebec got it in the neck, if I may put
it that way.
In other words, in both social program reform and employment
insurance reform, Quebec got more than its fair share of cuts.
But it did not get its fair share on another level: productive
spending.
We must keep repeating this. The reason we want sovereignty is
to have control over everything we produce, all of our taxes, to
use as we see fit, in order to develop.
Many people see sovereignty as a means of seriously addressing
the phenomenon of poverty, which unfortunately—it must be said,
shouted from the rooftops even, given the way the federal
government has decided to fight the deficit—has increased.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recently tried to tell
us that Quebec was getting its share of federal productive
spending. He used science and technology spending as his
example, saying that Quebec got 28.3%.
1350
What was extraordinary was that he proposed that the Hull-Ottawa
area be excluded. What people need to know is that in the
Hull-Ottawa area, 87% of expenditures are in Ontario, and 13% in
Quebec. So not taking it into account was how the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs could conclude that Quebec was getting
its share of productive spending.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are talking about Bill C-71, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget that was tabled by the finance minister
in February.
I would like to talk about some of the things that the finance
minister has done in his reign of terror, as some would say, his
reign of taxation. The minister of high taxes, who sits across
the way, has slashed and burned health care spending to the tune
of $20 billion from 1993 to the year 2000. Since he took office
that is what the minister has done and that is unconscionable.
This is also the finance minister who says that he is reinvesting
$11.5 billion over five years and wants Canadians to be happy
about that.
Let us look at the big picture of what he is asking Canadians to
do. He is asking Canadians to accept the fact that he has taken
away $20 billion in spending on health care and social services,
the CHST, and is putting back $11.5 billion. I do not know very
many Canadians who would be happy to hear that they will lose $1
from their pocket but that they may get 50 cents of that back or
a little bit more. That does not make sense, but that is exactly
what the finance minister has done. He has slashed and burned
health care in the country.
The Liberal finance minister, who stands in this place and tells
us he is the defender of health care and the creator of
everything good in the country, cannot run from his record. He
can run, but Canadians are not going to let him hide from his
record, nor should they. Members of the official opposition will
continue to point out the facts of what the finance minister has
done in his slash and burn approach to health care spending.
The minister of the high taxation that we have in the country,
and who has been the finance minister for six years, has also
implemented or allowed a policy to continue for years concerning
the whole issue of family tax fairness. We brought this up not
long ago in the House of Commons and had wide agreement on it
from the members of the opposition and from members of the
government as well.
This is a finance minister who says he cares about the tax rates
in the country and the burden of taxation on families, yet he
does absolutely nothing for those families who make the decision
to have one of the individuals in the home stay home to look
after and give care to their children. There is an inequality
that has been entrenched in policy by this minister of high
taxation and he has not addressed that for six years.
If we look at a person's words and actions, words can be empty
after awhile if they are not followed up by action. We must
first listen to what somebody says and then look at what they do.
If what they do, does not match up with what they say, then we
should be questioning what it is they are saying to see whether
what they say and what they do are actually the same thing. In
this case, they are not.
The minister of high taxation has told us that he cares about
families and about lowering tax rates for average Canadians.
However, that is not what I am hearing from constituents. That
is not what I heard from the individuals I talked to in Hamilton
last night or in Stoney Creek, Ontario a few weeks ago.
I have talked to individuals in Dewdney—Alouette and to many
young families this past weekend at an event in Maple Ridge. They
asked me how a government could be in place that says it cares
about families yet has a discriminatory tax policy in place that
favours one situation of care giving over another. They said to
me, “It looks like the government does not see the value in the
commitment we are making to have one of the individuals on our
family stay home and look after our children.”
That is a shame, because there are many families who are making
that sacrifice and commitment to their families for the good of
the country.
1355
The Liberal government and members of the government say such
things, as the hon. member from Vancouver—Kingsway did, that
mothers or families who would make the decision to stay home are
taking the easy way out. That is the response we hear from the
government.
The member for St. Paul's referred to the individuals who came
before the all party finance committee to plead their case as
elite white women.
These are members of the Liberal government saying these kinds
of things. They can run and they are trying to run, but they
cannot hide from their record and what they have done. Canadians
are waking up to the fact that the policies that are being put in
place—
An hon. member: More Canadians think they have been
abducted.
Mr. Grant McNally: Even the Liberal members on the other
side are echoing in agreement with me about their high tax
policies and how they need to be lowered. In fact, the Minister
of Industry just yesterday and last week said that taxes are too
high in the country and that taxes need to be lowered to the rate
of the American model.
We have the Prime Minister contradicting the Minister of
Industry and the Minister of Finance looking both ways, as if at
a tennis match, trying to figure out what is going on. The
Liberals cannot even figure it out over there. The Minister of
Industry has figured it out. Taxes are simply too high and they
need to be lowered. There is a debate about that over on that
side because they do not want to let go of those dollars. They do
not want to provide the tax relief that is necessary to provide
the care for families.
I hear the hon. member from Coquitlam chirping away, a man who
said he was no yes-man during his byelection campaign yet voted
with the government to punish families through high tax policy.
He continues to chirp away, as do other members of the Liberal
government who are trying to run from the record. Canadians are
not going to let them hide any longer, because it is their high
tax policy that is putting down a lot of people in the country,
keeping them from taking their rightful place by working hard and
providing for their families.
It used to be that individuals would work really hard to put
some money aside for a second car or for a cottage at the lake.
Today, families are working harder and harder to put food on the
table and provide clothing and shelter for their families.
In conclusion, I simply say to my Liberal colleagues across the
way, who seem to be deaf to the voices of their own constituents
and Canadians across the country, that substantial tax relief is
necessary to provide relief to Canadian families. We would have
hoped to have seen that in Bill C-71, but, alas, the government
continues to punish Canadians with high taxes.
The Speaker: It is almost two o'clock. We will now
proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE STEVE CHIASSON
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Steve
Chiasson of the Carolina Hurricanes was tragically killed when
his pickup ran off the road yesterday.
Steve was born in Barrie and his career highlights included a
Memorial Cup with Guelph where he was selected the tournament's
most valuable player. He represented Canada at the 1987 world
junior championship.
A steady two-way defenceman, Steve had 398 points in 751 NHL
games with Detroit, Calgary, Hartford and Carolina. He played in
the NHL all-star game in 1993 and was a member of Canada's gold
medal team at the 1997 world championship.
I remember him speaking at a Canada Day Peterborough rotary
meeting about being an ambassador for Canada in the States. This
was a special meeting with lots of students present. As he
spoke, he handed his notes sheet by sheet to his son who was
sitting on the floor at his feet. He was a dedicated player and
a family man.
He made his off-season home north of Peterborough. On behalf of
the people of Peterborough riding and all Canadians, I extend our
heartfelt condolences to his wife, Sue, and three children.
* * *
1400
KOSOVO REFUGEES
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today I
am proud to be a Canadian. This is the day our country will
accept the first flight carrying over 200 refugees from Kosovo.
After an assessment of refugee camps in countries neighbouring
Kosovo, our Minister of Foreign Affairs and the United Nations
have determined that refugees must be removed from these camps to
relieve pressure due to deteriorating conditions.
We must trust that this assessment is reliable. Soon those
hundreds and thousands of Canadians who eagerly volunteered to
open their homes and their hearts to these unfortunate people
will be allowed to act on their generosity.
In a very direct and personal way I want to thank them all for
giving in such a meaningful way. Today I am proud to be a
Canadian, a citizen of a country whose people can be counted on
to extend a helping hand when help is truly needed.
* * *
DR. CROSBY JOHNSTON
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was with great pride that I attended a
special presentation of the Governor General's awards in New
Westminster, British Columbia, earlier this week.
Among those receiving the Governor General's Caring Canadian
Award from our community was Dr. Crosby Johnston. The award was
well deserved. As former mayor of Coquitlam I had the honour of
bestowing the title of Freeman of the City upon Dr. Crosby
Johnston in 1992.
As His Excellency stated, Dr. Crosby Johnston has indeed done a
great job for the community. I am proud to know this deeply
caring Canadian. There are many more Canadians like him across
our great country of Canada.
* * *
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning we signed an agreement designed to ensure equality
and opportunity for the people of the Nisga'a Nation. The
agreement is the result of the negotiations carried out in good
faith over an extended period and testifies to Canadians'
willingness to reconcile historical and cultural differences
through negotiation and, where necessary, pragmatic compromise.
Congratulations to President Joe Gosnell of the Nisga'a Tribal
Council and to all the Nisga'a people whose ancestors first
paddled their canoes to the provincial capital, Victoria, a
century ago.
Congratulations to the Nisga'a for their perseverance and
patience in bringing their historic quest for an agreement to a
successful conclusion.
* * *
WORLD WAR II
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May
7, 1945, Germany surrendered unconditionally to the allied forces
at Reims, France, meaning victory in Europe.
In the six years of conflict Canada had enlisted more than one
million men and women in our armed forces. More than 45,000 gave
their lives in the cause of peace and freedom.
For a population of 11 million, our contribution was remarkable,
from the battle of Britain, the battle of the Atlantic, Dieppe,
Sicily, Italy, Normandy, the Netherlands and the Rhineland. We
must remember the contribution of our soldiers, sailors, merchant
marines and air crews.
Canada matured through the ordeal of war and emerged ready to
assume new responsibilities in the world community.
On May 3, 1915, Lt. Col. John McRae composed his poem In
Flanders Fields in 20 minutes while overlooking the grave of a
fellow officer at Ypres.
Some 54 years later we must remember those who served for Canada
and honour the words written by him:
* * *
ROCKY ELEMENTARY STUDENTS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, every few
weeks the House acknowledges the presence of distinguished
visitors in the gallery. It is only right and proper that we do
so.
Today I would like to draw the attention of members to a special
group of visitors which is in our gallery. Today a group of
students from Rocky Elementary School in Rocky Mountain House,
Alberta, from my riding, are here watching us. They are part of
a French immersion class on a field trip to Montreal, Ottawa and
Quebec City.
They may not be prime ministers, cabinet ministers, mayors or
public officials, at least not yet, but they do represent
something just as important. They are just a small portion of
this country's future. It is for them that we are working here
today and ultimately our success or failure will most clearly
impact upon them.
I know that all members share this sense of responsibility. And
I know also that this House will join me in welcoming these
students to Ottawa, Parliament Hill and the House of Commons.
* * *
1405
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I pay tribute to a group of volunteers leading a relief effort
for the Kosovo refugees, the likes of which we have not witnessed
in many years.
These volunteers from Angus, Ontario have been working
diligently for many weeks collecting enormous quantities of
clothing, toys and much needed goods. When I visited their
facilities this past Saturday I was astounded at the mountains of
donated goods I witnessed. These great Canadians have collected
an amazing 40 tractor-trailer loads of goods.
On behalf of my colleagues I want to congratulate Rita and Dan
Heffernan, Tamara and Larry Culham, Carmen Angus, Bill Dunkley,
Vera McIntosh, Shirley and Bill Coleski, Teha and Tasha Brown,
Ralph Hodsdon, Janet Dalton, Suzanne Finck, Lori Ignatov, Thea
Lavoie, George Nitsche, members of the St. John Ambulance corps
and cadets, and the 2408 Base Borden army cadets.
They make us all proud to be Canadians.
* * *
NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May 2 to
May 8 is National Forest Week, providing a unique opportunity to
acknowledge the contribution of Canada's forests to our
environment, our economy, our culture and our history.
[Translation]
Our forests are a natural resource whose maintenance and
management concern all Canadians.
[English]
The forest industry supports 337 communities and provides jobs
for over 877,000 Canadians, including some residents in my riding
of Oakville. As well, this industry is the net largest
contributor to our balance of trade, representing over $31.6
billion in 1998.
This year, 1999, also commemorates the centennial of the
Canadian Forest Service. Canadians can be proud of the vision of
the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier who 100 years ago created what
has become Canada's principal forest research organization.
* * *
JASON LANG
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the last week the eyes of the country have been on Taber,
Alberta, as that community struggles with the tragic death of
Jason Lang.
Yesterday Jason's memory was honoured before 2,000 mourners and
the national media in a remarkable way. The service was
conducted by the Reverend Dale Lang, Jason's father. Dale Lang,
his wife Diane and their children displayed tremendous courage
and forgiveness, buoyed by their deep faith in God, as they asked
that some good come from this tragedy so that Jason's death would
not be in vain.
There could have been bitterness and blame and a call for
revenge. As a parent, I would have understood. The loss of a
child is every parent's worst nightmare. But the Lang family saw
the chance to use the death of their son to challenge the people
of Taber to take back their school where this tragedy occurred
and to reach out to those young people who have lost their way.
I know the House will join with me in expressing our deepest
condolences to the Lang family on the death of Jason and our
thanks for their wonderful example of the Christian faith in
action.
As well, we extend our best wishes and our prayers for a speedy
recovery to Shane Christmas, the other brave young man who was
seriously injured in Wednesday's tragedy.
* * *
[Translation]
GRAND PRIX D'EXCELLENCE-MODE QUÉBEC
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today I want to congratulate Isabelle Gendron from Saint-Hubert,
who won the Grand prix d'excellence-Mode Québec, in the student
category, at the Quebec young designers competition, on April 8.
The winner's name was announced during the Salon de la Jeunesse
held in Montreal's Palais des Congrès.
Isabelle Gendron, who is a student at CEGEP Marie-Victorin, also
won the Grand prix “Vêtement féminin at the provincial level”.
The theme of this year's competition, which is in its 15th year,
was “Interculturalism: a world reality”.
The winners of the competition shared $14,000 in prizes.
All the garments created by the finalists and winners were shown
to visitors, during a fashion show organized as part of the
Salon de la Jeunesse.
Congratulations, Isabelle, and good luck in your new career.
* * *
YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is today, in Ottawa, that the public hearings of the
Liberal task force on young entrepreneurs will begin.
This national task force will prepare a report that will be
submitted to the Prime Minister by October. This report will
include an assessment of the programs and services available to
young people who have business projects, and it will determine
how the federal government, the private sector, associated
groups and young people themselves can create a better synergy.
1410
So, the hearings begin here at 6 p.m., in the Centre Block. The
task force will then be in Montreal on May 14 and 15, in
Sainte-Marie-de-Beauce on May 17, and in Laval on May 28.
This tour of the Quebec regions is an excellent way of
contacting young entrepreneurs and organizations that help them
with their projects, in their own environment.
This is an opportunity to hear their views on their projects and
on what they expect from the government.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada Post Corporation Act says that Canada Post is
not expected to pay dividends to the government. Instead,
surplus revenues should pay for improved services and provide
decent wages and benefits for postal workers. However, Canada
Post will be giving $200 million to the federal government as a
dividend payment.
Meanwhile, Canadians are worried about their postal services.
In Sackville there are super mailboxes which freeze in the
winter. In Shediac there are long line-ups. In Richibucto the
post office building is for sale. More and more it seems that
Canada Post's only concern is to make profits. Could it be to
make deregulation or privatization easier?
The NDP strongly believes that Canada is best served by keeping
Canada Post as a public service. Deregulating or removing the
post office's monopoly would increase postal rates in rural
areas, raise post office deficits and eliminate postal services
and jobs.
Canada Post should work toward offering better service to all
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday evening in Montreal, the Prime Minister of Canada
delivered an important message, reaffirming his commitment to
liberal values.
This commitment means that his government will follow a line of
economic realism and social progress.
The liberal values the Prime Minister is referring to are the
cornerstone of a society that wants to protect its health care
system, ensure economic growth through job creation and develop
policies encouraging entrepreneurship in Canada and Quebec.
These liberal values also apply to a society as modern as
Canada, open to partners throughout the world who share our
ideas of liberty and our concern for improving people's quality
of life.
Long live Canada.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 11, the Association coopérative
d'économie familiale de Bois-Franc announced the winners of its
13th Déméritas consumer price awards.
The garbage can award went to the federal government for
appropriation of the surplus in the employment insurance fund to
pay the deficit.
As of March 31, 1999, the surplus was $7 billion. Obviously,
the federal government is very interested in this surplus, an
interest that is especially upsetting because it does not
contribute at all to this fund, since it is funded by the
contributions of workers and employers.
The ACEF supports the statement by the Coalition régionale sur
l'assurance-emploi, which says, and I quote “that the employment
insurance fund is a unique social safety net”.
Workers will never support the federal government's immoral
approach in pillaging the surpluses in the employment insurance
fund. Canadians and Quebecers will never condone this
behaviour.
* * *
[English]
SHAG HARBOUR FIRE
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
Saturday I surveyed the damage caused by the Shag Harbour fire.
Only the quick response of local volunteers and professionals
prevented complete devastation.
Two thousand acres were destroyed by this fire, which swept the
edge of Shag Harbour and travelled nine kilometres to the sea.
Two homes, along with other workshops, were completely destroyed
and other homes were extensively damaged.
Four hundred and eighty-seven houses were threatened and
1,800-plus people were evacuated from the fire zone. Had this
fire, which travelled north to south, been 250 metres farther
west, Shag Harbour would have been destroyed.
Thirteen fire departments and two Department of Natural
Resources helicopter crews battled the flames. Fire Chief Ricky
Banks of Shag Harbour and Chief Darren Nickerson of Woods
Harbour, Emergency Medical Organization co-ordinator Ed
Nickerson, Bill DesChamp, Department of Natural Resources fire
boss, local RCMP, Tina Wickens, warden of the Municipality of
Barrington, and all field and support staff deserve commendation.
Typical of Canadian communities, Shag Harbour and Woods Harbour
drew upon the strength of their human resources and survived
against great odds.
* * *
MEMBER FOR CALGARY SOUTHEAST
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Thursday, which can only be described as a vast expenditure
of human voice, the member for Calgary Southeast rode into the
great riding of Leeds—Grenville and addressed a packed closet of
about 40 Reformers.
He spent a great deal of time attacking me personally—and I am
quoting him directly now—my “lack of courage and lack of
guts”.
I do not know how they define courage in Calgary Southeast, but
in Leeds—Grenville it does not involve taking cheap personal
shots at a colleague when he or she is not there to bring some
truth to the discussion.
1415
My actual point is that the member for Calgary Southeast made a
great public announcement recently about being celibate. When he
tours the country to simply preach this type of partisan
nonsense—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the Indian affairs minister signed a document with
enormous ramifications for the Nisga'a people, the people of
British Columbia and the people of Canada.
This Nisga'a treaty was rammed through the B.C. legislature over
the objections of the B.C. Liberal opposition which challenged
its constitutionality. Today the federal government signs it
without a national discussion, without a debate in parliament,
without a vote in parliament, and without a mandate from
parliament.
Why would the government flagrantly violate democracy and the
democratic process on such an important subject as Nisga'a?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has not violated the democratic process.
The democratic process will be fully followed in the House and in
parliament.
The signatures today are subject to the overall approval of the
House of Commons and parliament as a whole. The proper process
will be followed, a democratic process in which we believe fully.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has been spending too much time with
Castro—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning: The Prime Minister increases
Canada's military commitment to Kosovo without a vote or a
mandate from parliament. He fails to consult parliament on the
appointment of justices to the supreme court. He consistently
ignores the results of democratic Senate elections in Alberta and
he uses his party discipline to force his own members to vote
against tax fairness and stronger measures against child
pornography. Now he is taking exactly the same approach with
respect to the Nisga'a treaty.
How can the government expect the Nisga'a or anyone else to
respect the democratic process when the Prime Minister does not
respect it himself?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say how proud I was
today on behalf of the Government of Canada to sign the final
agreement.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there was once a prime minister who stood in the House
and said that he was terribly proud of trying to arbitrarily
amend the Canadian Constitution. He too held a signing ceremony,
but he neglected to consult the people or parliament in advance
of the signing and he refused a national referendum. In the end
the Meech Lake accord failed and that prime minister alienated
and embittered the very people on whose behalf he claimed to be
pushing that accord.
Why does the Prime Minister think we can go down exactly the
same road with the Nisga'a people without producing exactly the
same negative and divisive results?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians will be very disappointed to hear the Leader
of the Opposition disparaging the Canadian Constitution in a
totally unwarranted way.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We want to both hear the
question and the answer. I would ask members to listen to the
answer.
Hon. Herb Gray: Having said that, I reiterate that the
signature of the Nisga'a treaty today is simply the first step
toward having the treaty fully considered through the democratic
process of the Parliament of Canada.
1420
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us look
at some of the constitutional changes the government is trying to
bring through the back door with the Nisga'a treaty: taxation
without representation, race based government, regulation of
trade by race, and entrenched inequality for aboriginal women.
Why has the government abandoned the cherished Canadian value of
equality?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition should be
embarrassed by these questions.
Since 1989 when that party has had a representation in the
House, there have been no less than four and now five treaties
presented for consideration. In every case there was a signed
treaty delivered to parliament to debate fully and to decide
whether to accept or reject.
They belittle the parliamentary process by asking such inane
questions.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, eight short
months ago the House had the privilege of an address by Nelson
Mandela. Mr. Mandela spent his entire life fighting against
legislated segregation. He spent 27 years in jail fighting
against legislated segregation.
Why has the government abandoned the cherished Canadian value of
equality of all Canadians?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party
continue to show their lack of credibility on the issue of treaty
writing in Canada.
First and foremost, they do not understand our Constitution, our
Constitution that protects aboriginal rights in the country.
Second, I must point out again that the hon. member for Skeena
has yet to go and discuss the Nisga'a treaty with the Nisga'a
themselves.
In addition, I point out that the city of Terrace where the hon.
member lives has proclaimed the week of April 25 as Nisga'a
appreciation week.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
creation of Nunavut provides an opportunity to settle an old
dispute between Quebec and the federal government as to who has
jurisdiction over the James Bay and Hudson Bay offshore islands.
Since these islands are used by Quebec's Cree and Inuit for
traditional hunting and fishing, will the Prime Minister admit
that it is only common sense that these islands over 1,000
kilometers from Nunavut belong to Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in settling land claims we
ensure that the rights of other interests will be considered and
overlap issues will be undertaken to be negotiated.
In this case the Cree have taken us to court as of February and
there are issues that obviously I will not discuss.
I would say, however, that we have had scoping out discussions
with the Cree. We are keeping the province of Quebec informed
and we will work together to resolve these issues.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, four
times since 1974, federal Indian affairs ministers have said the
same thing, recognizing the validity of Cree and Inuit
arguments.
Could the federal government not show some real common sense and
grant the request of the Government of Quebec, which is also the
request of the Cree and Inuit living in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated,
we are doing that. We have had scoping out discussions. In
fact, it was on March 29 that we talked with the Cree to scope
out the issues around their concerns.
As I said, we will continue to include the province of Quebec
and we will find a reconciliation to this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's
Minister of Natural Resources wrote a letter to the federal
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on March 30
reminding her that, for more than a century, Quebec's
governments have been saying that Quebec's territory should
include the islands, waters and ocean floors adjacent to its
coastline.
Does the minister intend to reply in the near future to the
letter from Minister Brassard so that negotiations to sort out
this problem that has already gone on for far too long can
finally begin?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Robert
Bourassa also raised the matter of these islands in 1993.
Senator Lise Bacon, who was a Liberal minister in Quebec City at
the time, said that the only reasonable, effective and
economical way to administer these islands was from Quebec.
Does the minister agree with this statement?
1425
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I share the view that we
should complete our scoping out exercise. We have begun that
with the Cree and we will include the province of Quebec in those
undertakings.
* * *
RAIL SAFETY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
The minister will be as aware as all of us of the tragic
accident a week or two ago where two VIA crew members were killed
as a result of a derailment when a passenger train went through
an open switch.
We found out after the accident that there exists sections
within the Canadian rail system where there are so-called dark
zones, where there is not the appropriate technological control.
Could the minister commit to the House today that he and his
department will be making sure that this kind of situation exists
for only a very short time hereafter and that he will do
something about it?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the time, I know I speak on behalf of
all members of the House in extending condolences to the families
of the victims who were injured and killed in that particular
accident. The TSB will be investigating this matter rather
thoroughly and will determine the causes of the accident.
We had a Transport Canada inspector on site who determined that
a threat does exist. As a result we have issued a notice to
Canadian National Railways to have it deal with that threat
within 10 days.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we are dealing with something after the fact. I want to
raise another matter with the minister and he has a chance to
deal with it before the fact.
The United Transportation Union and others are concerned with
the way that marshalling requirements are being handled by the
railway. We have cases where crews are going out with trains
that have more cars than are on the records that they have, which
means that they can make mistakes with respect to sidings, with
respect to what is on the train in terms of hazardous materials,
and so on.
I know the rail safety directorate has been contacted about this
matter. Could the minister make a commitment to look into it
himself and make sure that something is done about it before we
have to raise it after an accident?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this matter has been raised at the transport
committee by the hon. member. I have discussed it with members
of the various unions involved. Certainly it is something that
we take very seriously because safety is Transport Canada's top
priority.
I certainly will undertake to investigate more fully the
problems with marshalling yards to ensure that rail safety meets
the very high standard that Canadians expect.
* * *
PREMIER OF ONTARIO
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Ontario budget will be delivered later today. Over the past four
years the Premier of Ontario has reduced taxes significantly. He
has increased provincial spending on health care and education.
He has reduced the provincial deficit well ahead of schedule and
he has created nearly half a million jobs.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Kings—Hants.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, we seem to have the
attention of members opposite. Perhaps they can start acting on
tax cuts like Mike Harris has done.
Would the industry minister rather have Mike Harris as a boss,
somebody who believes in lower taxes, instead of a Prime Minister
who does not believe that lower taxes will benefit the Canadian
economy?
The Speaker: I am not sure that relates to administrative
responsibility. I see the minister on his feet. I will permit
him to answer it.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Perhaps
not, Mr. Speaker, but I am delighted to have an opportunity to
respond to that question. After all, after the nine years of
deficits piled up by the party that member represents, we brought
them to zero. It enabled us to make tax cuts. That is the
difference between us.
What is happening in Ontario? Mike Harris promises tax cuts.
Where does he get the money? He borrows it.
1430
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
have an industry minister who one week says cut taxes, a Prime
Minister who says we really do not need to cut taxes and a
finance minister who says maybe we should, maybe we should not
but we should not do it right now or too quickly.
Perhaps the industry minister who believes in cutting taxes
should run for the government of Mike Harris in the next
election. That way he could sit around a cabinet table and work
with a group of people who are committed to cutting taxes and
creating economic growth.
Is the real reason we do not have tax cuts in Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I could just add something to what my colleague the
Minister of Industry said, the premier of Ontario is not only
going to have to borrow the money. We gave him $900 million and
reversed what the previous Tory government had imposed on the
province of Ontario.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is not much left but the Liberal government knows how to
give things away. Let us look at this Nisga'a treaty one more
time.
First of all it creates a state within a state, an idea which I
think the Bloc Quebecois would find fairly palatable. This is
sovereignty association in the heart of British Columbia. Not
just that but this new kingdom of Nisga'a actually has
constitutional superiority in 14 areas. The new Nisga'a
government will have incredible powers, including the powers to
tax, regulate trade and even dole out civil rights, if it so
chooses, based upon a person's race.
Since when did the Prime Minister become a booster for
sovereignty association?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the
Reform Party needs some lessons in history. It is clear to me
that the Reform Party needs to take some time to understand how
Canada was built.
In our Constitution, the highest law in our land, we recognize
and protect aboriginal interests. Section 35 identifies
aboriginal rights as not being better rights than ours but being
different by virtue of the fact that they were here first. The
challenge we have as Canadians is to find ways and means in
modern Canada to reflect those rights in a real and substantial
way.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
always thought one of the cherished Canadian principles was
equality of all citizens. That is something this party has stood
for for a long time.
Let me quote directly from the Nisga'a deal: “In the event of
an inconsistency between a Nisga'a law and a federal or
provincial law, the Nisga'a law prevails to the extent of the
inconsistency or conflict”.
If Canadian laws no longer apply, if parliament is no longer the
supreme authority, and if the Prime Minister is no longer the top
elected official, why have we created an independent state within
our borders? That is what we have done.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here again the Reform Party
shows its lack of credibility as it relates to understanding the
treaty.
Through negotiations we have found ways and means to reconcile
the interests of all parties. The Constitution applies. The
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies. The Criminal
Code applies.
The Reform Party would do well to actually read the treaty so
that its questions could be taken seriously.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether he had any plans to
freeze the Canadian assets of close collaborators of the
Milosevic regime. All I got was a very evasive answer.
I would therefore like to submit a very concrete case, that of
Bogoljub Karic, a Serbian minister, who owns a television
station in Yugoslavia, three companies in Canada, and a
luxurious home in Toronto.
Does the Prime Minister not think that, by freezing the assets
of this man, who is propagandizing for Milosevic and against
NATO, Canada would be taking concrete action to step up the
pressure on the Milosevic government?
1435
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has enacted a
number of sanctions against the former republic of Yugoslavia
including a freeze of the assets in Canada of the former republic
and Serbian governments. Should multilateral sanctions be
adopted in this respect, Canada could impose measures to freeze
the assets of government officials under the Special Economic
Measures Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is a very simple one: Is the government going to freeze
his assets? Have they been inventoried? Could the moneys
seized in this way not be put into a fund to ensure the
reconstruction of Kosovo?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada could put in
place the appropriate regulations if an appropriate international
organization or association of states, most likely NATO in the
current context, decides that such a measure should be taken.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this treaty is a backroom deal negotiated by nameless,
faceless bureaucrats without the direction of parliament. Today
before the document has even been tabled in the House, the
minister signed off on the deal. Next fall parliament we will be
asked to rubber stamp the deal, no changes required, thank you
very much. What happened to the democratic process?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is
suggesting is that the right of this House to consider a
negotiated agreement and have full authority to accept or reject
it is somehow not significant. I feel quite differently about
that.
If the hon. member looks at history, the policy of Canada has
always been to introduce to the House a signed agreement for full
debate and consideration by parliament. Parliament can choose to
accept or reject it and we will be bound by that decision.
On this side of the House we know that writing treaties in
British Columbia is the right thing to do. We know that the
treaty that we have with the Nisga'a is fair, affordable and
right.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the right of the House is to amend legislation that is
brought before it. The democratic process is being trampled in
this deal. The government has made parliament completely
irrelevant to the process. Under this Liberal administration,
parliament has become an ineffectual, irrelevant talk shop.
Let us ask the real question. Is this treaty so bad it cannot
stand the scrutiny of parliamentary debate prior to ratification?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us understand that the
house of parliament can amend the enabling legislation. We have
always introduced signed agreements. We introduced signed
agreements for the Gwich'in. We introduced a signed agreement
for the Nunavut land claims agreement, for the Sahtu Dene and
Metis agreements, and for the umbrella final agreement for the
Council of Yukon First Nations. Why would we do it any
differently for the Nisga'a agreement?
* * *
[Translation]
JUSTICE
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
response to Quebec experts who fear the negative effects of the
principle of harmonization of sentencing, the Minister of
Justice claimed, in a letter made public on Saturday, that her
bill on young offenders merely encourages what she calls
“consistency in sentencing” in Canada.
According to the minister, is there consistency in sentencing
under Canadian law and the measures taken by Quebec with its
approach?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full
well that the provision that is being discussed is a provision
that exists presently in the Criminal Code of Canada. I point
the hon. member to the fact that there continues to be regional
variation in sentencing under the Criminal Code.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is confusing the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders
Act. That is not reassuring.
For her bill to make any sense, does the minister realize that
the principle of harmonized sentences, or if you prefer, the new
concept of consistency in sentencing, implies that either Quebec
must change its approach, or the Canadian west must?
Quite obviously, the two approaches cannot coexist.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not the case and I
think the hon. member knows that. Our proposed youth justice
system acknowledges the diversity of approach, the diversity of
concern that exists among provinces and territories in this
country.
The youth justice scheme is one that provides sufficient
flexibility to acknowledge that diversity not only in sentencing
but in other aspects of the administration of justice.
* * *
1440
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last night the Prime Minister warned Canadians that they should
beware of political leaders who believe countries should be
populated by people of the same blood. That is exactly what is
happening with the Nisga'a deal. The government just signed on to
a deal that will entrench government by race, government based on
bloodlines.
Why does the Prime Minister point fingers at other leaders when
he himself is guilty of entrenching government based on race?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to my mind the Nisga'a
treaty gives us the opportunity to yet again show how this side
of the House, how the Liberal government, wants to make progress
for the benefit of first nations in Canada.
I would like to remind the House of some of the approaches of
the opposition. First of all, members will remember that their
solution to the devastating poverty on first nations communities
was to cut $1 billion from my ministry's budget. I would remind
members that they were so committed to the Inuit in Nunavut that
when we had the debate in the House, all they focused on was the
Senate issue. Here is a good one. I want to remind the House
that their enlightened solution at Ipperwash was to call in the
army. Are we to take them seriously at all?
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
certainly should take the Canadians who elected us to parliament
seriously.
Let me give an example of how the Nisga'a treaty hands out
rights and privileges based on race. If you are a non-Nisga'a
you do not have a right to practice a profession on Nisga'a land;
no lawyers, doctors, mechanics, shopkeepers without getting
special racial permission.
Why does the Prime Minister want to entrench race based
employment in the Constitution?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the
party opposite talk about race based decisions. Let us clarify
this. It is not race based; it is rights based. If they would
take the time to read the highest law of our land, the
Constitution, and appreciate the unique and dynamic approach that
Canada has taken in building a strong partnership with the first
peoples of this country, they would be appalled at their own
questions.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, while
a parliamentary secretary was intimating that the federal
government could not appoint a government negotiator in the
matter of the millennium scholarships, because the foundation
manages the money of taxpayers, we learned that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs made a commitment on Saturday to Jean
Charest to delegate a federal deputy minister.
Why did the minister, who knew there was a government
appointment and a negotiator on the way, refuse to so inform the
House? Why is he hiding this appointment he has been asked to
make for quite some time?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, are the members of the Bloc
Quebecois interested in an answer, yes or no?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I
began my answer at 18 seconds, given the delay.
I would say, however, that the students' interests remain the
number one priority of the Government of Canada. We heard very
encouraging news in the media recently, and I hope this matter
will be resolved in Quebec quickly.
* * *
[English]
RAIL SAFETY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the transport minister's response to an
earlier question on the April 23 derailment of the VIA passenger
train in the village of Thamesville in my riding.
In addition to having the problems with dark areas of our rail
system addressed, can the minister please expand further on our
efforts to ensure rail safety to all Canadians?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to publicly thank the people of
Thamesville for their very timely action in helping all those who
were injured and helping to save lives.
As I said earlier, Transport Canada is conducting an
investigation independent of but complementary to that of the
Transportation Safety Board under the Railway Safety Act and part
II of the Canada Labour Code. As a result, we have issued a
notice under the Railway Safety Act to CN to deal with what we
call main track hand operated crossover switches in multi-track
non-signalized areas, otherwise known as dark territory.
* * *
1445
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, from
day to day I have no idea where the government stands on the
issue of taxes. We have the industry minister who says that
taxes need to come down to U.S. levels. Yesterday, we had the
Prime Minister who essentially kicked the industry minister right
between the pockets when he said that high taxes are the Canadian
way.
I would like to know what the government's position is today.
What is the government's position on across the board tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have made it very clear. We want to bring taxes down, we have
brought taxes down and we will bring taxes down.
At the same time, there is no doubt as to where the Reform Party
stands on a number of issues. Last week, for instance, on health
care, the member from Okanagan basically said that he thought
health care spending was questionable and that we should not have
done it. The member for Elk Island, when asked, confirmed that
spending on health care was totally irresponsible. Yesterday,
the member for Calgary—Nose Hill confirmed that opinion.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
instead of words, let us look at the government's actions on
health care.
The government cut $21 billion out of health care. It cut more
hospital beds than all the provinces combined. That is the
record of the finance minister. He is the Jack Kevorkian of
health care.
How can the minister get off saying that he cares about health
care when it is people like Mike Harris who are putting money
into health care while the government guts it?
The Speaker: Order, please. I did not really hear that
statement because there was too much noise. We are getting a
little bit close to being injudicious. I will go to the Minister
of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is sort of interesting watching the Tories and the
Reformers trying to claim credit for Mike Harris. They can have
him.
The fact is we, on this side of the House, are going to stand
behind a modern and effective health care system, one that is
based on compassion. We are going to stand behind an education
system that works. We are going to stand behind balanced cuts in
income taxes and investments in the future of Canadians. That is
what this side of the House stands for. We understand what the
united alternative stands for.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the government is linking its new CPP investment fund to
the TSE 300 index. That index includes Imasco, Imperial
Tobacco's parent company, a company that profits from the
targeting of young smokers. The health minister should know that
any plan for persuading Canadians not to smoke cannot and should
not be good for tobacco profits.
Does the Minister of Health agree with the Minister of Finance
that it is okay for CPP funds to support tobacco companies like
Imperial Tobacco?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as stated in the House, the Minister of Health has, on a
number of occasions, set out the very important measures that the
Government of Canada has put in place to discourage young people
from smoking.
The fact is that the Canada pension plan was set up on a joint
agreement between ourselves and the provinces. An essential part
of that agreement is that there will not be political
interference in the investment decisions made by the fund. It is
investing in the index. Under those circumstances, we are not
going to interfere with what they are doing.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am wondering why the Minister of Health cannot speak
for himself and why the Minister of Finance has to keep pulling
rank.
I want to ask the Minister of Health specifically what he thinks
about public money, Canadians' dollars, our funds, going into
tobacco companies which prey on young people. I want to know
what he is going to do to ensure that he puts together a
comprehensive strategy for preventing smoking among people. That
includes an ethical investment policy for the CPP.
The Speaker: Colleagues, we all know that the question is
asked to the government and any minister or parliamentary
secretary on this side can answer.
Now, who would like to answer this one? The hon. Minister of
Health.
1450
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member knows, or certainly should know, that in the last five
years we have taken active and effective steps to reduce the
level of smoking in Canada.
Tobacco is a legal product, but we are interested in reducing
the level of smoking and preventing young children from starting
to smoke. We have introduced the toughest, most effective
anti-tobacco legislation in the western world. There are
countries around the world that are copying it and using it as a
model. We are investing $100 million over five years in
enforcing that statute and in efforts to discourage young people
from starting to smoke.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, every single
Industry Canada document in the past several years has stated
that productivity is essential to Canada's economic prosperity
and social security.
In February, the Minister of Industry told the Empire Club
“productivity is the most important determinant of our standard
of living”. This past weekend, he called for tax cuts to
improve our productivity, the worst of the G-7.
Does the minister agree with his Prime Minister that more money
spent on health care instead of tax cuts will improve
productivity?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as members know, the previous government knew very
little about productivity and laid the basis for this country's
problems in productivity by running up a debt and a deficit of
$42 billion a year.
That is the essence of a number of the problems we face. It is
the essence of the reason we have had to take our tax cuts as we
have been able to afford them. It is the essence of the problem
we have had in making large enough investments in science,
research and development, in the National Research Council and in
the granting councils. This is the source of a complex problem
that we all have a stake in resolving, but they—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Markham.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, it sounds like
the industry minister is wimping out.
The federal government's own report, “Sustaining Growth: Human
Development and Social Cohesion” listed six productivity drivers
and not a single one was health care. The report cited a better
business environment, trade, innovation and investment in
research and development. The report recommended personal income
tax cuts as one of the best remedies to Canada's productivity
problem.
Will the Minister of Industry tell the House who Canadians
should believe, his own government's productivity research or the
ramblings of a Prime Minister who once thought he invented the
GST?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that was pretty convoluted. There may be a question in
there somewhere, but in essence these people in the Conservative
Party want to talk about tax cuts.
Let us do a rough calculation of the interest we pay every year
on the debt that the Conservatives accumulated during their nine
years in office. That in itself would finance a 25% tax cut
across the board. That is the essence of the problem. If he
thinks productivity has to do with anything other than quality of
life and standards of living, then he fundamentally
misunderstands the debate. The reason we want to talk about
health care is because it is part of our standard of living.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The U.S. department of commerce was due to release a report
today on whether the Canadian Wheat Board is depressing feed
grain prices in Canada, thereby giving western Canadian livestock
producers an unfair competitive advantage in producing and
exporting livestock to the U.S.
Can the minister provide a status report on this latest American
allegation against the Canadian grain marketing system?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased that a preliminary finding today by
the U.S. department of commerce is very much in Canada's favour.
In the so-called R-Calf case, the DOC found no grounds to
justify a countervailing duty on Canadian beef cattle exports. It
reaffirmed that our NISA program is not countervailable and, for
the seventh consecutive time in this decade, it vindicated the
grain trading policies of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Government of Canada will continue to work with our farm
organizations and the provinces to ensure that this preliminary
finding is confirmed in a final ruling later this year.
* * *
1455
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is still all over the map on taxes. Yesterday the
Prime Minister told us that he has delivered a tax cut by raising
CPP premiums by $10 billion and billions of dollars in bracket
creep. The finance minister tells us that maybe at some point we
will get real tax relief. One moment the industry minister tells
us high taxes are good and the next moment he is telling us that
we should cut them.
Where exactly does the government stand? Will it deliver real
broad based tax relief that Canadians will see at the bottom line
in the next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is behind the times. We already have
cut $16.5 billion over the next 36 months. That was what was to
happen in the last budget and the one before that. At the same
time, we increased the child tax benefit to $1.8 billion. At the
same time, we invested in the health care system and health care
research.
The answer to the member's question on where does the Liberal
Party stand is, we stand with Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have been
questioning the government on the millennium scholarships issue
for days, without getting any answers. Enough is enough.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is well aware that
the leaders of the three parties—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Rosemont.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: The Minister of Human Resources Development
is well aware that, last week, the leaders of the three
political parties at the Quebec National Assembly asked that a
government negotiator be appointed in the millennium
scholarships issue.
My question is simple. Has the federal government appointed its
negotiator, yes or no?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois may have been
asking questions for days, but it has been a year since the
Prime Minister of Canada and myself expressed our support for
the Gautrin resolution that was unanimously passed by the Quebec
National Assembly.
By contrast, it was only six days ago that Premier Bouchard
expressed his support for that resolution. It has only been six
days since Lucien Bouchard came back to the position that he was
defending ten years ago. When he supported it, he distributed
Canada scholarships, recognizing that the Government of Canada
had a role to play in the funding of education in this country,
and in ensuring improved access for students.
We are examining this issue. Two provinces may soon reach an
agreement with the millennium scholarships foundation.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION PLAN
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while
Canada goes to war, the Liberal government sits at home bombing
the troops' pension fund.
Will the government tell Canadians today that it will cease its
plan to grab surplus pension funds belonging to Canadian forces
troops, public sector workers, the RCMP and others, which is
little more than a transparent ploy to cook its own financial
books?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members will note that in the recent pension plan we have
increased the benefits to our workers.
In the last budget we put in hundreds of millions of dollars to
improve the quality of our troops. Wherever members look, they
will see that the government has not only worked to the benefit
of the Canadian population, but especially to the benefit of the
RCMP, the armed forces and the public service.
* * *
[Translation]
STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government has a long tradition of political
interference in government operations. Now, we learn that
Statistics Canada has still not released its 1998 report on
productivity.
I ask the minister responsible whether he can tell the House
that Statistics Canada's delay is not due to interference from
his office, the office of the Minister of Finance, or the office
of the Prime Minister?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Statistics Canada has in no way delayed the release of its
report on labour productivity.
In fact, in 1998, its provisional estimates were released on
July 21. In 1997, they were released on June 5. This year,
plans are to release them in June, which is perfectly normal.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health.
I am very concerned about the so-called brain drain and the
effect it is having on medical research, particularly cancer
research.
Can the minister tell the House what the government will be
doing to keep Canadian researchers in Canada?
1500
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is essential that we offer opportunities to our best and
brightest to keep them in this country, to keep young people
coming out of universities in Canada. To that end, in the most
recent budget the government increased substantially our
investment in health research.
We announced our intention to create the Canadian institutes of
health research and over the next three years to effectively
double the amount of money we spend on health research. There
will be $225 million for the new research institutes over the
next three years; $50 million in addition for the national
health, research and development fund; $35 million to the
Canadian health services research foundation; and $25 million—
The Speaker: That brings to a close our question period for
today.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order to correct the record.
The Minister of Finance referred to a statement I made. What I
actually said was that I did not like the way they accounted for
the health spending, which is quite different—
The Speaker: I am sure the record will show that it is
corrected. It is a point of debate.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[Translation]
1999 BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-71, an act to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on
February 16, 1999, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee; and of Motion No. 1.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
rise to speak to Bill C-71. But first I would like to set the
record straight regarding some disparaging comments the members
for Elk Island and Etobicoke North made this afternoon on Quebec
and Quebecers.
They took advantage of today's debate to demean Quebecers in the
House; for Orangemen like these two, the temptation is great, of
course. While my colleague, the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques was pleading for
productive spending, the member for Etobicoke North seemed
dumbfounded and asked “What is he talking about? What does he
mean by productive spending?”
For the benefit of the member for Etobicoke North and several
Ontarians who have been on the political scene for 25 or 30
years, and who cannot understand what a productive investment is
because of their partisanship, I will explain by giving an
example.
Canada was founded by today's Quebecers, who were called French
Canadians at the time, but when English Canadians arrived in
this country in 1760, it was said that there were two founding
peoples, despite the fact that one was there 250 years before
the other one, whether the member for Beauce likes it or not.
And it is his own people he is trying to disown.
There were reportedly two founding peoples: the francophones,
who arrived in 1534, and the anglophones, who arrived in 1760,
226 years later. However, to please everybody, it was said that
there were two founding peoples who were equal, and I accept
that. But we cannot brush away our past and our history so
readily.
When the four provinces that formed Canada joined together to
found the Canadian federation, Ontario was not what it is today.
It even had huge budget deficits.
Ontario needed money under the Union Act, 1840, and Quebec, or
Lower Canada as it was called at the time, agreed to lend
Ontario considerable sums of money, which were never repaid as a
matter of fact.
From the moment the Canadian Constitution came to be—and this is
where productive spending becomes important—for example, when the
automobile was first introduced at the turn of the century, the
federal government started to invest a lot of money in the
Windsor area, in Ontario. It supported the establishment of the
automobile industry in Ontario.
A few years later, Quebecers were told to be patient, that it
would soon be their turn. They were told that, for them, it
would not be the automobile industry, but the aviation industry.
The francophones waited patiently, knowing that there were
plenty of francophone MPs, mostly Liberal, at the time, for
their turn to come.
Some 25 years ago, Michelin Tires
wanted to set up business in Quebec. They were told “No, go to
Nova Scotia. We will give you $52 million if you do”. That was
a good incentive. They were paid not to set up business in
Quebec. Yet this was a French multinational which would have
had a natural tendency to gravitate to Quebec, where their
language was spoken. But no, the government of the day invested
$52 million to send them to Nova Scotia.
History has not yet
shown whether this was a good decision, but we do know that,
over the years, relationships had been particularly complicated,
if only from the language point of view. Michelin's investment
in Nova Scotia was not the best investment it ever made.
At around the same time, Quebec was again being told “Your
future lies in aircraft construction. Ontario has its
automobile industry, Quebec has aviation”. But when the famous
CF-18 contract came up, the rule changed once more.
1510
They were told “Too bad, the planes will also be built in
Ontario, but there will be economic spinoffs for Quebec”. What
kind of economic spinoffs? There was talk of $850 million,
maybe $900 million. That was acceptable, but once again when
the project was completed and the planes were being flown—and
there were some crashes, but that is a whole other story—there
were between $250 million and $300 million in economic benefits
for Quebec. All the radio control knobs we made pretty well
accounted for that $250 million. So much for the technological
spinoffs, the productive spending. Once again, none for us. We
just got the crumbs.
I heard what the hon. member for Elk Island had to say.
He takes the cake. He needs a lesson in history. Between 1880
and 1900, 1.2 million Quebecers were forced to leave Quebec.
They left the country and went to the northeastern American
states and New England, because they were starving in Quebec.
At the same time, the Government of Canada populated western
Canada. It brought people from eastern Europe and gave them
land, two horses, sheep, a cow, chickens, all paid for by the
taxpayers of Quebec and Ontario at the time. And now the member
for Elk Island is telling us that Quebec is asking for too much
and that our claims for equalization payments are unfair.
In 1870, Canada bought what was then called the North-Western
Territory from the Hudson's Bay Company for 300,000 pounds
Sterling, a considerable sum for Canadians at the time. But
when the ancestors of the member for Elk Island, and probably
those of many members here, settled there they were given land
paid for in large part by Quebecers. In those days, Quebecers
constituted about 50% of Canada's population. In other words,
they paid about 50% of the taxes.
The member for Elk Island is denying this. While we cannot live
in the past and constantly relive history, we can recognize that
Quebecers can hold their heads just as high as anyone else.
They contributed more than their share to this country. They
anted up when it was time to do so.
In wartime, they risked their lives in the battlefields of
Europe.
We need offer no excuses to the member for Elk Island. Because
of the policies of the federal government, which has always
given Quebec the wrong end of the stick, we have a population of
poor children in Montreal, which presupposes poor parents as
well.
I see the member for Beauce watching me all in a state. This is
what is happening in Quebec. It is the result of the policies
of the Liberal Party of Canada, which started in 1973 to get
into overblown deficits with its Minister of Finance at the
time, who is now, ironically, the Prime Minister, the one most
opposed to accumulated deficits.
Mr. Claude Drouin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am in a state over the hon. member's comments because he has
not once mentioned the aboriginals—
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: This is not a point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point of
order but a point of debate.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Madam Speaker, the truth hurts, as evidenced
by the reaction of the member for Beauce. It may not always be a
good thing to tell the truth, but it is more often hard to hear
it. This is why the member is getting all worked up. Every now
and then, he demonstrates to us that the truth is not always
easy to hear, and that it would be much easier, out of extreme
courtesy and abnegation, not to say anything. Perhaps the
members of the Liberal Party would be less frustrated, but that
is the way things are.
History keeps repeating itself. In 1867, Quebecers were fooled
into joining a federation and have never been able to get out of
it. This is the impression we have. Why? Because of things like
this.
1515
At one time, the Liberals held 74 of the 75 seats in Quebec.
This is when they decided to unilaterally patriate the
Constitution, without the agreement of Quebecers. Incidentally,
the Constitution has yet to be signed by Quebec. If they are
waiting for Quebec's signature to share the equalization system,
it will never happen.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise on behalf of Canadians, and my constituents in particular,
to oppose the Bloc motion which would delete a component of
clause 4 dealing with the provincial share of cash contributions
and CHST from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2004.
Bloc members believe that this disbursement of funds occurs too
quickly and would like to spread it over a longer period of time.
They believe that the time line criteria for cash contributions
should be weighted in favour of demographic changes.
The motion amends the bill we are debating today, Bill C-71,
which is legislation intended to implement many of the programs
announced by the government in the 1999 budget.
Just for the information of those who are watching, the bill is
divided into nine parts. Part one amends the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Relations Act to implement $11.5 billion, which is an
increase in the CHST for the purpose of health care. It is an
important part because it is dealing with the health care aspect
on which I will be elaborating later.
Part five enables some first nation bands to impose a 7% value
added tax on fuel or tobacco.
Part six increases the maximum national child tax benefit by
July 1, 2000 to $1,976 for the first child and $1,775 for each
subsequent child. The other measures are simply housekeeping
changes.
I will talk about the health care and child tax benefit aspects,
but before doing so I would like to talk about the CHST. In 1993
when the Liberals took power the CHST for each taxpayer was
$1,453. In gross terms this was $18.8 billion. Taking into
account this budget, the CHST for taxpayers now will be $1,005 or
$14.5 billion that they will try to restore. There is still a
$448 decrease, which is 31% per taxpayer compared to what it used
to be in 1993.
Compared to the $11.5 billion that they will put back over the
next five years, the Liberals are removing $3 billion from the
system for every $1 billion they are putting back. It is a ratio
of 1:3.
The government will raise the income threshold at which the
child tax benefit begins to be phased out to $29,590 from a front
level of $25,921. The child tax benefit was announced in the
1998 budget and implemented in July 1998. It replaces the child
tax benefit and working income supplements.
The new Canadian child tax benefit began clawing back benefits
at lower levels of income than the existing system. When
announced in 1998, the CCTB clawback began when a family's after
tax income exceeded $25,921.
This budget states that spending would increase by $14.1 billion
over the next four years, including the remainder of this year.
We also know that the revenue is now expected to rise to $156
billion for 1998-99.
What I am driving at is that our tax system is failing. We
heard already the debate on productivity. The Minister of
Industry is on one side and the Minister of Finance is on the
other side, and the Prime Minister is somewhere. We do not know
what the government is doing.
1520
They are hiking taxes. Productivity is falling. The standard
of living is falling. The government has no sense of where it is
heading or what it is doing. We pay the highest personal taxes
of all G-7 countries. This is killing jobs in Canada.
My constituents agree that what we are looking at is a pay more,
get less budget. The Liberals balance the books on the backs of
the taxpayer. I do not call it balancing the budget. It is not
balancing the budget at all. It is matching the budget.
The Liberals try to match the revenue to the spending level.
That is how they balance the budget. If that were the criteria
to balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers without
reducing spending, without eliminating duplication or waste, it
could have been done 29 years ago. Why did the Liberals wait for
29 years?
The real balance in the budget is reducing tax levels, reducing
spending and trying to match them. This is matching of the
budget, not balancing the budget at all. The Liberals have not
made the size of government smaller. They have not controlled or
significantly reduced spending levels. Duplication and waste are
not eliminated.
The government is boosting the health care budget. Let us talk
about the record. The Liberals must pay back the billions of
dollars they have been taking out of health care spending. As
the new official opposition deputy critic for health, I will not
allow the Liberals to forget that hospitals are closing, there
are fewer beds in hospitals, waiting lines are longer and longer,
1,400 doctors and 6,000 nurses have left the country since the
government took over. There are about 200,000 patients on the
waiting lists for medical services. Waiting times for Canadian
patients to see a specialist, for example, are up by 38%. That
is appalling.
Who are the people who are waiting? They are our loved ones.
They are our relatives. They are real people. They are human
beings who are waiting on the lists to get treatment. What have
the Liberals done to help Canadians since they caused the health
crisis? They have done absolutely nothing.
In the budget for 1999, which is the pay more, get less budget,
Canadians are paying $2,020 more in taxes than they did in 1993.
Let me tell the parliamentary secretary that the Liberals have
increased taxes by that amount but in return they have $1,500
less to spend per Canadian on health care.
The government has its priorities wrong. It caused this health
care crisis by slashing health care spending. It is the root
cause for what we see happening currently in the health care
system. Now they are trying to act very generously by trickling
money back into health care, not even restoring what they have
cut so far.
What they are not restoring is the $21.4 billion they cut from
health and social spending since 1993. They are simply putting
in $11.5 billion over the next five years. That is peanuts to
improve the system. That is half of what they owe Canadians for
health care.
The cumulative decrease in federal funding will grow to $21.4
billion in 1999 from $17 billion in 1998. Canadian taxpayers are
paying $42.1 billion more in taxes in 1999 than when the
government took over in 1993. In my view, which is shared by the
Auditor General of Canada, by leading accountants and by economic
editors around the country, the Prime Minister and the finance
minister are cooking the books. The auditor general has refused
to sign the books for two years in a row.
When the Liberals were running the government at a budgetary
deficit they backloaded the federal government's annual budget.
Then they were busy cooking the books. They started frontloading
the budget. Whatever the surplus was, they are trying to show
that the surplus is getting smaller and smaller. The Liberals
even budgeted the millennium scholarship endowment fund money,
which is supposed to be spent in the year 2000, in this account.
1525
In conclusion, this is a pay more in taxes and get less in
health care and benefits budget. Despite the increase in CHST we
should remember that it was the Liberals who gutted and savaged
the health care system.
The budget did not contain any significant debt or tax relief
measures, increase disposable income, or create investment
opportunities for entrepreneurs. It completely ignored small
business. The budget perpetuates the discrimination against
single income, two parent families in the tax code.
There are many examples I could give but just to summarize—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the hon.
member's time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, on
February 16 of this year, the Minister of Finance tabled his
sixth budget in the House on behalf of the Liberal government.
Year in and year out, Quebec pays over $30 billion on a budget
of some $160 billion, including borrowings and so on.
You will certainly agree with me that Quebec is a real cash cow
for this government in that, according to the books, we pay a
lot more than we receive.
I would like to give you an example. In my riding, an asbestos
mine, the BC Mine, was closed. It employed 300 workers, 200 of
whom were over 52 years of age at the time of the closure.
On June 26, the Minister of Human Resources Development,
accompanied by the godfather of my riding, the good member for
Beauce, came to announce that $1.1 million would be spent to
help workers aged 55 and over. This spring, there were coal mine
closures in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. The same Minister of Human
Resources Development has allocated $111 million. The $1.1
million for Thetford became $111 million for coal miners.
Another $68 million will come from Canada Economic Development
and $80 million from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Add it all up and you will get a total of $259 million for Cape
Breton coal miners, compared to $1.1 million for asbestos
miners.
I listened to the Prime Minister, who addressed last night 1,500
guests who paid $450 each to attend a fundraising dinner in
Montreal.
He urged Liberal senators and ministers to criss-cross Quebec to
spread the good news. Try to go and ask the Minister for Human
Resources Development to come back to Thetford. He is scared to
go.
On the advice of the godfather, he went there as bearer of bad
news, but he got so scared he had to flee in the car of the
member for Beauce. Do you really believe that these ministers
and senators who rely on the system to pay them fat pensions
even if them do not make any effort are going to criss-cross
Quebec? They are scared.
Take the millennium scholarships for example. It would appear
that Ottawa is always trying to duplicate structures. In Quebec,
there was and always has been an excellent system of loans and
bursaries for post-secondary and university students.
The Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice wants to
interfere and, over a 10 year period, only 10 years, he will
invest more than $2 billion in scholarships. Once again, he is
duplicating structures.
There are two agriculture ministers. If your cow produces
processing milk, it comes under the federal agriculture
minister, but if it produces fluid milk it is up to Minister
Trudel in Quebec to deal with it.
1530
Same farmer, same cow, but two different agriculture ministers.
Dairy farmers now have what is called mixed quotas. So both
ministers have jurisdiction over the same cow. Two revenue
ministers, two finance ministers, two health ministers for the
same patient, the same Quebecers. Two natural resources
ministers and we could list scores of departments which are
duplicated.
To issue cheques with a maple leaf, the Prime Minister is
prepared to duplicate our system of loans and bursaries, which
is working perfectly well.
In order to save on taxes, the millionaire Minister of Finance,
who is very familiar with the legislation, will register his
boats in tax havens, and then he will tell us to tighten our
belts. This is the same individual who helped himself to the $21
billion EI surplus, and who is going to grab the $30 billion
surplus in government employees' pension funds.
The Prime Minister, who yesterday urged his ministers and
Liberal senators to spread the good news throughout Quebec,
should have a look at the article in today's Le Droit about the
increasing unavailability of low cost housing. Not in the
riding of Saint-Maurice in Shawinigan, but in the nation's
capital, in Ottawa-Carleton. One in five tenants—or 20%—are
spending more than 50% of their income on rent. Can we imagine
having to spend more than half of what we earned just on
accommodation?
This is news to the Prime Minister.
He has no living expenses, because he has an official residence.
I imagine it has been years since he set foot in a
supermarket. If a couple has to spend half of their income on
rent, there is no way they are going to be eating steak once a
week.
On the topic of the GST—I see the member for Beauce listening
closely—at least two of the women who elected the Prime Minister
call me regularly, and they called again last month, to ask when
he would keep his promise and abolish the GST. I told them that
he made the promise in order to trick them into voting for him,
but that he lied. So that he could save face once he was in
office, the member for Hamilton East resigned, only to be
re-elected three months later at a cost of $500,000 to taxpayers.
These are the reasons I will be voting against the sixth budget
brought down by the Minister of Finance.
These are only a few of the things I want to mention, during the
ten minutes I have.
I could also talk about the Minister of Human Resources
Development, the man who is often out to throttle the neediest
in society, our young people. Did members know that 100% of
working youth contribute to the EI fund? They pay $2.55 for each
$100 earned. Even though all the young workers pay, only 15% of
them qualify for EI benefits. That represents a net profit of
85% for the government, on the backs of our young people.
The Liberals will go around Quebec spreading the good news. When
he came to Thetford Mines, on the steps of the town hall, the
hon. member for Beauce saw what the good news was.
He is the one who so badly advised the Minister of Human
Resources Development by inviting him to make his $1.1 million
announcement on the steps of the town hall.
1535
Asbestos miners know about Liberal fairness: $1.1 million for
them and $259 million for coal miners.
I will leave you to ponder this and to ask yourself questions
about the Minister of Finance's sixth budget.
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-71 at report
stage. I speak in opposition to the Bloc Motion No. 1.
In terms of health care it is ironic that the Liberal government
on taking power in 1993 at that time basically trashed the health
system and now claims it is saving it from what it did back in
1993. I remember very well. The Liberals took away $22 billion
from health care which had a huge impact back in 1993-94. The
provinces had to deal with this crisis. They shut down hospitals
and closed beds.
In the spring of 1997 I had a personal experience with a health
care system that was in tatters. I got sick in the spring of 1997
and ended up in the hallway of a hospital waiting for care.
Believe it or not, at that time I was the mayor of the community
in which I lived. It shows that even the mayor back in those
days had to experience the hardships of the health cuts.
Unfortunately we still have the same problems. Even though the
government has reinjected many millions back into the system, it
is going to take at least two years. I am sure the Liberal
government expects that by the time the next election comes
around the system will have solved many of its own problems.
The government does not understand that the taxes it collects
really do not belong to the Liberal government. They really
belong to the people. That is where the government gets them
from. In today's question period it was ironic that the health
minister stood in the House and said that he gave $900 million to
Mike Harris, the premier of this province. It certainly sounded
like it was the Liberal government's money. We all know that this
$900 million really belongs to the people of Ontario.
One thing I have found in the House is that governments at the
federal level do not understand the meaning of planning regarding
our debt. This country's debt is an extreme hardship on all of
us as taxpayers. Last year I believe we spent about $42 billion
of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on debt interest. We all know
that personally we certainly could never operate or succeed if
our debt was at that level. The government needs to plan in terms
of how to retire that debt.
It is quite obvious from the estimates this year and as we talk
about this bill that the government is back to free spending. We
know that the annual budget has been balanced from a deficit of
$42 billion. The government keeps pointing a finger at the
Progressive Conservative Party. The PCs should be accountable
for half the national debt, but so should the Liberal government
which, starting in the 1970s, created the first half of the
almost $600 billion worth of national debt.
There is no shortage of money. The money keeps flowing in.
People should check their monthly statements and their cheques
and they will know how much the government gets. It still gets a
big pile from the GST, the CPP, and EI. In fact, the government
is so tax hungry it wants to rob us of the $30 billion in the
pension fund.
There are examples of the free spending attitude the government
still has. The estimates this year contain about $1.7 billion
worth of open spending. In other words, the floodgates are open
again and the government is back to spending.
We need to seriously look at how we spend. Just for the interest
of the House, these are some ways we are spending taxpayers'
money, probably not in the most responsible manner.
1540
We will write off outstanding immigration loans to the tune of
about $3.7 million. Additional operating costs for the
Immigration and Refugee Board come to about $2.6 million.
Environmental remediation of leased crown site is about $13.4
million. Canada's tenure on the United Nations Security Council
will cost the country $1.4 million. Additional operating and
capital costs for DFAIT are $15.8 million. Our contribution to
international environmental organizations is $255,000, and that
is a small number compared to the other ones. The Canada
Commercial Corporation amount is $5.08 million.
We are going to forgive the debt of the following countries:
Honduras, $18.1 million; Costa Rica, $2.2 million; Colombia,
$2.75 million; and Dominican Republic, $1.4 million. The
creation of the Canada industrial relations board will cost
$350,000. The debt write-offs for Indian Affairs and Northern
Development is $389,000. Canadian Intellectual Property Office
of Industry Canada will be $15.4 million. ACOA's increased
contribution will cost taxpayers $8 million. Liabilities under
the Small Business Loans Act is $23 million.
The grant to Conseil québécois des entreprises adaptées to
create a development fund is an additional $5 million. Additional
capital costs to the NRC come to $16 million. Grants and
scholarships will be $270,000. The firearms control program for
the registration of long firearms at the justice department will
be an additional $13.7 million. The Canadian Human Rights
Commission is $692,000. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as
well in the Department of Justice will be an additional $624,000.
We will end up spending another $1.75 billion of taxpayers'
money.
During the past week I was asked by the teachers federation
whether I support the child care program. My response was that
perhaps the best way to support child care and make sure that
children have a good start in life is to give families a break,
in other words give families a tax break.
We all know that for many of us in the House who have both
spouses working that the wages of one spouse are used to pay the
tax of the other one. We know that the children of the country
should come first. Their care really should be paramount in the
minds of the members of the House as well.
Last week I received the response from the government on the
sports report. In the response even the heritage minister
indicated in her letter to the chairman of the standing committee
that low and middle income Canadians need a tax break before
professional hockey players.
We all know that taxes kill job creation and that taxes also
create dependency. It is time the government recognized that
taxpayers of Canada are tired of paying taxes. I am sure most
members of the House have the same feeling about their taxes.
1545
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased, as a member of the Bloc Quebecois, to speak on Bill C-71
and more specifically on Motion No. 1 introduced by the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
The budget is always an important issue, though it may be dry.
But it is very important, in particular for Quebecers who give
the federal government $30 billion in taxes every year, without
being sure of reap all the due benefits from this annual
collective effort, which is a huge effort on the part of
Quebecers.
It cannot be said that the federal government is greatly
involved in Quebecers' everyday lives. However, if there is one
area where it does get involved, it is employment insurance.
What the federal government in recent years has been appalling,
not to say dramatic, for thousands and thousands of Quebecers
and Canadians. In 1990, about 90% of those who contributed to
employment insurance were eligible for benefits when they had
the misfortune—because it is a misfortune, something those on the
other side and specifically the Minister of the Human Resources
Development tend to forget—to lose their job.
We should be there as a community and as a government to support
those individuals who have to go through such dire straits.
In 1990, about 90% of those who contributed to insurance
employment had the good fortune or privilege to receive
benefits. Then the Conservatives began to fiddle with employment
insurance, and the Liberals merrily carried on. Yet, the members
opposite, who were then in the opposition, had condemned this.
In spite of that—and this is typical—the government is still
fiddling and only 36% of those who contribute to employment
insurance are now eligible for benefits.
This, as we know, allowed the government to eliminate the
deficit at the expense of low income taxpayers, low income
earners and the most vulnerable people. The government took care
to protect the interests of the wealthy. It has always found a
way to justify the existence of tax shelters and, most of all,
tax havens.
Since the Liberals took office, there has been one scandal here,
in Ottawa, in the Conservative-Liberal tradition. I am talking
about the family trust scandal that allowed a well known family
to avoid paying somewhere between $400 and $700 million in
federal taxes. These are not mere details. This happened in
spite of the fact that the government and particularly the
Department of Finance were fully aware of what was going on and
in spite of the fact that the Auditor General of Canada
expressed his disagreement before being put in his place by the
accounting gurus, in particular those who develop tax schemes in
Toronto. The auditor general—and I witnessed it personally—was
simply told to mind his own business by these thinkers from
Toronto who protect the interests of the rich in Canada and who
develop these tax schemes to help them.
This budget has also created a precedent in Canadian history in
that the rules of the game have been changed with regard to
federal transfers to the provinces.
The government has decided that, from now on, these transfers
will be made on a per capita basis according to the population
of each province instead of being based on the needs of each
province. It is a fundamental change and the results are
brilliant. This means that, over the next five years, Ontario
will get 47% of these transfers, whereas Quebec will get 8%.
With this kind of management, it is no wonder Quebecers want
out. It is one reason among many.
1550
On of the reasons Quebecers want out and will be increasingly
eager to get out—and this budget is part of that Canadian
process—is the social union framework agreement, which is a
major event in Canadian history, even though its name does not
appear to mean much.
The term social union is a rather insignificant one, one that
does not generate much discussion, but does imply an enormous
impact on the new Canada of tomorrow, the new Canada of the year
2000 and beyond, the new Canada built here in Ottawa, which will
be centralized and unitary. The provinces have recently given
the federal government legal authorization to intervene in areas
in which they have sole jurisdiction: health, education and
social programs. These, according to the 1867 constitution,
which we respect, were the exclusive jurisdiction—important
words—of the provinces.
With that recent consent by the provinces, the federal
government has been given authorization to get involved in these
areas in order to turn this country in the future into a
centralized and unitary country, one in which decisions will be
made—efficiently, let us hope—so that it can have a competitive
edge internationally, where it has been rather lagging behind
until now.
This new Canada is looking for ways to be competitive, but
everyone will pay a price as far as structure is concerned.
This means that, slowly but surely, the provincial governments
will find themselves turning into regional governments, with
considerably diminished powers.
This means that Quebec is not only a province, but one just like
the others. This means that the Quebec people has never been
recognized as a distinct entity by the rest of Canada, and never
will be. There is no such thing as a Quebec people in the
context of a new unitary Canada. Such notions will have no
place in the new Canada of tomorrow.
This means that there will be national standards in all sectors
in which the federal government has a hand, including education,
which was what Jean Charest, former leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada and now leader of the Quebec
Liberal Party, argued for in 1997. There will be national
standards to evaluate students and schools from coast to coast.
This is what the Canada of tomorrow will look like, with
national standards set by Ottawa applying to all the provinces,
which will become regional governments.
In my opinion, Canada has to centralize because of international
pressure. Countries dealing with Canada want clearer rules.
They want to know if there are disagreements between the
provinces and the federal government.
The government is in the process of clearing the way, without
debate, for the federal government to have a free hand to sign
whatever contracts it wishes, particularly international ones,
legitimately and with full jurisdiction.
This is a necessity for Canada, but it is a disaster for Quebec.
If Quebecers remain in Canada, they will slowly disappear. It
is Louisiana all over again. As the member for Saint-Maurice
said, and it was perhaps the only time he showed any vision in
his entire career, Quebec would be a larger version of New
Brunswick. If Quebec decided to remain within the new structure
of the Canada of tomorrow, it would become a larger version of
New Brunswick.
All we Quebecers must ask ourselves if this is the kind of
Canada in which we want to live, or whether it would not be
simpler for Quebec to govern itself the way it wished, and
Canada to do the same, and for both parties to enjoy the best
possible relations that the good neighbours we have always been
can have.
1555
I hope that our fellow Quebecers will give some thought to this
very important development in the history of Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on the
motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The division on the motion
stands deferred until tomorrow afternoon following Government
Orders.
* * *
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed from April 29 consideration of 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, as reported by the committee (without
amendment), and of the motions in Group No. 2.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to start by informing the House that discussions
have taken place between all the parties, and I believe that you
will find consent for the following motion:
That, during the
present debate, all report stage motions on Bill C-66
be deemed moved and seconded and that recorded
divisions be deemed requested.
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)
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, last month the government finally recognized the
seriousness of the housing crisis.
I think everyone in the House applauds the appointment of the
Minister of Labour as the federal co-ordinator on homelessness.
Her personal commitment to housing issues is well known and no
one doubts that if she was given the tools to do the job she
could make a real difference.
This bill is a clear indication that the government does not
intend to allow its co-ordinator on homelessness to do more than
attend conferences on homelessness. All the way through this
bill are provisions that remove direct government involvement in
providing housing for those in need.
Instead of parliament or the cabinet making decisions about how
to best provide affordable housing, authority has been delegated
to an appointed CMHC board of directors. A basic democratic
principle is that decisions should be made by elected officials.
This bill ignores that principle. Once we have voted to allocate
money for housing, the only means this bill gives us for
reviewing decisions made on social housing is when the House of
Commons receives CMHC's five year corporate plan.
That is why I am a little curious about the wording of the
amendment of my Reform Party colleague from Kelowna to remove
section 101.
This is the only section left in the National Housing Act
allowing for the regulation of the CMHC. I have heard the hon.
member express concern about the need to make the CMHC more
accountable and I hope he will reconsider his motion.
1600
All through this bill are provisions allowing the CMHC to set
terms and conditions for programs that provide loans or
contributions for housing. If we pass this bill, decisions about
how these programs will work will not be made by parliament. They
will not even be made by cabinet. Instead, they will be made by
an unelected board of directors.
It does not take much of an imagination to picture the response
of the government when an unpopular decision is made by the CMHC
board. “Oh, that has nothing to do with us,” it will say. “It
is all the fault of CMHC”.
When they were in opposition, the Liberals would have found this
unacceptable. My colleagues who have been here more years than I
have can remember Liberal MPs condemning legislation as
undemocratic because it transferred decision making power from
parliament to cabinet. Of course, this was when they were in
opposition and it was the Conservatives who were introducing the
legislation. Today with this legislation they are going even
further than the Conservatives could have imagined.
It should also be made clear that the government is not just
turning over the power to make decisions about mortgage insurance
to CMHC. Under this legislation the government is abandoning its
decision making role in almost all parts of the National Housing
Act. Whether it is the eligibility criteria for housing renewal
programs or setting national standards for public housing, this
government is abandoning its responsibilities.
The amendments the NDP will introduce require approval by the
governor in council for terms and conditions for housing programs
set by CMHC. This does not mean that the cabinet has to approve
every last project the CMHC assists. Given this government's
record on patronage, there is no way we would suggest that. What
it will do, however, is to ensure that the conditions under which
projects receive support are approved by the governor in council.
This is already happening.
Currently the National Housing Act sets out the terms and
conditions for loans, grants and other forms of assistance. The
goal of the amendment is to restore the principle that rules
about how taxpayers' money is spent should be approved by
parliament or by regulations approved by those who are
accountable to parliament.
I would also like to touch on some of the specific problems with
the bill and what they mean for the federal housing policy now
and in the future.
As it stands, the National Housing Act has a number of
provisions stating how programs to provide housing should be run.
These measures ensure dollars spent on housing do what they are
meant to do: help those in need of affordable accommodation find
it.
The current restrictions in the National Housing Act seem
nothing more than basic common sense. These restrictions include
provisions to restrict rent increases for housing projects which
have been built or repaired using federal dollars, a reasonable
measure if the goal of federal housing programs is to increase
the supply of decent, affordable housing.
It includes restrictions saying that only housing projects
sponsored by non-profit or co-operative associations qualify for
full funding, another measure that seems necessary if the goal of
the housing program is to provide affordable housing and not line
private developers' pockets.
Under this bill, these provisions are gone. This bill paves the
way for the privatization of social housing in Canada. Current
statutes contain very clear definitions of what a public housing
project is and what an eligible contribution recipient is. These
definitions have ensured that funding for housing goes to the
groups best able to build and operate affordable housing:
non-profit groups and co-operative associations.
This bill eliminates these definitions and others from the
National Housing Act and puts them at the discretion of CMHC.
This opens the door for private for profit corporations to be
recognized as social housing providers. With social housing this
can be a very expensive proposition. Building housing units is
only part of the cost. The other part of the cost is subsidies
for rent.
For non-profit and co-operative housing, all we are subsidizing
is the operating and capital costs. If we allow private for
profit corporations to provide social housing, we will pay for
their profit margin as well as for the cost of the housing.
Instead of housing dollars assisting Canadians looking for
decent, affordable accommodation, we will be subsidizing for
profit developers.
In case there is any doubt about this, I would like to touch on
what happened in Ontario in the late eighties in cases where
private for profit developers received social housing funds. For
private developers it was the equivalent of a blank cheque.
1605
Under the Liberal government the subsidy paid for the difference
between what the tenant could afford and the market rent for the
apartment. The rent review guidelines made it easy for landlords
to raise rents and every time the rent went up, so did the
subsidy the government was having to pay. In some cases the rents
being subsidized in private for profit developments were over
$2,000.
In contrast, co-operative and non-profit housing have not seen
such dramatic increases in the cost of rent subsidies. There,
rent covers the cost of the mortgage and maintenance, not a
landlord's profit margin.
The amendments that the NDP has put forward ensure federal
funding for housing goes to those with a proven track record:
non-profit corporations and co-operatives. In other words these
amendments ensure any federal funding for housing goes to where
we know it will be used for its intended purpose and where we can
keep track of how it is used.
The NDP is also concerned about the elimination of national
standards for public housing. In section 78 of the existing
National Housing Act, there is a requirement that public housing
provide decent, safe and sanitary housing accommodation. Bill
C-66 removes this provision. The explanation given was that
flexibility is required. There are some things where I do not
think we should be flexible. Ensuring that public housing in
this country is decent, safe and sanitary is one of them.
It also has been suggested that standards are not required in
the section of the National Housing Act dealing with public
housing because they are present in the definition of low rental
housing project. I am not a lawyer but as far as I know a
definition has to be stated to have any effect. Under this bill
low rental housing project is defined in section 1 of the
National Housing Act but will not appear anywhere else in the
legislation.
Like the Minister of Labour in her role as federal co-ordinator
on homelessness, the definition sounds good, wants to do
something and is not being allowed to do it by this government.
What our amendment in Motion No. 16 seeks to do is to restore
standards for public housing.
In closing, I emphasize that New Democrats recognize the housing
problems in Canada are serious enough that there must be a
federal role. We are also concerned about the restrictions the
amendments moved by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve would
place on this role. I would hope it is not his intention but the
effect of his motions is to give provincial governments
ideologically opposed to social housing a veto over the
construction of new housing projects. Given the seriousness of
the housing crisis we face, this is not something the NDP is
prepared to do.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today and speak to the
bill. I have a number of concerns as I am sure many members of
the House have about certain provisions in the bill. There are
also things that I like about it.
I would like to read into the record words that were spoken by
Mr. Laird Hunter, the counsel for the Co-operative Housing
Federation of Canada. I want to do that because in my riding of
Delta—South Richmond there are many co-operative housing units.
They are a very necessary part of the housing requirements in my
constituency for a very simple reason. People in the lower
mainland of British Columbia, who in other parts of the country
would be making fairly good wages, find they are in a high cost,
high rent marketplace. They cannot afford to buy a home and they
cannot afford to pay the high rents in some of the accommodation
that is available. The alternative has been the co-operative
housing marketplace.
1610
As someone who has visited many of those co-operative housing
locations, I can assure the House that the housing is simply
delightful. It is a pleasure to walk through. Housing co-op
members have stated to me on many occasions that they feel very
safe in their environment. They know their neighbours and there
is stability in the neighbourhood.
The people who participate and live in the co-op housing units
have a commitment to the co-op. They ensure that the place is
well-maintained because it is their home and it is their
investment. They look after one another's children. It is not a
concern when their kids are playing in the street in front of a
co-op housing unit or in a unit itself. People have some
assurance that their kids are safe because they know their
neighbours are watching them.
It reminds me of old times in small-town Ontario where I grew up.
When we were out playing in the streets our parents were not
concerned because they knew the neighbours were looking out for
us. Quite often that is something which is missing today.
Certainly in busy urban settings that is not the case, but it is
the case in these co-op housing units. There is that kind of
security. As far as providing homes for people who need them for
economic reasons, I do not think there can be a better setting
than these co-op houses.
Mr. Hunter noted that the bill contains certain provisions which
they are pleased with. He notes and expects that the CHF of
Canada welcomes the bill's proposal to strengthen the Canadian
system for residential mortgage insurance. He says: “We also
support the reinforcement of Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation's international role both in the exporting market and
in helping developing countries to build secure and affordable
housing”.
He goes on to say: “We have concerns about Bill C-66. We hope
to offer some comments that will help to improve this bill and
prevent some of the potential harmful effects that arise through
unintended consequences on the affordable housing that now
exists”. He outlines the three areas of concern. He said that
they have concerns about the mortgage insurance, the
international housing matters and the accountability framework.
Those are concerns the Reform Party has as well.
One other concern should be mentioned. It is a serious concern
for many of the co-ops in my riding. It is an important issue,
one which I do not think the bill has addressed at all. It is
the problem many of the co-ops have where the mortgages have been
locked in. They entered into mortgage agreements in times of
high mortgage rates. Unlike others, they cannot simply go to the
bank and pay the penalty and buy into lower mortgage rates. They
are stuck with the high rates. Some co-ops are paying 10% and 11%
mortgage rates, with some probably paying higher rates. They
cannot take advantage of the newer lower rates.
That is a fundamental problem. The co-ops are owned
collectively. In that sense individuals own their own units, but
because the title is a collective title for the whole
organization or complex, these people are prevented from going to
the bank collectively and saying “We do not want to continue to
pay these high rates; we would like to pay the penalty and
renegotiate at a lower rate”. That is fundamentally wrong.
We are not dealing with the Rockefellers of the world when we
talk about this bill. We are dealing with people who are working
hard and trying to put the bread on the table for their families
and their children. We are making it tougher for them to do that.
I should mention one other thing when I say that this point is
unfair. I was visiting one of the co-ops in my riding within the
past year. One of the ladies told me that she had lived in co-op
housing for years and that she had paid one of the higher rates.
She had a pretty good job and was paying a pretty high rent.
Then she had a physical health problem and was unable to work.
When she could not work her rent dropped and she paid a little
less than she had before. She said that it was not a concern to
the other people as they knew she had done her best when she
could and now she could enjoy that security.
It is only right that happens. The group is looking after its
own and that is correct.
1615
Although we in the Reform Party are great supporters of the
notion of co-op housing, we believe there is also a place for
private sector builders that want to build low cost housing. That
is a concern to me and to my friend from Okanagan who is our
critic in this area.
I live on the lower mainland where there is a need for lower
cost housing. Lower cost housing does not mean lower quality
housing. It may mean smaller housing and smaller yards, but it
certainly does not mean lower quality.
There is a place for government in providing low cost housing,
whether it be through co-ops or assisting private sector builders
that want to build low cost housing. The government should be
making every effort to ensure that private sector builders have
access to land in our municipalities where they can build smaller
homes on smaller lots.
When I grew up the home in which I was raised was not very big.
It probably was about 1,000 square feet. It was certainly
adequate for my parents and four kids. Nowadays it seems that in
the area where I live a small home is about 1,200 square feet and
many of them are in the 2,000 to 2,500 square foot range.
However, with size comes expense. There is a problem when laws
restrict size and do not allow builders to construct smaller
homes on smaller lots. It prices people out of the market. The
motions the NDP is proposing will do just that. Its series of
motions will restrict the value of the bill to providers of on
reserve rental housing, non-profit corporations and co-op
associations. It does not want to allow private sector builders
access to funding. I think that is wrong.
If the federal government is concerned about providing housing
to low income Canadians, it should be taking the lead in ensuring
that municipalities make land available where smaller lot sizes
are okay. It should encourage municipalities to provide areas
where smaller homes can be built. There is a place in our
society for them. Many of the houses that were built in the
thirties, the forties and before were built on smaller lots in
many of our cities. They were smaller and affordable.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There have been extensive consultations among the parties
at the House leaders' meeting earlier this afternoon and I think
you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, in relation to its examination of tax equity for Canadian
families, the eight members of the Subcommittee on Tax Equity for
Canadian Families with Dependent Children of the Standing
Committee on Finance, be authorized to travel to Vancouver,
Calgary, Toronto, Halifax and Montreal during the period May 10
to May 14, 1999, to hold public hearings and that the necessary
staff do accompany the subcommittee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed in that way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Peter Adams: I rise on another point of order. At
the same House leaders' meeting there were consultations with
respect to the following motion:
That ten (10) members and the necessary staff of the Standing
Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations travel
to British Columbia (Vancouver, Lake Williams and Bella Coola)
from May 11 to 14, 1999 in order to examine Canadian forest
management practices and to hold public hearings with respect to
this matter as an international trade issue.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the
parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1620
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to speak to 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.
I spoke in the debate on the motions in Group No. 1 and I said
then that the Bloc Quebecois did not support this bill. My
friend from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve focussed particularly on
social housing.
I listened earlier to the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, who
spoke in the debate before this one. He read us statistics that
indicated some people in the national capital region were
spending over 50% of their income on accommodation. This is
appalling, especially when this country has had since 1946 an
organization to make it easier to acquire residential property.
We could say that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
has failed thoroughly in meeting its objectives. The public
housing crisis is not just here in the national capital, in
Ottawa, it is pretty well everywhere. There are people who, for
reasons it is not up to us to judge, are now needy and must have
help from others and society to get housing.
The government did not take the opportunity provided by this
bill to acknowledge a reality. While I do not know every major
Canadian city, I am nonetheless aware that homelessness is a
growing Canadian issue. Even Toronto is not immune to this
problem, which affects increasingly younger people.
We now find entire families—father, mother and two or three
kids—sleeping wherever they can, under bridges, or over subway
air outlets, in Montreal or Toronto. Yet, this legislation has
been very helpful to Canadians in the past. I cannot understand
the attitude of this minister who introduces a legislative
amendment but totally ignores the whole emerging issue of
homelessness in Canada.
This bill amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Act, which was meant to make it easier for Canadians have access
to real estate property, by requiring smaller downpayments from
them. Since Bill C-66 amends a number of acts, I cannot
understand why the minister did not take this opportunity to
also amend the Interest Act. I read about 10 articles on this
issue. I tried, through a private member's bill, to have a limit
of three months' interest set as the penalty charged by lending
institutions to get out of an existing mortgage.
1625
The Reformers, whose generosity and magnanimity are legendary,
are opposed to such a measure. I was quite surprised by that.
After all, western farmers are not all millionaires or
billionaires. Some have mortgages or liens on their farm
equipment, which is getting bigger all the time, but costlier as
well.
When after a good harvest or a stroke of luck a farmer wants to
change vehicle, as some couples change houses, and goes to pay
back his loan, the lenders, who are all faithful contributors to
the Liberal Party coffers, hit him with a huge penalty for
cancelling the loan.
I wish the minister, who is sensitive to the plight of
prospective home owners, had taken this opportunity to bring
penalties back to a more reasonable level. I believe a three
month penalty is adequate, especially in view of the mobility of
capital and the speed with which one can reinvest. It is
instantaneous through the Internet and other electronic means.
When I was a notary in Longueuil, especially during the worst
years of the interest crisis, in 1982, I knew someone who was
forced to sell two small income properties. A bank I will not
name, out of kindness, even though it showed none to others,
charged this individual a $28,500 to $29,000 penalty to cancel
the mortgage. It squeezed something like $58,000 out of a person
who was already in dire straits and had to sell his income
property at a loss because he could no longer pay the interest.
It stomped on someone who was already down.
I would have liked the minister to be a bit more aware of what
is going on in the housing industry and to put a stop to what
his friends who contribute to his campaign funds are doing.
The NDP member who spoke before me also talked about—and it is
worth mentioning—the way people are appointed to the board of
directors of the CMHC. It will be another patronage haven, and
this Liberal government has become a master at making
appointments. It is one of its specialties.
Every day, as critic for Public Works Canada, I receive a list
of appointments to Atomic Energy Canada, Canada Post Corporation
or some other agency. I checked in the book I had ordered from
the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. The first 10 names I
found were the names of individuals who had contributed to the
election fund of the Liberal Party of Canada. Granted, these
were not always large contributions. We are talking about $150,
$200, $250, $300. Contributions from companies are always a bit
larger.
Still, one can wonder whether having contributed to the Liberal
Party's election fund is a requirement to get appointed to the
CMHCs board of directors.
Soon we will have a new board in charge of managing the $30
billion in misappropriated funds from public employees pension
programs. Those who will sit on that board will also be friends
of the government. The same goes for the millennium scholarship
foundation. The Liberals have become masters at this. Mind you,
I do not envy them.
Pork barrelling has taken unprecedented proportions with the
Liberal Party. There is no holding back. The Liberals are in
office. They criticized the Progressive Conservatives for being
too generous in that regard, but the Conservatives look like boy
scouts compared to the Liberals, who have been in office for
nearly six years now. They sure know how to make patronage
appointments. They have it down to an art.
It is often subtle, but it is well done.
1630
What interest is there for the taxpayer? In introducing a bill
such as this, at least the Interest Act could have been
modified. The big banks could have been told “We are not still
in the last century; speedy investments are the way things are
done now”.
There is no great interest in supporting this bill, particularly
since it is responding to the new criteria of universality. As
the hon. member for Trois-Rivières has already remarked, the
federal government is the one that will call the shots, the one
who is boss, because CMHC is heading into the international
forum, and it is the one setting standards.
There is quite simply nothing doing as far as social housing and
negotiations with the provinces are concerned.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
there have been further consultations and I think you would find
unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, in relation to its examination of tax equity for Canadian
families, the eight members of the Subcommittee on Tax Equity for
Canadian Families with Dependent Children of the Standing
Committee on Finance, be authorized to travel to Vancouver,
Calgary, Toronto, Halifax and Montreal during the period May 10
to May 14, 1999 to hold public hearings and that the necessary
staff do accompany the subcommittee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
there have been further consultations and I think you will also
find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the 10 members and the necessary staff of the Standing
Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations travel
to British Columbia (Vancouver, Williams Lake and Bella Coola)
from May 11 to 14, 1999 in order to examine Canadian forest
management practices and to hold public hearings with respect to
this matter as an international trade issue.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Do we have unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and
of Group No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order made
earlier this day, the questions on the motions in Group No. 2
are deemed to have been put and the recorded divisions are
deemed requested and deferred.
The House will now proceed to debate the motions in Group No. 3.
[English]
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motions in Group
No. 3 are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motions
Nos. 11, 12, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP) moved:
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-66, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 25 on
page 20 with the following:
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP)
moved:
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-66, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 31
to 37 on page 21 with the following:
That Bill C-66, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 26
to 29 on page 22 with the following:
She said: Madam Speaker, in the last few months we have heard
two very conflicting messages from the government. The
government has talked a good line on housing. Last month,
finally recognizing the seriousness of the homelessness crisis, a
federal coordinator on homelessness was appointed and sent off to
speak to housing activists.
When Liberal members stand up to speak on Bill C-66, they talk
about the need for the Government of Canada to play a leadership
role in housing. Unfortunately, with Bill C-66, it is not just a
case of the government's actions not matching its words. The
Liberal government's actions actually contradict what it says it
is trying to do.
At the same time as the government's homelessness coordinator
talks about a national housing program, Bill C-66 is changing the
National Housing Act to allow existing social housing to be sold
off by this government or provincial governments.
National standards for public housing are being eliminated.
Future social housing programs may end up as little more than
subsidies for private, for profit landlords. The government is
surrendering the power to make decisions about housing programs
to an appointed board of directors.
I am not surprised at the Liberal government's decision to turn
its back on the homeless at the same time as it pretends to
befriend them, but I can not help but be disappointed.
One would hope the need to act on something as serious as
homelessness would cut across party lines. Instead, with Bill
C-66 there is every indication the government will make this
situation worse.
1635
One area of concern is the changes to the sections of the
National Housing Act dealing with programs to assist with the
repair or renovation of housing. The way these programs work is
currently spelled out in the act and in regulations. Among the
conditions for receiving assistance in the National Housing Act
is the requirement that landlords who receive assistance limit
rent increases for a set period after the work is completed. In
addition, the CMHC is given the power to impose financial
penalties when this or other conditions are not met.
In Bill C-66 this wording has been significantly weakened.
Instead of requiring that landlords who receive grants or loans
for repairs to rental property limit rent increases, there is a
vaguely worded provision limiting the financial return which may
be made from a project.
According to the government, we should support this change
because CMHC needs flexibility. I ask, flexibility for what? Why
does the CMHC need the flexibility to allow landlords who receive
assistance to raise rents through the roof?
Programs to assist with housing repairs are meant to preserve
the supply of affordable housing. Without restrictions on how
much landlords can raise rent after receiving assistance rents,
in areas with a low vacancy rate, could easily be increased to
the point that current tenants would no longer be able to afford
them.
Without restrictions on rent increases, federal programs
intended to ensure affordable housing is safe and well maintained
could actually reduce the supply of affordable housing.
While New Democrats share the government's view that programs to
assist with repairs to affordable housing should include grants
as well as loans, we disagree with the government's assertion
that we need to change the National Housing Act for this to be
possible. Currently the act allows loans to be forgiven. This
has the effect of allowing the CMHC to make contributions.
In case members opposite do not accept my interpretation, I
would like to draw their attention to a media release sent out in
January of last year by the minister of public works with regard
to the repair and rehabilitation assistance program, one of the
programs authorized by the sections of the National Housing Act
dealing with assistance for housing repairs. In its release, the
minister described this program as providing both loans and
grants.
I am also concerned about the impact of Bill C-66 on programs to
assist Canadians with home ownership. Currently, assistance in
buying a home or paying expenses related to owning a home is only
available for houses costing less than a set amount. Grants, as
opposed to loans, are only available when a person's financial
circumstances make it difficult for the person to repay a loan.
The intention is clear: to ensure assistance with home ownership
goes to those who need it. These specific requirements are
removed by Bill C-66 and the power to set eligibility
requirements is handed over to the CMHC.
The usual justification is given, the need for flexibility.
Again, one is forced to ask why flexibility is required. There
is nothing unreasonable about requiring that government
assistance to buy or maintain a house go to those who really need
help. This is what the NDP amendment restores.
However, it is not just about what housing programs will look
like in the future that should worry us. Clause 34 of the bill
gives CMHC the ability to enter into joint ventures with other
organizations, including for-profit corporations. What is of
particular concern are provisions allowing other levels of
government or corporations to assume the powers of the CMHC under
these agreements.
Questions have been raised about whether, in provinces where the
federal government has downloaded responsibility for housing,
provincial governments could now privatize existing social
housing units. What has added to the fears of housing activists
is clause 38 of the legislation which allows the CMHC to waive
provisions of existing agreements. Under this section an
agreement between the CMHC and a housing co-op or non-profit
corporation could be ripped up, leaving residents to see their
homes sold out from underneath them.
What the NDP Motions Nos. 34 and 36 do is remove provisions that
allow existing social housing to be privatized.
1640
I would also like to take this opportunity to address the
amendments to Bill C-66 which deal with the other major concern
the NDP has about the bill; the lack of accountability. It is
one thing to give the board of directors of a crown corporation
the power they need to do their job. What this bill does,
however, is hand most of the decision making power for federal
housing policy over to the CMHC's board of directors.
As with other amendments we have moved, Motion No. 32 seeks to
restore the degree of accountability present in the existing CMHC
Act and National Housing Act. These acts require ministerial
approval for housing research programs run by CMHC.
This does not mean the minister must approve every single
research project CMHC supports. That power rests with the CMHC
which has the authority to decide which projects get funding.
What it does do is ensure accountability by requiring that
decisions about how housing research programs work must be
approved by the minister.
New Democrats are also pleased to support the amendments put
forward in this group by the member for Kelowna. As with
amendments we have moved, his proposal helps to restore
accountability to federal housing policies.
Motions Nos. 31 and 33 both improve the accountability of the
CMHC. The existing section 16 of the CMHC Act sets the capital of
the corporation at $25 billion and requires that parliament
approve any increase. As the CMHC is a crown corporation, there
is no question that any change to its capital is a decision that
belongs to elected representatives. It is a basic principle of
parliamentary democracy that budgetary decisions be made by
parliament. Giving the governor in council the power to set the
capital of the CMHC, as Bill C-66 would do, is a clear violation
of that principle.
Motion No. 33 also restores a provision of the CMHC Act which
Bill C-66 is attempting to remove. In this case it is the power
of the Minister of Finance to place conditions and restrictions
on the type of investment and financial transaction the CMHC can
enter into. Again, if crown corporations are to be accountable
to citizens through their government it seems only reasonable
that the Minister of Finance continue to have this authority.
These motions approve the accountability of the CMHC and are in
the spirit as the NDP amendments to require the governor in
council to approve the terms and conditions of housing programs
under the National House Act. For this reason, New Democrats
will support these amendments.
What has made accountability even more of a concern in this
debate are the changes the government proposes to make to the
composition of the CMHC board of directors.
Under the existing provisions of the CMHC Act, the CMHC board of
directors consists of the chair, the president, a vice-president,
two members selected from the public service and five from
outside the public service. Bill C-66 will change the board from
five civil servants and five people appointed from outside to two
civil servants and eight others. Giving the government more
freedom of action in appointing the board will, based on the
government's track record, result in more patronage.
The government had a choice when it decided to change the
National Housing Act. It could have chosen to strengthen the
federal role in housing and approve programs for people with
limited means. This is what the Liberal government would have
done if its expressions of concern and compassion for the
homelessness were the slightest bit sincere.
Instead, with Bill C-66 the Liberal government is reducing the
ability of the federal government to provide safe, affordable
housing. It is helping to ensure the fine words—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Mississauga Centre.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise to speak to the motions presented by my hon. colleagues from
Cape Breton and Kelowna pertaining to Bill C-66, an act to amend
the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Act.
My hon. colleague from Cape Breton has presented amendments to
Bill C-66 that would reduce her own constituents' access to
renovations and home ownership assistance programs. I can only
presume she does fully understand the implications of her
suggested amendments. On some of the comments she just made I
would like to address a few at the end of my speech.
Few regions in the country have benefited more from the
residential rehabilitation assistance program than Cape Breton
has. Yet the member from the region is proposing amendments that
would prevent CMHC from ensuring that this vital program is as
responsive as possible to the needs of Cape Bretoners and to all
Canadians. I do not understand her position.
1645
As they stand, CMHC's renovation assistance programs are in a
straitjacket. They need to be able to respond more effectively
to the needs of the very Canadians for whom these programs are
intended, low income Canadians who need to make repairs to their
homes to bring them up to minimum health and safety standards.
Would the hon. member from Cape Breton deny this to her
constituents? I would like to think not. Yet the changes she is
proposing would do exactly that. They would seriously undermine
the government's ability to modernize its provision of services
to its clients.
The member from Cape Breton is proposing changes that would
effectively entrench the administrative red tape that hampers the
CMHC from offering improved forms of assistance that Canadians,
and Cape Bretoners in particular, need and they need it now.
They would also prevent CMHC from working co-operatively and
effectively with the other provinces. Again, what would be the
motivation behind such a proposal?
In the same fashion, the member's proposed changes would prevent
the CMHC from introducing measures to make home ownership more
affordable for all Canadians.
I must conclude that the member does not fully understand the
consequences of her suggested changes. There would be
consequences, serious consequences for many Canadians, Cape
Bretoners included, who would not be able to gain access to
decent, affordable, safe housing for themselves and for their
families. The government has no intention of denying such
important benefits to Canadians. Bill C-66 is intended to ensure
that the CMHC has the ability to continue to provide renovation
and home ownership assistance to Canadians who are in need.
I would also like to comment on the suggested changes to the
bill which were made by my colleague from Kelowna, which he
brought forward in committee. What the hon. member is proposing
would impede the government's ability to create jobs for
Canadians through export promotion. My hon. colleague has
proposed that Bill C-66 be amended to restrict CMHC's ability to
carry out its export promotion mandate.
I cannot agree with this amendment either because it would
seriously jeopardize the government's job creation efforts. The
expansion of CMHC's export promotion activities is a fundamental
element of the government's ability to create jobs for Canadians
in Canada. We all know that export plays a key role in the
development of our economy. CMHC's export promotion role works
to strengthen our economy.
The CMHC must have the mechanisms it needs to continue to help
the Canadian housing industry to take advantage of international
trade opportunities. Several members opposite have taken
advantage of going on some of these missions and have seen how
successful they have been.
Bill C-66, as presented by the government, will enable the CMHC
to continue to lead the way in housing export trade promotion and
to better promote Canadian housing products and services abroad.
This activity will result in job opportunities for Canadians here
and for our trade partners abroad. Canada's housing industry has
excellent prospects of expanding its exports of housing systems,
technologies, products and services, while contributing to the
federal objectives of job creation and economic growth.
This legislation will ensure that Canadian entrepreneurs will be
able to use the CMHC for marketing support for projects overseas
and access CMHC's 55 years of expertise in the housing industry.
The CMHC will also be able to help Canadians sell their expertise
to foreign countries. This will open the door to further
opportunities for Canadian entrepreneurs.
The CMHC has a good track record in helping the industry achieve
success in export markets. Last September a group of over 30
companies, provincial governments and industry representatives
travelled to Chile with the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, who is also responsible for the CMHC, to
take part in one of the biggest trade shows in South America. We
expect that within one year following that mission these
exporters will generate over $35 million in new business. This
will have a major impact on job growth in Canada. I might add
that the delegation to Chile also included the member for
Kelowna, who now proposes to limit CMHC's ability to undertake
such important export promotion functions such as organizing and
leading trade missions to foreign countries. What are we to make
of this?
The CMHC has also recently returned from a trade mission to
Poland and is developing with the housing industry other trade
missions to Korea, Germany, Japan and others later this year.
Given the significant impact of export on the domestic economy it
is obvious the CMHC must be able to continue to support the
housing industry in its efforts to improve its export
capabilities.
While I thank the hon. members for their interest in the bill, I
believe that Bill C-66, as it stands, is the best possible
solution to ensure that the Government of Canada, through the
CMHC, has the ability to provide appropriate, essential
renovation and home ownership assistance to Canadians, to
generate economic growth and job creation in Canada, and to
ensure that Canadians remain among the best housed people in the
world.
1650
I would also like to add that the whole discussion this
afternoon seems to be revolving around homelessness. That is not
the subject of this bill. This bill is about the renovation of
the National Housing Act.
The other thing I find quite fascinating is that the CMHC has
been in existence for 55 years. It has been there to help the
Canadian public and it has a fabulous track record. I do not
understand why members of the opposition assume that there is
some sinister plan afoot in this bill to actually do some harm to
Canadians.
I also find it interesting that the hon. member who spoke
previously talked about accountability to citizens and then went
forward to object to the board of directors having a reduced
number of bureaucrats and more individuals from every walk of
life in Canada.
Rent controls, which were also mentioned by the hon. member who
spoke previously, are under provincial jurisdiction. If one
reads the bill carefully, all interests that the CMHC has in
partnerships with the private sector and provincial governments
also give it the ability to supervise such things as rent
increases.
I believe that the bill, as it stands, is in perfect shape. It
is upgrading old legislation that has to come into the 21st
century. It is here for the Canadian public. It is an excellent
bill and it requires no amendment.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
help but respond to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I think
this is absolutely the first bill that the Liberal government has
introduced which is perfect.
I have noticed that the feeling of arrogance, the feeling of
completeness and the feeling of superiority to everyone else is
beginning to grow and develop on that side of the House. That is
the first sign that there is something wrong. If there was
nothing wrong, then they would not have to say they were perfect.
Everybody would know it. I believe one has to take issue with
that.
I was also struck by the comment the hon. parliamentary
secretary made about the mission to Chile. I certainly concur. I
was a participant in that particular mission. It was an
excellent mission, which was extremely well organized and very
well done. I think it will produce jobs in Canada and it will
move the housing market forward in Chile. However, I submit that
was done under the existing Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Act. It was very successful. The Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation can indeed and has entered into those
particular activities.
I would like to draw to the hon. member's attention the
particular clause that would be amended by the proposed
amendment. Clause 29 on page 20 would replace section 14 with
the following:
It is a carte blanche to establish branches and employ agents
anywhere, wherever the CMHC wishes to do so.
The mandate of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to
implement and to make operational, to administer if you will, the
National Housing Act. That is the purpose of the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation. The mandate of the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation is to implement and to put into operation the
housing policy of the federal government.
If this corporation can establish branches and agents, and an
agent can act as if it were the government or the corporation,
and in this case it would be an agent of the corporation, it
means that the agent is the corporation wherever that branch or
agent sets up office. That is the issue.
The amendment is not intended in any way, shape or form to
restrict the operation of the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation to do the kind of thing that it did in Chile or in
other parts of the world.
However, it definitely is the intention to restrict the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation to insure mortgages in Canada,
not in Germany or Japan or Chile or anywhere else in the world.
That is a totally different issue. The hon. member should review
that.
1655
There may be an honest disagreement in opinion and perhaps legal
counsel ought to be sought. However, it is abundantly clear to
me that the intent and purpose of the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation is to serve Canadians first and foremost. That is
its purpose. If that purpose is going to be jeopardized by
diverting its attention to other countries in the world, then it
has lost its primary function. Let us keep that very clearly in
mind.
The other issue that appears in this bill with the amendments
and the new proposals is that there is absolutely no transparency
in the financial dealings of the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. There is no indication of where the profits will
go. It simply says that the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation shall pay, for example, from the mortgage insurance
fund to the consolidated revenues of Canada a fee, or moneys. It
does not even call it a fee. The clause states that these shall
be considered expenses. At the moment there is a $602 million
surplus in the mortgage insurance fund.
Can money be paid to the consolidated revenue fund? Under the
current provisions of the act, no. When we asked the officials
of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation how much it had
paid to the consolidated revenue fund, they said there had been
no payment. We asked if that would change under the provisions
of the new act and they said that, yes, it would. Then we asked
them what the guidelines would be and what the policies and
principles would be that would determine how much money would be
taken from the surplus either in the mortgage insurance fund or
from any other operation that the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation would get into. The president began to speak and
immediately the minister interrupted and said that would be
determined at some later time and they did not know. That is not
transparent, nor is it responsible and accountable.
There are no provisions in this bill. It simply says that the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation may invest. It does not
say where, it does not say how much, it does not say from what
sources, but it may invest money somewhere, somehow, in land,
buildings, stocks, bonds or other mortgages. It is not clear at
all.
Neither is there a provision that these investments, whatever
they might be, have to be guided by the same kind of guidelines
that exist for the insurance companies under the Insurance
Companies Act. Neither are there any guidelines as to what it
has to do in terms of maintaining a prudential portfolio. All of
this is left wide open and the administration of the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation can do whatever it wants to do.
I believe that is an inherent flaw in the bill. As a minimum
the bill ought to subject the financial operations of the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the same restrictions that
are there for insurance companies and other financial
institutions in Canada. That is the minimum.
In the final analysis, if the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation invests its money improperly and loses money, who is
going to pay? The taxpayer is going to pay and that is a
terrible intrusion. If a bank or an insurance company acts in a
fiduciary and responsible manner and must abide by the rules and
regulations of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions, then surely a crown corporation should be no less
concerned about the security of the money it invests. That is
one provision that is not in the bill which I think should be
included.
I will speak briefly about capitalization. It is interesting
that the corporation has capitalization of $25 million. There is
a new provision in the proposed bill that capitalization may be
increased by the governor in council. There are two problems
here. First, why should the governor in council determine the
capitalization of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation? If
it is going to be changed, then it ought to be done by parliament
and not by the governor in council.
Second, it seems almost a nonsensical kind of provision in the
first place because the capitalization of the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation is simply a paper entry.
Behind Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation are all the
resources and the financial clout of the federal government. To
capitalize the corporation at $25 million or any other number is
simply a book entry. We need to be very careful in that regard.
Let us face it. The corporation has huge investments and
exposure in the marketplace. It has insured something like $280
billion worth of mortgages.
1700
Another point we need to look at is the way in which CMHC can
actually intrude into and become an intermediary in the financial
marketplace. Why should a crown corporation enter into the
financial marketplace and intrude directly with all the clout of
the federal government and thereby virtually override and bully
every other financial institution simply because it has all the
resources of the nation at its disposal and the other companies
do not?
If the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to be on a
fair and equal playing field with the others on a commercial
basis, it ought to have the same operational principles and
guidelines governing its operations as other institutions, and it
does not. Therefore I believe CHMC has an unfair advantage and
it should not have that advantage.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to make a few comments following those of
the parliamentary secretary. She wondered why we could not trust
the government with this bill. We could provide a long list of
why we cannot trust the government.
We could look at what the Prime Minister said when he came to
Beauséjour to get elected in the riding that I represent, which
was once the safest Liberal seat in the country. He promised
seasonal workers that he would make the UI program better for
them, to better reflect their needs. When he came back to Ottawa
he actually said everybody was drunk in taverns collecting UI.
Then they were to scrap the GST. We all remember that. What
happened was that in New Brunswick we ended up with an extra 8%
on the electric bill, on the oil bill, on children's clothing,
and it goes on and on. Now we have a 15% tax on everything.
Then we have the national child care program. That was also a
great promise in 1993, that we would have a national child care
program, and we are still waiting for it. Yet she wonders why we
cannot trust the government.
How about pay equity? There were signed letters by the Prime
Minister to women who have actually passed away due to illnesses
since his promise to them. They kept his letter in their desks,
hoping that the Prime Minister would keep his promise and give
them what was rightly theirs.
The tribunal said that these women and men, federal public
servants, deserved equal pay for work of equal value. We have a
Liberal government that condemned the Conservative government for
not wanting to recognize that. The Liberals made promise after
promise to get elected and were elected, but again they did not
honour the promises.
I have no problem justifying to the parliamentary secretary why
we cannot trust the government. We just cannot trust it. It
will say anything to get elected, and that is what it did.
Also the parliamentary secretary mentioned decent affordable
housing. What is the real definition of decent affordable
housing when there are 200,000 homeless people in the country?
Single parents are using 50% or more of their income to pay their
rent. Low income families are doing the same. Low income
seniors are using 50% of their income on housing.
The budget was brought forward in February and it showed a
surplus. What did the government do with the surplus? It did
not put it in health care. The government pretended to put it in
health care, but it really put it on the debt. It had all the
chance in the world to address the homeless situation and first
nations across the country that desperately need housing.
Does the government really care? It comes up with a bill, but do
we really have a housing act?
1705
I look at 200,000 people with no roofs over their heads. I look
at the first nations across the country living in desperate
situations. I look at poor families outside reservations living
in desperate situations.
In February the Liberal government had a chance to do something
about these things. What happened? It actually implemented the
Reform Party's position: cut tax, reduce the debt; cut tax,
reduce the debt; cut tax, reduce the debt. That is what we saw
and to hell with social programs. This is what is happening.
Again the poorest people in the country are suffering, and that
is not right.
It is clear that the bill will not improve anything. Technically
we have heard everything that is wrong with the bill. I think it
is important to talk about the real issues such as what is really
happening in our areas.
Every day we receive phone calls from people looking for a place
to live. We have to make phone calls all over the riding trying
to find places for people to live in order to be able to work. If
one does not have a home, how can one hold a job? That is a
serious problem.
New Brunswick is paying the lowest social assistance payments in
the country to its recipients. Two single moms cannot share a
house or an apartment in order to try to make life better for
their kids because it is not allowed. It is not allowed because
it might make their life a little easier. It is sad. These
people are smart enough to get together and do something that is
especially good for their children. Then they could go to school
with food in their stomachs and wearing proper clothing, but the
provincial government says it is not allowed.
I think everything we could say on the bill has been said. It is
clear it is something we cannot support. Hopefully the
government will find a conscience some day.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to
speak earlier to the motions in Group No. 2, and now, like the
other members, I will move on to the motions in Group No. 3.
I wonder where the government is headed with Bill C-66. It has
decided to go into business abroad. It wants to build low cost
housing abroad and probably wants to get into housing
development abroad. But is this the role of a government? Must
the government not first and foremost defend the interests of
Canadians and look after their welfare?
The government, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, is getting involved in a commercial operation it
has no business in. The structure was not designed for that.
This was not the intent of Canadians in establishing the CHMC;
rather, it was to help Canadians who wanted to acquire a house.
Earlier, when I finished my last intervention, I spoke of the
context of the negotiation of world trade agreements, the WTO
and all that. My colleague from Trois-Rivières spoke of the
government's new mentality with respect to its foreign partners,
the famous negotiation with the other provinces on the social
union framework agreement. It is proof the federal government
is literally going over the provinces' heads and leaving them
off to one side in all aspects of the daily lives of Canadians.
It is now positioning itself as the only real government for
Canadians, and the provinces are being left out in the cold.
That can be seen in Bill C-66, when my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve proposed amendments to the text of it to
permit agreements with the provinces on public housing.
1710
They were, of course, rejected by the committee, and the
parliamentary secretary followed the party line on this issue. I
wonder if she listened to us. In any case, it does not change
anything, because the decisions are made long before anything
happens in committee.
I remember when the committee heard witnesses, including GE
Capital, on the eve of the clause by clause review of the bill.
A document was given to us in English only. I asked that it be
translated, because I wanted to read it and make comments. The
committee, with the support of the government majority, had
already decided which amendments, which changes to the bill
would be acceptable or unacceptable, this before even having
heard the last witnesses.
The hon. member to my left can attest to that, because he was
sitting on that committee.
So, this bill was rammed through. We were not given an
opportunity to assess its impact on Canadians as regards social
housing and housing development. The bill was rammed through.
The member for Kelowna, who spoke before me, alluded to the
issue of accountability. With this bill, who is responsible for
what? The regulations will no longer be made through an order to
the governor in council and notice will no longer be given in
part II or III of the Canada Gazette.
Now, everything will be done in secret. This legislation is
similar to Bill C-47, Bill C-48 and Bill C-49, in the previous
parliament. Former Bill C-84 changed the whole procedure and the
responsibility concerning the making of regulations. Now, the
government wants to run things informally.
This is often a cause for concern. It becomes a real maze.
Even the experts will get lost.
Without strict rules, no one will be accountable. Not all
ministers will operate the same way. There will come a time when
one will overturn another's decision. The reason there were
stringent rules for passing regulations was so that the
procedure would be clear. Now, all that has gone by the board.
In the name of efficiency, the rules of the game are going to be
changed by means of a mere notice on behalf of the minister in
the Canada Gazette.
A few days later, the regulation will take effect, but no one
will comply because it is no longer announced. This is one of
the biggest problems with Bill C-66 and as responsible members of
this House we cannot go along with it.
Appointments to the board of directors are also a farce. The
parliamentary secretary did not go into any detail. I know she
is an honest women and I suspect she is quite uncomfortable with
this bill, with this way of appointing friends of the regime to
the head of a crown corporation. Will the CMHC be audited in
future, given that it will be independent of the government per
se? It will pay dividends and therefore becomes a crown
corporation.
Will it be subject to audit by the Auditor General of Canada? I
do not know, but Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is not, nor are
a number of crown corporations.
Canada Post Corporation is no longer audited by the Auditor
General of Canada.
Crown corporations are all exempted from auditing by the Auditor
General of Canada. The government says nothing about this. We
end up with corporations here and there, as Nav Canada, etc.
There are large ones, small ones, corporations of all sizes, but
they all have one thing in common: they no longer have a boss.
1715
They are no longer managed by
parliament. It does not make decisions for them. Crown
corporations make their own decisions and from time to time the
minister makes decisions, when relations are good. If things are
not going well, the minister does not seem to have much more
authority because parliament no longer decides.
This is what is tragic in the current Liberal approach.
Literally, they push parliament to the sidelines when the time
comes to make decisions and they do so in the name of efficient
management. However, efficiency does not justify everything. We
cannot bypass parliament in the name of efficiency. We cannot
work around parliament in the name of efficiency and cost
effectiveness.
This bill reassures no one. For various reasons, Reformers,
Bloquists, New Democrats and Progressive Conservatives are
against this bill. Not for the same reasons, but it still proves
that this bill is flawed. This is what happens when a bill is
rammed through and amendments are drafted even before the last
witnesses have been heard in committee. This is steamroller
democracy.
I cannot support such a bill. It has become a real joke. I see
the government member laughing because he knows this bill has
become a real joke, but he is paid to do that.
[English]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased once again to speak on the amendments proposed to
Bill C-66, this time on Group No. 3.
I would first of all like to speak in support of some of the
motions presented by the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and
the member for Kelowna. I will then have some general comments.
It has been proposed in Motions Nos. 25, 27, 28 and 29 by the
member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton that the board of directors of
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation remains as it is
currently structured rather than change it as has been proposed
in the bill. These are amendments with which I wholeheartedly
agree. Section 25 of Bill C-66 would alter the structure of the
CMHC board, a structure that was put in place and has remained
unchanged since December 18, 1945.
Subsection 6(1) of the CMHC Act states: “The board of directors
shall consist of the chairman, the president, a vice-president
who shall be designated by the governor in council, and seven
other members, two of whom shall be selected from the Public
Service of Canada and five of whom shall be selected from outside
the Public Service of Canada”.
In other words the board of CMHC as it currently exists consists
of five highly qualified housing professionals from CMHC and the
public service, and five people who are appointed by the Liberal
cabinet who may or may not be qualified or even have any
knowledge of the housing industry. Although it concerns me that
nowhere in the act does it stipulate the qualifications these
Liberal appointees must have in order to sit on that board, at
least the legislation strikes a balance between housing
professionals and the Liberal appointees.
What the government is suggesting we do with Bill C-66 is to
throw out the structure of the board that has worked so well for
the last 54 years and appoint three more Liberals to the board.
If we allow this bill to pass unamended, the Liberals will remove
the vice-president of CMHC and two public servants from the board
and replace them with three Liberal patronage appointees.
Presently the board has a good balance among its 10 members,
being one-half housing professionals and one-half political
appointees.
1720
There are two problems with the changes to the board as proposed
in the bill. First, the balance will be upset in favour of the
government. Second, there is no way to guarantee that the
politically appointed Liberals will have any qualifications
whatsoever to be able to make important decisions affecting
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I would not want to speak disparagingly about the Liberals, but
the government has developed a reputation, deservedly so, of
appointing Liberals to government boards, qualified or otherwise.
Aside from the distasteful nature of this change that could put
three more Liberals on the CMHC board, it could also threaten the
independence that CMHC enjoys as a crown corporation. Just
think, now CMHC management has to answer to a board that at least
has some balance between five highly qualified professionals and
five Liberals. But under the new board, CMHC management will be
under the direction of a board comprised of a majority of Liberal
appointees.
I had an opportunity to question the minister responsible for
CMHC on this bill. When I asked him what necessitated this
change, he had no answer. When I asked him what problem existed
with the present board that required this solution, he could not
offer an explanation.
The Liberals want to have a board composed of eight patronage
appointees and two housing professionals. This is entirely
unacceptable to our party, as are the accompanying changes in
clauses 26, 27 and 28. I am also pleased to support the amendment
by the member for Kelowna that would delete clause 30.
At present, CMHC cannot unilaterally raise the capital limit of
the corporation without coming back to the House of Commons and
getting the approval of the members of the House. The bill
proposes that this change can be made by cabinet without the
input of Canadians or their elected representatives. This should
stay as it is.
Just a note on Motion No. 30 that was moved by the member for
Kelowna. Clause 29 of the bill broadens the mandate of CMHC to
allow it to establish branches and appoint agents outside Canada
to better serve customers. This is particularly important when
it comes to fulfilling the corporation's mandate to promote
Canadian housing products and services outside Canada. I believe
this proposed change in the bill would be of benefit to the
Canadian housing industry and I must therefore oppose this
amendment.
There is another point I want to talk about. I heard the
parliamentary secretary on the government side when she said that
this bill was not about homelessness. I am part of a task force
organized by the PC Party of Canada. I travel across the
country, not that I like to do it. Mr. Speaker, you know I do
not like to travel, I do not like to fly. Hon. members cannot
imagine the Canadians we meet on a daily basis while we travel
who do not have a roof over their heads.
What disturbs me is that this bill will take $197 million out of
the corporation and hand it over to the government, whereas that
money should be used for social housing. The budget that Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation has right now should be
increased substantially to deal with the problem of homelessness
in this country. It is not being increased. It is being
downgraded and $197 million will be given to the government so
that it can waste it somewhere else. That is what the government
has been doing since 1993, wasting taxpayers' money. It is a
real shame.
The other week a Reform Party member asked a question of the new
minister responsible for homelessness, who was supposedly
appointed by the Prime Minister about a month ago. In her answer
she told the member that she was not the minister responsible for
homelessness. Last week in New Brunswick in a meeting she
claimed that she was the new minister responsible for
homelessness. Can she make up her mind? We have a minister who
does not have a mandate, who does not know her mandate, who does
not know she is minister and who all of a sudden knows that she
is minister, yet people out there are hurting.
1725
We need a better housing policy. We need to help those people.
We need to put more money into different programs. I am not
saying that the existing programs are all that bad. RRAP is a
program which helps senior citizens and disabled people stay in
their houses. It is a good program. We need to put more
emphasis on and more money into that program so that we can help
those people stay in their houses.
We have to find some money somewhere to put into social housing
so that we can help people who do not have homes. In New
Brunswick in my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac I know some really
nice people with young children who literally live, eat and sleep
in their car. Is that a house? It is not a house to me.
What is the government doing about it? The Liberals are half
asleep over there right now. It is time to get to work. We were
elected as members of parliament to represent our people and it
is time we did the job. Put the partisan politics aside. Let us
all work together because this is not a problem we have, it is a
crisis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, you will have heard me speak in the House many times
about the smoke and mirror tactics of the government.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have to begin my
speech today by saying it is in the area of housing, specifically
when it comes to Bill C-66, that we have probably the best
example yet of a government that is prepared to trick Canadians
into believing it is providing a great service on housing, while
in fact it does the reverse and does as little as possible.
The parliamentary secretary tried to suggest that we have a bill
before us with the great noble intention of reducing red tape. If
that were the case, in the context of good public policy on
housing, I would say bravo. But when we are left with a choice
between reduced red tape and not having any good public social
housing, then I would rather take the red tape, as would all
Canadians.
Canadians want to see this government assume responsibility for
an issue in society today of fundamental human rights, which is
adequate shelter for all Canadians regardless of where they may
live. This bill is about fundamental differences in viewpoints
and philosophical approaches. Behind it all is absolutely without
question a deliberate policy, a deliberate approach on the part
of the Liberal government to abdicate responsibility for meeting
its obligations of adequate shelter for all Canadians and
offloading as quickly as possible onto other levels of government
and onto Canadian individuals.
Bill C-66 complements the government's agenda of completely
abdicating the field of social housing, of transferring
responsibility for co-operative housing to the provinces. The
government is clearly on record as stating it is not prepared to
increase by one cent in the area of meeting the necessary housing
requirements of Canadians.
The amendments before the House are designed specifically to
require the government to get back into the housing picture, to
resume its responsibilities, to restore federal involvement in
such a vital social policy area.
There are many connections to be made today between this bill
and the Liberal government's illusory politics. It is smoke and
mirror tactics.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member. She will have approximately seven minutes left when
the bill is brought back to the House.
1730
[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
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the parliament and crown
agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to
Information Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today to propose this very
straightforward and simple motion. It is not votable but I
believe that does not detract from the importance of this
subject.
Since I have come to this place I have put forward several bills
on access to information. I have been told by several ministers
that it is a matter of a very short time and there will be some
major reforms to the Access to Information Act.
In doing the research for my motion today I found a number of
agencies that are not subject to access to information. For the
benefit of the House it is fair to note that all new crown
corporations being created are not subject to access to
information.
This is not the first time I have spoken on this subject and I
assume it probably will not be the last. I will continue to put
forward private members' motions which try to address this
problem.
Five times in the past six years individual members of the House
have put forward motions which tried to address different parts
of the deficiencies of the current legislation. My caucus
colleagues from Wild Rose and Dauphin—Swan River, just to name a
couple, have also put forward motions on this subject.
It is well known that on the opposition side of the House there
are a great many people who feel the current legislation needs to
be improved. In my case this motion simply carries on with some
of the other areas I have identified as problems.
In 1982 the Access to Information Act was passed and the
following year it was given royal assent. Some 17 years ago that
piece of legislation was brought forward. At that time it was
based on “the principle that government information should be
available to the public”. It is a very straightforward and
simple premise with which most Canadians and most
parliamentarians hopefully would agree.
It is a very important principle and it is very important that
we do not forget it. I do not think any one in opposition in the
House could put up much of an argument in opposition to access to
information. I do not think anyone in the House would not
basically agree with an open style of government.
We have had many political documents over the course of the
years which have bragged about the open style of government that
was coming. Those who might be tempted to reject this kind of
principle would probably be running the risk of a great deal of
public rebuke in this regard.
All of this should be a non-partisan issue. The fact that we
are spending taxpayers money and doing things in this place
should be open totally to the scrutiny of people who pay the
bills.
In a democracy such as ours government accountability is
essential to the preservation of our freedoms and to the
protection of the public interest as defined in many different
ways.
Some might ask why this issue is so important and why I should
be spending so much time and effort in questioning access to
information. After all we have an information commissioner and
the bureaucracy in place. Most Canadians probably assume that
the main people who benefit are parliamentarians and journalists.
That is not true. A growing number of Canadians are using access
to information. It is certainly true that the media and
parliamentarians use it as much as possible, but using this act
can force the government to reveal information which parliament
and other places cannot get hold of.
1735
Members of the House, regardless of on which side of the aisle
they sit, can use the act to discover, to unearth or to reveal
what the government and the bureaucracy are doing behind the
scenes.
In a recent speech the information commissioner noted that
members of parliament are increasingly relying upon the current
access law to help them with their responsibilities and
parliamentary duties.
That seems to me perfectly understandable as the House is
overwhelmed by the amount of business that it must conduct. The
ability of its members to fulfil their duty to scrutinize
legislation requires new tools. Debate and questions are simply
no longer adequate.
Over the past 17 years access to information has become a
crucial part of our democratic system. It has become an
essential means of guaranteeing government accountability. A
recent report released by Queen's University school of political
studies has noted the tremendous increase in the requests
targeting government ministries and agencies.
I do not want to list all these results but let me list a few
examples. According to this study, between 1993 and 1998 the
number of access requests directed at Health Canada increased by
72%; at national defence, by 74%; and at correctional service, by
79%.
These requests are not the work of crackpots who are simply
trying to make the public service look bad. They do not
represent a concerted effort to reveal dirt about government
officials, corruption and such things. Instead the vast increase
in requests simply reflects the growing complexity of government
and the growing awareness among Canadians of the breadth and
range of ongoing government activities.
The concept of ministerial accountability, a concept the
government seems not always to like, has been supplemented by the
Access to Information Act. What question period and ministerial
inquiries cannot reveal might very well be discovered through an
access to information request. That is an important addition to
the system of government.
Recently on a television program a statement was made that
Canada had one of the most secretive democracies in the world. I
do not believe that comment should be used in a country like
Canada and the reform of the Access to Information Act therefore
becomes even more important.
Sir Francis Bacon once said that knowledge itself was power.
That may be an old adage but not all wisdom is new wisdom. Access
to information, to knowledge about government activities, is a
means of preventing too great a concentration of power in the
hands of anonymous and unaccountable public servants. It also
means devolving power back to those from whom it is derived, the
common people.
The Access to Information Act is currently inadequate. It does
not meet the standards of open government which the Canadian
people expect and deserve. The 1982 Access to Information Act
states that “necessary exceptions to the right of access should
be limited and specific”. This seems to be a relatively
straightforward aim of this act.
I invite all hon. members to take time to read through the
legislation to refresh their memories. Without going into
detail, the current legislation permits exceptions to access in
three basic areas: first, where national security might be
threatened by the release of information; second, where the
fairness of a judicial process might be prejudiced; and, third,
where the release of information might reveal trade secrets or
place Canadian business in an unfair situation vis-à-vis foreign
firms.
1740
These seem to be very reasonable restrictions. I think all of
us would agree with them. They cannot be used as an argument
against changing the access to information for crown
corporations. There is an existing appeal process should someone
disagree with the assessment by a department or government agency
that access must be denied.
I could quote a number of legal representations but I am not a
lawyer by training so I will forgo that. The 1984 decision of
the federal court seems to make crystal clear how this should
work and how exceptions and exemptions should be handled.
The people have a right to know and those who would deny it must
explain themselves before the most appropriate authority. In
other words, open government is more than a privilege. It is a
basic principle of our political system in a modern Canada going
into the 21st century.
This principle is not being properly respected by those whose
duty it is to uphold it. According to one report, only about
one-half of the 12,000 access to information requests filed
annually are replied to within the statutory time limit of 30
days. This tardiness increases when the request comes from an
opposition member of the House, and again statistics back that
up.
I personally know that government departments seek to discover
the identity of many of the people who file requests. That is
also a violation of the existing law. I believe some of the
ministers responsible for that should be held accountable in the
House.
A few moments ago I cited some figures from a very recent
Queen's University study on access to information. I will now
cite others.
According to the study, the number of full disclosure responses
provided by government ministries and agencies has shown an
alarming decline in recent years. Despite all the controversy
surrounding it and the current minister's micromanaging of access
to information requests, the Department of National Defence has
seen a decline of only 8.8% in full disclosures between 1993 and
1998. A decline in meeting access requests is not good, but 9%
is not at all bad when compared with the worst offenders.
In the same period the privy council saw a decline of 40% in its
disclosures. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency saw a
decline of 39.4% and the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, a decline of 22%. All these are declines
in willingness to respond to access claims. At a time when we
are asking for more accountability and more open government,
obviously none of these should be declining in terms of responses
to access to information claims.
The information commissioner recently stated that “many public
servants have simply decided that when it comes to the access law
illegal behaviour is the norm”. Make no mistake, refusing
access is quite clearly against the spirit and the letter of the
law of the land.
Perhaps some day we will learn why the Minister of National
Defence needs to supervise the response to each access to
information request of his department. He personally must
approve every one of them that comes into his office before
access is given. Does he think we will find out that the troops
are not combat capable? Does he think that the Canadian people
might be shocked at the information about the decline that has
occurred?
I suppose the wheat board is one thing I will not have time to
talk about, but many of my constituents are upset that they, the
shareholders, cannot have access to the board, the salaries and
the information. They would be happy to get it even from last
year or the year before.
A lot of reforms are needed to the Access to Information Act.
Canadians are asking for them and I do not understand why the
government has not brought forward the reforms it promised in
1994.
1745
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the motion put forward by
the member for Red Deer proposes that parliament extend coverage
of the Access to Information Act to federal crown corporations
and the Parliament of Canada.
According to recent lists, there are 49 parent crown
corporations of which 29 are subject to the act. For example,
the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Film Development Corporation
are subject to both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy
Act. The Canada Post Corporation and the Export Development
Corporation are covered only under privacy legislation. Atomic
Energy of Canada Limited and the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, on the other hand, are not subject to either act.
The standing committee on justice and the solicitor general
examined this issue in 1987 during the review of the Access to
Information Act and the Privacy Act. In the report entitled
“Open and shut: Enhancing the right to know and the right to
privacy”, the committee made three recommendations.
The first recommendation was to extend coverage of both acts to
all crown corporations and wholly owned subsidiaries.
The second recommendation was to apply the legislation if the
Government of Canada controls a public institution by means of a
power of appointment over the majority of the members of the
agency's governing body or committee.
Finally, the committee proposed that the acts apply to the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but provide an exemption in
relation to its program material.
The government responded to the committee's report by promising
to review the proposals from the perspectives of the need for
openness, to promote government accountability, the role of the
institution involved and the need to ensure that any extension of
the act will be in the public interest.
The government needs to support openness, needs to consult with
organizations which potentially could be affected by this motion
and also needs to ensure that there are provisions within the
Access to Information Act to protect the legitimate commercial
interests of the crown corporations.
The Canadian public is sending us the same message. They want a
more open and accountable government. They believe that they
have a right to obtain information controlled by federal
institutions whether the institution is a department, an agency
or a crown corporation. It is important to note that this right
is already afforded to them in other jurisdictions.
Recent provincial freedom of information acts have established a
precedent for including crown corporations within the scope of
their legislation. Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec
laws, for example, cover provincial and municipal agencies,
boards, commissions and corporations.
Last spring Bill C-216 was debated in the House. Bill C-216
also proposed that crown corporations be included in the schedule
of the Access to Information Act. Both Bill C-216 and Motion No.
2 complement a private member's motion that the government make
all crown corporations subject to the Privacy Act. This motion
was debated in the House in April 1997 and passed with all party
support.
Motion No. 2 complements the government's commitment to
enhancing privacy rights which are outlined in a public
discussion paper entitled “The protection of personal
information: Building Canada's information economy and
society”. This paper examines the privacy issues surrounding
electronic commerce and associated consumer transactions. It
addresses the need to develop legislation that will permit
Canadians to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by
advances in technology. At the same time, it proposes a means by
which the security of personal information can be protected in
the private sector.
When the extension of access to information legislation is
contemplated, there is frequently a reaction that such an
extension will result in increased costs to the institutions. In
fact, the principles underlying the provision of access reinforce
the principles of good information management.
Sound information management practices ensure that all
information holdings are created and organized in accordance with
recognized standards.
1750
In addition, they require that organizations properly schedule
their records for preservation, retention and disposal. As a
result, information is readily available for current decision
making purposes as well as for the future study of decision
making in government.
Before supporting extending coverage of the Access to
Information Act to the category of crown corporations, we must
take into account the other two elements to which I referred to
earlier: the need to consult with the crown corporations, and
the need to ensure that there are provisions within the
legislation to adequately protect their legitimate interest.
We must recognize that it would be absolutely necessary to
consult with the affected crown corporations and to identify any
unique circumstances under which they operate.
It would be absolutely essential that we consider adjustments to
existing legislation to avoid causing damage to the commercial
interests of one or more of the organizations. One of the cruxes
of this particular piece, I think, is that we do have to consult.
There are no two ways about it. I see the member nodding yes,
agreeing that is right.
Determining the impact of subjecting parliament to the
provisions of the Access to Information Act would require
extensive study to ensure that basic democratic principles would
not be undermined.
Although extending the act to cover the administrative functions
of parliament has often been suggested, it is unlikely that
complete coverage would be feasible. This is particularly
pertinent to operations that directly affect party affairs or the
affairs of constituents.
From the perspective of encouraging openness in government, we
appreciate the intent underlying the motion presented by the
member for Red Deer. However, it does not strike an appropriate
balance between promoting the accountability of public
institutions on the one hand and, on the other hand, the
requirement to protect the public interest in ensuring that the
operations of its crown corporations and parliament are not
unfairly compromised.
Consequently, at this time we cannot support this motion.
However, it is important to note that the intent of the hon.
member from the Reform Party is a good one. I think everyone
does want openness and transparency. For that I commend him. We
do not believe the balance is quite right yet, but certainly the
intent is a good one.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
speak for a few minutes on Motion M-2, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament and Crown
Agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to
Information Act.
When we talked about raw milk cheese, during the previous
parliament, I tried to get information on available raw milk
cheese import quotas.
I went to the Access to Information Commission, but the minister
imposed a veto. He used all his energy to keep this information
from me. Is there anything more harmless than this information
on cheese import quotas?
On another occasion, I asked for information from another
department. I got the information, but it made no sense. Much
had been covered with a big black marker, and this was probably
the gist of the document. I was left with the date at the top
and a signature at the bottom, but hardly anything in between.
And they claim they are abiding by the Access to Information
Act.
Some ministers screen just about any request for information on
their department. It is a sign of fear.
Why would a minister bother to read, in some cases up to 95%, of
all such requests? Does the minister himself cross out
everything he wants to keep from us? In that case, the Access to
Information Act is pretty much useless.
1755
Everything we want to know or everything that is likely to be of
interest to the person who made the request is crossed out by
the minister, his assistants or his staff, which makes the
Access to Information Act almost totally ineffective.
Crown corporations that are separate legal entities from the
government should be subject to the application of the Access to
Information Act. However, and I agree with the parliamentary
secretary on that point, there are types of commercial
information that cannot be released.
Let us take, for example, the Canadian Investment Corporation,
the corporation responsible for managing the federal
government's housing stock. If a competitor had access to its
list of prices, its costs and other information of a purely
internal nature, information related to the daily management of
its affairs, we can see the damage the corporation could incur
if it were forced to provide these details to its competitors.
It is not always MPs who request information, it is not always
people who are concerned with protecting a certain part of the
internal affairs of these organizations. Therefore, there is
some danger in that and it could cause a lot of damage. I think
the member for Red Deer, who made the proposal, agreed with what
the parliamentary secretary said earlier, and I have to say that
I share the same view. I am greatly concerned about this.
In parliament, we, the members, would be compelled to provide
information. I believe there are things all would want to keep
confidential. That is what we call the right to privacy. When we
consider issues that have nothing to do with management but only
with members themselves, it means that, pursuant to the Access
to Information Act, one could ask individual members of
parliament how much money they have in the bank, whether their
house is mortgaged, how much money they owe. The motion before
the House could be construed to mean that this kind of
information could be obtained through the access to information
commission.
I do not think that is the purpose of this motion nor the goal
of its sponsor. No one in the House would want this either. It
would be rathr difficult to apply the terms of such a motion. Of
course, we respect and understand the sound principles on which
it is based.
My party share the concerns of the members of parliament and
especially the hon. member for Red Deer who brought forward this
motion.
But maybe we are overshooting, as my grandfather used to say.
Some people could be affected and hurt if this motion were
passed. Fortunately, it is not a votable item. It could have
very undesirable if not deleterious effects, which would make us
regret the day we passed such a motion.
I think the principle is sound. When I was co-chair of the joint
scrutiny of regulations committee. When we asked to examine the
bylaws of crown corporations, our requests were often turned
down. We were told “We are an independent agency. The bylaws
that we pass and publish are none of parliament's business”.
1800
That was pretty frustrating, because these
crown corporations are government creatures run on public funds.
But when they are asked to give us information, they pretty
well tell us to drop dead.
In my riding of Chambly, there was a post office sandwiched
between two malls. There was a rumour that it was up for sale.
The two mall owners came to my office. They asked me whether
they could be assured that they would be notified in order to
put in a bid, to purchase the post office business, which would
have to move. Fortunately, it did not happen.
At the time, I had recently been elected and I was not very
familiar with how to handle this. I phoned Canada Post
Corporation and talked with an official. I wanted some
assurances. Would there be a call for tender? Would it be
public? I was told “Listen sir, if Canada Post decides to give
away its post office, the government has no say in that
decision. As long as we submit a positive balance sheet to the
government, it does not ask any questions”. I thought it was
totally appalling to get such an answer, but it was the truth.
The person who gave me the information did not want to mislead
me. He was telling me that the act, as it was worded, allowed
Canada Post to do that.
As members can see, the Access to Information Act could be used
in that situation. We could ask bodies, organizations or crown
corporations to appear before a House committee or someone to
justify their actions.
Therefore, we agree with the principles behind this motion. But
it would have to be amended before we could support it.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I similarly am pleased to add but a few remarks to
the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Red Deer.
It is truly not a new debate certainly in this House. I submit
that it is a very admirable attempt to address an issue that has
become of increasing concern to parliament. I know that my hon.
colleague personally has been very persevering on this issue.
The motion before us is whether to make parliament and crown
agencies subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.
The Freedom of Information Act itself and the laws are built
around the basic principle “that government information ought to
be publicly available whenever possible”. This comes from the
secretary of state in 1977 on the issue when the Freedom of
Information Act was first enacted.
This legislation is aimed at helping to keep government itself
honest and certainly to bring about greater accountability. I
think we can all agree that this should be entrenched and
wherever possible there should be transparency. It is something
I believe that the public is now expecting and further to that,
demanding of parliamentarians. There is a growing degree of
frustration among members of parliament in this session and
certainly the public as well that this is not the case. The
current legislation is not achieving that end.
Private sector restructuring has affected current freedom of
information laws. Currently the freedom of information laws do
give citizens, including obviously members of this House and both
provincial and federal members, the right to obtain government
held records, except in certain cases where it is in the public
interest to maintain some secrecy.
The federal government's freedom of information law is known as
the Access to Information Act. However, there are times when
that information is not accessible, so there is a bit of an
anomaly there.
This is consistent I suppose with the back and forth debate that
went on when this type of legislation was first enacted, the
balance that had to be struck, and it is a proper word to be
used. It was used by the parliamentary secretary in her remarks.
There is obviously a need to balance the right to protect an
individual's privacy or a business's privacy in some instances
versus the general public's right to know.
1805
I would submit that cutbacks to the public service have caused
an increasing delay in government processing of freedom of
information requests. The federal information commissioner has
made remarks along these lines calling this a festering silent
scandal.
I would submit that further to that, this is consistent with
some of the results that we have seen coming from the government,
that there is a delay. Delay can be the deadliest form of denial
when there is a need for information. A certain policy approach
is developing that seems to grind citizens down and perhaps grind
even individual members of parliament down in their attempts to
find out information from the government.
The government has obviously taken the position that it has to
be accountable fiscally. No one denies that and certainly the
attempt to achieve this result is going to result in cuts. I
think these cuts account for much of the delay that happens
within the federal government. However, experimenting with new
methods of delivering public services, privatization of former
government controlled agencies, has been a necessary means to the
desired end of that fiscal responsibility, but there is a risk of
efficiency and risk of delay in taking this approach.
All governments are constantly searching for ways to transfer
functions out of government departments and back into the private
sector. Contracting out on the delivery of public services has
obvious problems as it relates to freedom of information
requests. I suggest that there is also a creation of mistrust if
the contracting out to these private sector companies results in
the government's ability to say that it can no longer give this
information because it is out of the government's hands.
Activities that are being delegated to industry run
organizations that then become exempt from freedom of information
laws are of a real concern. One example is Nav Canada which
provides traffic control services. Like politics, private
industries are very competitive and there are occasions when they
will fiercely guard certain trade secrets. Bids for government
contracts would be a perfect example.
Crown corporations, single purpose agencies that are still
wholly owned by the government have been created to allow for
these formerly government controlled industries to operate. In
some cases they operate free from access to information requests
even when technically they are covered by the freedom of
information laws, the thought being that compliance could decline
as the traditional public service is fragmented. This would
leave them free, one would suppose, from government influence yet
they are still being funded by the Canadian taxpayer. That
element of taxpayer support should outweigh the government's
ability to hide behind the supposed arm's length relationship
they have with the government.
There we are on the horns of the dilemma. There is a need for
the public to know, certainly on most occasions, but the
government has obviously distanced itself from this obligation by
saying it is a private sector company. The Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation are
other examples of where the government has moved toward
privatization of a formerly publicly run agency.
Government services are run like private industries on many
occasions. Efficiency has improved as a result when the private
sector enters in. Still there is this competing issue of the
bottom line fiscally versus the need to be accountable in the
public sector. This is the case in private industry as well.
There are occasions when the government has to step in and demand
information. When there are issues of environmental concern and
certainly when there are potential Criminal Code violations, then
the government has to actively pursue even private sector
companies.
As governments attempt to find new non-tax revenues, they may
also undermine access rights. An example is that several
governments may sell information and this information would then
be exempt from freedom of information laws regardless of the
price. Information protected for a price undermines equal access
to government information.
1810
Presently the Access to Information Act appears to be something
the government itself is prepared to look at in terms of possible
amendments. There is certainly a great deal of merit in doing
that when there is increasing demand from the public that we as
parliamentarians be more accountable and more open in that
regard.
There is a quotation that knowledge is power, but further to
that, a little bit of knowledge is sometimes dangerous. When it
comes to making an important decision, not having the full
picture is something the public and members of parliament
sometimes wrestle with when it comes to an access demand. The
balance that must be struck is something we must constantly
strive for.
Should parliament itself be subject to the scrutiny of access to
information? Obviously it is public money that is paying the
salaries of individual members of parliament and I would suggest
there is already a great deal of public scrutiny toward members
of parliament. I would also suggest there is a higher degree of
accountability on the part of the government to meet that
obligation. There is a higher degree of accountability when it
comes to disclosing decisions that not all members of parliament
have participated in.
With access to information, I would suggest the Canadian public
do have a certain degree of a right to know. There are obviously
occasions which have been mentioned previously, national
security, trade secrets, the concerns that individual
constituents might have about access to information requests that
would affect them, those considerations are always going to be
kept in mind by the information commissioner himself.
The information commissioner should have the authority to review
reasonableness for fee schedules for freedom of information
requests. There should also be a release if that price continues
to be unreasonable. There should be a release of records where
citizens' complaints are justified. Monitoring of the system as
a whole is something I believe would be a very worthwhile
exercise.
I personally support the initiative of the hon. member. I
believe there is a huge public appetite for this type of exercise
to occur. If it happens in some small way, we might contribute
to the restoration of a degree of public confidence in parliament
and politics generally as an honourable profession.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
Motion No. 2 states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament and Crown
Agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to
Information Act.
This motion is brought before the House for debate by my
colleague, the hon. member for Red Deer, who is also our foreign
affairs critic.
What is access to information? Any Canadian should be able to
write a letter asking for information from a federal government
agency and get that information within 30 days. That is the
Access to Information Act. We should be able to see the books or
get minutes or papers relating to why a certain decision was made
in the administration of the policy and programs of our federal
government and crown agencies.
There should be nothing to hide about the Canadian Wheat Board,
for example. Canadians know about the mess this Liberal
government either created or at least allowed surrounding the
Somalia inquiry. In that case documents were altered, severed,
lost or destroyed. Canadians will never know what really
happened because the Liberal government did not want us to know.
It shut down the Somalia inquiry.
We use access to information to track the Liberal government's
mismanagement of the expenditure of our tax dollars. The Somalia
debacle is the prime example of the importance of the Access to
Information Act. A CBC reporter using access to information
received two copies of the same documents from national defence.
The copies were different but they were supposed to be the same
documents. The Somalia inquiry is a very sad chapter in Canadian
history in terms of the Liberal Party's lack of respect for
democracy.
Our access to information laws should be reviewed and
strengthened. That is what this motion is asking. We should
constantly be pursuing a freer and more democratic government and
society. That is what the official opposition is trying to
accomplish with this motion.
We should not risk our national security, but we should try to be
as transparent and open with the Canadian taxpayers as possible.
1815
The Canadian taxpayer finances federal government endeavours.
Where are the details? Why are the details concerning the
expenses of the operation of the Canadian parliament not covered
by ATI? That is a big question. Why are other important
agencies protected? We need to know that. That is why we are
debating Motion No. 2.
The Liberals could have taken action concerning this matter as
soon as they saw that my colleague's Motion No. 2 was on the
order paper. Rather, he had to wait for the lucky draw for his
motion to be debated. The Liberals forced the debate to take
place.
There is another way the Liberals could have proceeded. If the
Liberals had looked through the lens of issues and not through
the lens of political stripes, they would have read Motion No. 2
and done something about it. However we know they do not do
that.
The official opposition is forcing the government to talk about
accountability as it relates to crown agencies as well as
parliament. There should not be a Liberal in the House who would
oppose my colleague's motion. Every Liberal should want their
constituents to have access to information concerning crown
agencies and parliament. As our federal government contracts out
more and more work, the records of these contracts become more
and more important. We need access to information.
We have seen the Prime Minister strangle a taxpayer. We heard
him talk about an imaginary friend. We have seen him apparently
throw away the rights of Canadian university students in favour
of a foreign dictator. Most recently we saw all parties in the
House, including the Liberals, agree to televise all House of
Commons committees. Yet the Prime Minister and the elite
Liberals do not want it to happen. Maybe the report on televised
committee sittings is in the same place where Motion No. 2 was
before the member for Red Deer forced the Liberals to take it off
the shelf and debate it in the House.
The democratic record of the government is abysmal. Members
across the way should be ashamed of their record on democracy.
They have moved closure or time allocation to limit debate in the
House more than 52 times. The government does not like the
democratic process.
When I was deputy critic for foreign affairs I tracked the
shenanigans at the Canadian International Development Agency,
CIDA. When my staff requested studies from CIDA, ATI requests
came back saying “no such study was ever done”. Did CIDA
change the name of the study? Or, was there really no such
study? It is difficult to tell.
When our ATI laws are so weak it is difficult to know the facts
and the truth. It makes it difficult to track the government, to
hold the government accountable, to make the government more
efficient, to find out where our money is being spent, where
there is duplication and where there is waste. Canadians have
the right to know what is happening with their money.
This is all wrong. It should be easy to track the government so
we can be proud of our record and proud of the way the government
is run. In conclusion, I urge members of the House to support
Motion No. 2 and let us ensure that the Liberal government does
not continue to make a mockery of democracy.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, when we talk about access to information what we are
really talking about in the final analysis is the good of the
general public but very specifically the need for the watchdogs
of government, parliamentarians and the media to be able to have
the instruments and the tools to scrutinize government to make
sure it is honest and efficient.
Certainly that is the role of both backbench government MPs and
opposition MPs. We need good information. We have to be able to
get that information from government so we can do our job.
1820
It is the same with the media. The media must have the tools of
good freedom of information legislation in order to do its job
for all Canadians and for parliament.
In the context of the media I cannot tell of my surprise when
after the member for Red Deer submitted his earlier bill, Bill
C-216 that would do the same thing, open up crown corporations, I
received a letter in November 1997 from the chief operating
officer of the CBC, in which the chief operating officer appealed
to me as a member of parliament—and I imagine this letter went
to every other member of parliament—to resist Bill C-216 because
it threatened the independence of the CBC under the Broadcasting
Act and it threatened journalistic integrity and it threatened
the CBC's competitive position. The CBC, we understand, is a
billion dollar plus crown agency operating primarily on
government funds, so I was surprised by that.
As a former journalist I fired a letter back very quickly in
which I said to the chief operating officer of the CBC that as a
former journalist I knew that his concerns were unwarranted and
that in fact I myself had a private member's bill, Bill C-264,
which put in enhanced protections to corporations and
organizations like parliamentarians and the CBC in the sense that
Privacy Act considerations would prevent any damage to
journalistic integrity, and that he had no fear of losing the
independence in the Broadcasting Act simply because the CBC would
be required to disclose its administrative procedures.
There is a huge issue here. As I pointed out to the chief
operating officer of the CBC, the issue here is that it is the
one organization in the country that is completely outside any
kind of government scrutiny even though it gets money from the
government. We cannot see any of the salaries in the CBC, as I
explained to the chief operating officer. We cannot see any
mismanagement in the CBC, as I explained to the chief operating
officer. We cannot even see nepotism in the CBC.
We as parliamentarians are subject to all kinds of scrutiny.
When we undertake patronage, which is the source of all kinds of
controversy in the country and which the opposition is constantly
attacking the government on, we are talking about a form of
nepotism that is at least public. In the CBC we can see none of
that.
I wrote him back and got a letter back from him again. He
simply said that he was sorry, that the CBC's administrative
procedures must remain secret because exposing CBC records under
the access rules for administrative purposes would in fact expose
all CBC records whether gathered for administrative, creative,
journalistic or programming purposes. That is not true, not true
at all.
I wrote to Peter Mansbridge, one of the top journalists in this
country. In my letter I said “Peter, as a journalist would you
disclose your salary as an example to the rest of the CBC to show
that you as a journalist believe in the principles of access to
information”. He wrote me back a letter in which he said
“Given the kind of scrutiny, both real and imagined, that public
figures are faced with in this country, there are few things that
remain private. In my case I am fortunate that my employer
chooses to at least keep my salary details private”. And so it
goes. The top journalist in the country, while he demands
transparency and accountability of parliamentarians, is not
prepared to submit to it himself.
When the journalism community is not prepared to have the same
kind of transparency it demands and asks of government, then it
should not criticize those bureaucrats who are afraid of the type
of legislation we all know is very necessary in this country for
the efficiency and honesty of this country. I say to the member
for Red Deer, way to go.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I thank
all members who have spoken today, in particular the member for
Wentworth—Burlington for his example. That example is probably
what it is all about. While there are many things I would like
to say in conclusion, I think that says it all.
While the member was talking about the CBC, I could make exactly
the same statements about the wheat board and other crown
corporations in my constituency.
1825
While working on this for some six years now, I discovered that
the criteria for a crown corporation being subject to the Access
to Information Act was not under the jurisdiction of the
information commissioner or the justice department, but under the
jurisdiction of the governor in council. In other words, the
cabinet decides which crown corporations are subject to the
Access to Information Act and which ones are not.
I do not believe that in a day when we pride ourselves on being
democratic and when we pride ourselves on going around the world
democratizing other countries, that it is acceptable to have our
openness subject to the decision of just the cabinet. As we have
more crown corporations because of government downsizing, it is
time to open this up. Yes, we should protect competitiveness and
those kinds of things, but that is a lame excuse for not having
crown corporations open to the Access to Information Act.
In 1994 I was told by the then justice minister that this was
about to be changed. I was not to worry. We would not have to
work on access to information for more than another year and it
would all be opened up. That has not happened. We are still
waiting. Canadians are waiting. As we into the 21st century, I
think it is critical that government open up and let people know
what in fact their tax dollars are being spent on.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.)