CONTENTS
Thursday, February 20, 1997
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8355
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken) 8356
Bill C-84. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8357
Bill C-373. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8357
Bill C-374. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8357
Bill C-375. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8358
Motion moved and agreed to. 8359
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8359
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8359
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8359
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8359
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8359
Consideration resumed of budget motion, amendment andamendment to the amendment
8360
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8368
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8385
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 8387
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8387
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8390
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8391
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8391
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8391
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8392
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8392
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8392
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8393
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8394
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8395
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8395
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8395
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8396
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8396
Consideration resumed of budget motion, amendment andamendment to the amendment
8397
Motion moved and agreed to 8399
Consideration resumed of budget motion 8399
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8415
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 8417
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8425
Amendment to the amendment negatived on division:Yeas, 17; Nays, 140 8428
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 8430
8349
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 20, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to nine
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the government, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, a document entitled ``Getting Government
Right-Governing for Canadians''.
* * *
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
also have the honour to table, in both official languages, a second
document entitled ``Program Expenditure Detail: A Profile of
Departmental Spending''.
* * *
A message from His Excellency the Governor General
transmitting Estimates of the sums required for the service of
Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998 was presented by
the Hon. the President of the Treasury Board and read by the
Speaker of the House.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would also like to table, in support of the Estimates, Part I, the
Government Expenditure Plan.
In addition, I will table with the Clerk of the House, on behalf of
my colleagues, Part III of the Estimates consisting of 78
departmental expenditure plans. These documents will be
distributed to the members of the standing committees to assist in
their consideration of the spending authorities sought in Part II of
the Estimates.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
expenditure plan in relation to the 1997-98 estimates for the House
of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to table the Main Estimates of the Government of
Canada for the 1997-1998 fiscal year.
In 1993, the Red Book stated: ``We will exercise unwavering
discipline in controlling federal spending and will reorder current
spending priorities to make sure that maximum return is obtained
on each investment''.
These estimates mark the turning point: the point where we
regain control over government spending. The point where we
deliver public services adapted to today's reality.
[English]
As we promised in 1993, we are working to put the country's
financial house in order. The main estimates I am tabling today
contain expenditures that are closer to our means.
[Translation]
We are fully committed. We have worked hard and we are on the
verge of achieving our objectives.
8350
In the span of four years, we have significantly reduced the
deficit, we have built a more efficient public service. We are
working to deliver quality services to all Canadians.
(1010 )
For example, this year, Revenue Canada will process several
million tax returns, and it will do so in less than 10 days.
Environment Canada has rationalized its approach. The number
of weather offices was reduced from 71 local offices to 17 regional
offices. This was made possible by better use of modern equipment
and technology. Weather information and services provided to
Canadians will be improved.
[English]
By the end of the current fiscal year, the percentage of the gross
domestic product allocated to federal programs as a whole will be
the lowest it has been in almost 50 years. Government program
spending will account for only 11.9 per cent of the gross domestic
product in 1998-99 as opposed to 16.8 per cent in 1993-94.
[Translation]
Since it assumed responsibility, this government has reduced the
federal government's expenditures from $120 billion to $106
billion.
[English]
As we promised, we have changed the way in which we govern
even as we continue to put public finances in order. We took up the
fight and we will win the battle to provide our citizens with quality
government.
[Translation]
The people of Canada elected us because they had confidence in
us and believed, with just cause, that we could succeed. Our
expenditure plan will live up to their expectations, but we still have
a long way to go to transform government. This year we can
achieve our financial goals without announcing any new
reductions.
I left the public service and decided to enter the political arena in
order to protect the financial future of our country. I was already
dreaming of the day when I would be part of the birth of a new
culture of public financial management.
In December 1993, I said: ``Over time, governments collectively
have promised more than they could deliver- and delivered more
than they can afford''. Today marks a turning point in the history of
the administration of public finance in Canada. We have examined
our financial situation, made firm decisions, and taken action to
achieve our objectives. We have governed strongly and wisely.
But make no mistake: the battle has not yet been won. To relent
would be to stray from the path that we have set. We are readying
ourselves to enter the 21st century on sound and solid footing.
[English]
In February 1994 I told hon. members that we had to undertake
an in depth review of the roles and responsibilities of the federal
administration so that we could give the country a government
equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Program review has been the cornerstone of our strategy. Thanks
to this unprecedented exercise, we have been able to achieve our
deficit reduction targets, to improve the delivery of services to
Canadians and to clarify the role of the federal government in a
number of areas.
[Translation]
We have reformed the system of expenditure management. We
have inaugurated an ongoing program review, and soon will be in a
position to provide public services within our financial limitations.
We have created a stable long term planning framework for the
departments.
The program review has, among other things, led us to the
conclusion that, at the close of the 20th century, the state did not
need to be the owner of railways, airports, or even the St. Lawrence
Seaway in order to serve the taxpayers' interests. It enabled us to
more clearly define the areas in which the government can best be
involved in co-ordinating the actions of all citizens.
The main focus of public administration must still be the pursuit
of program excellence and quality, in keeping with our means and
with the needs of all of our fellow citizens.
(1015 )
Our mission has been developed without ever losing sight of the
goal of enhancing the measurement of outcomes and of
accountability. We are still faced with the challenge of maintaining
a culture of state administration which supports constant
improvement.
To that end, we have put in place a number of initiatives.
[English]
In partnership with industry we have eliminated half of the
administrative irritants identified by small businesses. By next
September, Veterans Affairs Canada for instance will have cut the
time it takes to process an initial disability claim in half. All of this
has been done while in fact spending less than we had predicted.
8351
[Translation]
While reducing costs and providing quality services to
Canadians, we are preparing partnerships with the provinces, the
private sector and the NGOs.
The Canada infrastructure program is one example of a
successful partnership.
Another is the transfer by Transport Canada last November of its
civil air navigation services to a private sector not-for-profit
agency, which today employs 6,000 former public servants.
[English]
Not only must program delivery reflect today's reality but most
important, it must meet the needs of Canadians. Soon Canadians
will be using more of the new information technologies to deal
with government. This is a more economical, more efficient
approach that will be accessible to Canadians at any place and at
any time. The government would like to develop cost recovery
more fully; however, we will move forward cautiously to avoid
obstacles that might unduly inhibit the competitiveness of
companies or the access of Canadians to services.
[Translation]
This tool will lead to a change of attitude in both public servants
and those who pay user fees. Departments will have to better tailor
their services to users' needs.
Thanks to the determined support of the public servants who
have been behind our undertaking for the past four years, we have
made considerable progress. Thanks to their innovative nature,
these public servants have proven their ability to adapt rapidly to
change, while keeping firmly in sight the objective of the pursuit of
excellence and the delivery of quality services.
Canada has an administrative system that is the envy of the rest
of the world. Yet we cannot rest on our laurels. The constantly and
rapidly evolving world economy demands greater efficiency and
greater rationalization of our operations.
Our public administration had become too unwieldy over the
years. The governmental machine had multiplied its areas of
intervention, and had built cumbersome and costly structures. After
reviewing the functions of the state, we were forced to reduce its
size.
[English]
However, we are treating our employees with civility and respect
as we move through the public service reduction process.
Accordingly, we established the early departure incentive program,
called the EDI, and the early retirement incentive program, or ERI,
both of which offset a number of the consequences of staff
reductions.
[Translation]
The number of federal public servants has gone from 225,000
down to 195,000 between April 1995 and December 1996.
We all want a modern and dynamic public service. We also want
a quality public service. We cannot afford to be left behind, nor to
let events overtake us. Accordingly, we have introduced a series of
measures and strategies to address this issue. The program known
as ``La Relève'' is the catalyst for building a modern and dynamic
public service.
[English]
The return to collective bargaining is another important step for
the government. I look forward to successful negotiations with the
unions. We are expecting a great deal from these negotiations. We
are looking for financial accountability. We are looking to establish
the concept of total compensation and we are looking at
transforming the public service.
(1020 )
[Translation]
Canada deserved a new way of managing public affairs. We have
a vision of the future that is shaped by the need to move forward
with pride.
I do not need surveys to know that Canadians are happy that their
financial independence is within reach and that they will soon be
free once again to choose the type of society they want.
[English]
Our vision held true as we improved results, assessment,
transparency and accountability. These changes mean that we can
establish a new public service culture in the best interests of all
Canadians.
[Translation]
We still have much to do, but I am proud of what we have
already accomplished.
The House will recall that last March we introduced, on a pilot
basis, a new format for six of the Part IIIs of the Estimates.
In October, I also tabled performance reports for 16 departments
and agencies. These reports provided the House with more detailed
information on the results achieved. And they brought this
information to members six months earlier than if we had waited
for the tabling of the traditional Part III. These documents were
well received and appreciated. They reflect our efforts to improve
the information we present to Parliament. We have therefore
decided to continue with the initiative this year.
The 16 departments and agencies have prepared outlook
documents, entitled ``Plans and Priorities", which I am tabling as
their
8352
Part IIIs. They are the outcome of discussions with members of the
House and the auditor general.
I would like to thank all of them for their valuable contribution,
especially the member for St. Boniface and the members of his
working group.
As further good news for Canadians, I am also making public
today another document: ``Getting Government Right-Governing
for Canadians''.
This document-which is close to my heart-is a report on the
current status of government reform, as well as a description of the
action we will be taking to achieve our goals.
We promised to create quality government. Canadians can be
proud of their government. We have kept our promises. We are
back on the right path-the path to cost-effectiveness and to
quality.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
minister said a few minutes ago, in 1997-98, the federal
government will budget nearly $106 billion for program spending,
2.9 per cent less than in the current fiscal year.
In his speech, the President of the Treasury Board seems to be
looking at the world through rose coloured glasses, and what he
says is far removed from the experience of thousands of public
servants who have been laid off or whose professional future is
uncertain.
Take, for instance, the situation at the cheque printing centres,
where employees, non-unionized and in a vulnerable position, were
given the choice of accepting a 40 per cent drop in salary or staying
home, when their service was privatized.
The minister's self-congratulatory tone is hardly appropriate,
considering the unemployed who are getting poorer because their
benefits were cut as a result of unemployment insurance reform,
while today, the Minister of Finance is using the UI fund surplus to
reduce his deficit artificially.
(1025)
The minister tells us, and I quote: ``We are working to put the
country's financial house in order''. How can the minister say that
when we know that 50 per cent of spending cuts represent cuts in
transfer payments to the provinces? Similarly, putting the country's
financial house in order explains only 21 per cent of spending cuts,
in other words, $1 out of every $5 committed by the government.
The minister went on to say, and again I quote: ``In the span of
four years, we have significantly reduced the deficit''. What the
minister should have said in the House this morning is that, in
addition to the provinces, the unemployed have also significantly
reduced the deficit, when we realize that the other major weapon in
the battle against the deficit is the unemployment insurance fund.
The minister also said: ``This year, we can achieve our financial
goals without announcing any new reductions''. However, as a
result of cuts in transfer payments, the provinces will have to cut
funding themselves and do the minister's dirty work.
Of this $14 billion in spending cuts, only $3 billion is directly
the result of spending cuts within the federal government. Does the
absence of new reductions mean the end of federal house cleaning
before the election?
Making the provinces pay and thus take the blame for spending
cuts in health care, education and social services and making the
unemployed pay as well, is that the beginning of a new culture in
public financial administration the minister has been bragging
about?
The minister also said the government was treating its
employees with civility and respect as it moved through the public
service reduction process. Where is the civility and respect in
refusing, as the minister himself did, to invest the $18 million
required to align the federal employee drug plan with the plan
under which all Quebecers will be covered once the Rochon plan is
in place?
In Quebec, maximum insurance coverage is $760 per year. This
means that federal employees who suffer from a serious medical
condition will have to pay 20 per cent of their drug costs however
high they may be, which could amount to thousands of dollars
every year.
In response to a question on this particular situation, the minister
told this House only 2 per cent of federal employees living in
Quebec may be affected. If so few of them are affected, why not put
them on an equal footing with the other 98 per cent, those who are
blessed with better health?
The minister added that, between April 1995 and the end of
December 1996, the federal public service shrank from 225,000 to
195,000 employees. We will have to check how much
contracting-out the government did during the same period,
especially now on the eve of a federal election.
This old Liberal habit of spending money they have not earned
yet is obvious here. Where is this financial independence the
minister is referring to when he tells us, as he did a moment ago,
that he does not need polls to tell him that Canadians are pleased
with regaining their financial independence, when the accumulated
debt is $600 billion? The only good news is that the debt collector
is no longer knocking at Canada's door? Thanks to the contribution
of the unemployed and the provinces, the threat of bankruptcy and
insolvency is not as imminent as it was four years ago.
Go ask the unemployed, those who despaired of ever finding
work and dropped out of the labour market altogether, and the
provincial finance ministers. Where is the financial independence
the minister is boasting about this morning?
8353
Here is an example of this old Liberal habit-one might even
call it an atavistic trait-to spend other people's money.
(1030)
At page 2-14, Part III, of the 1997-98 Estimates, we read the
following:
The government is considering obtaining four UPHOLDER class submarines
from the Royal Navy.
I hope Canada is no longer buying the old tubs that the British
Navy wanted to get rid of a few years ago. It goes on to say:
Delays in approving this project resulted in expenditures which were paid through
the operating budget, to support an additional program to overhaul OBERON class
submarines.
There is also $8.6 million to buy a patrol frigate by March 1997;
$61.3 million to buy sophisticated air-to-surface missiles.
However, as regards spinoffs for the Canadian industry, the defence
department document says: ``Since the weapons, pods, testing
material and spare parts will be bought through the American
government, the Canadian industry will not be directly involved in
the contracts''.
In other words, this document, the Estimates, is drafted in
Canada, but benefits the American industry.
Meanwhile, the minister is proud of these results.
Granted, the minister is an intelligent person. However, he does
not live in the same world as we do, he does not live in the same
world as Canadians do. That is the tragedy.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to respond to the President of the Treasury Board's tabling
of the estimates this morning. I think that we have to point out that
not everything is as clear as he would like us to believe. I refer to
his speech in which he said ``we will exercise unwaivering
discipline in controlling federal spending''. That is a wonderful
statement.
When I looked at the Globe and Mail last week I happened to see
an article that said ``next week's government spending estimates
will prove the ad hoc and very political nature of the heritage
minister's eleventh hour $10 million gift for CBC because the
money won't be there''. Guess what, I checked the estimates and
the money is not there. There is a little column for last minute
add-ons for the political changes made by cabinet and sure enough
we find that the heritage minister at the very last minute, after the
estimates were printed, was able to squeak in another $10 for her
little favourite programs. So much for the unwaivering discipline
in controlling federal spending. Obviously it is completely and
totally subject to the whims of the people who have power around
here. Therefore we have to take a look at the political nature of the
rest of the documents to see what else we have found.
The President of the Treasury Board goes on to talk about the
fact that the percentage of program spending is going to be the
lowest in GDP for almost 50 years, but again he completely fails to
tell us about how much money in addition to program spending we
are paying in interest. Canadians have to take out $45 billion to $50
billion a year of their pockets to pay for interest for the past
mistakes of this government and the previous government. The
Tories and the Liberals combined for the last 25 years have been
spending with abandon. Now Canadians have to come up with $50
billion a year or the better part thereof just to pay for these
mistakes. They were not their mistakes, they were the
government's mistakes but guess who gets to pay. And that is the
shame of these estimates.
What else did we find in the president's speech: ``Over the last
few years the federal public service has grown too large and
therefore we have to make it smaller''. A wonderful statement but
what do find? Let us take Nav Canada. Again in his speech he
referred to the fact that he has transferred 6,000 former federal
employees into this hybrid crown corporation, not for profit
organization, hid from the auditor general organization; 6,000
federal employees and he claims he is reducing the public service.
(1035)
Not one person lost their job. It was a transfer from one
department into a not for profit agency. Nothing changed. Yet he
would have us believe that he is downsizing the federal civil
service, that we are getting more efficient and that we can manage
our money better. Wrong. Completely wrong.
We saw the Minister of Finance stand up in this House and heard
him boast about his accomplishments, how he has brought down
spending, how he has brought it under control and how we are
finally getting the federal government's fiscal house in order.
When we look at it, we find that the federal government is
getting its house in order again at the expense of somebody else.
Remember how I said that the taxpayers have to pay for the
government's mistakes. We are also finding that provincial
governments are now paying for the federal government's saying it
is getting the job done. The health and social transfer to the
provinces is how it is doing it.
Last year the federal government transferred to the provinces
$14.9 billion for health, education and social services tax. This year
it is only going to spend $12.5 billion. That is a reduction of $2.5
billion right there that did not reduce the size of the federal
government one inch.
It did not reduce the number of civil servants by one. It was a
case of passing the buck to the provinces and saying ``you will do
with less in order for us to balance our budget''. Is that responsible
8354
government? Is that the way we want to manage our federal
government, by passing the buck to the provinces with $2.5 billion
less while Canadians are saying ``what about my health care, it has
fallen to pieces''? Does it care?
It cares about the Minister of Finance's being able to stand up
and boast about his accomplishments. We read in the paper and I
see in Edmonton, where I come from, that people have been denied
emergency services, that people have died because they have had to
transfer from one hospital to another in an emergency. They died in
the process because there was not a bed available for them.
This government is cutting $2.5 billion in cash from health and
education. It says it is a good job. The other day the Minister of
Finance stood up and said ``Boy, am I good. I am going to throw
another couple or three hundred million dollars back into health
care. Is that not good news?''
Compare that to the cut of $2.5 billion from health care in one
year. That is terrible news. Canadians ought to know what is really
going on when it comes to this government's management of health
care for Canadians. Abysmal. Downright abysmal.
We have also heard the Minister of Finance tell us about how
interest rates have come down and how he is saving all kinds of
money. Let us recognize that interest rates are down right around
the world. They are down in Japan. There are practically non
existent there. They are down in the United States. They are down
in the United Kingdom. They are down all through Europe.
I wonder if the minister is taking credit for all that, too. The
reality is he just happened to catch the benefit of a wave that was
going around the world. Let us remember that interest rates came
down not because the Minister of Finance caused it. He just
happened to get the benefit of it.
This year we are going to see a reduction, finally, in the cost of
our debt. It is going to drop by $1.8 billion, the prediction is, down
to $46 billion. Let us remember that it was not the management of
this government and it was not the management of this Minister of
Finance that caused it.
Thankfully Canadians who have mortgages and loans with taxes
to pay are getting the benefit of it. Again there are the seniors who
would rely on their investment to give a little enhancement to their
quality of life on top of the pittance this government gives them.
What happened to their incomes?
(1040 )
I did not hear the Minister of Finance say seniors are going to be
better off because interest rates are coming down. While he was
boasting that someone with a big mortgage would save $500 a
month, he did not say that the senior who has a $100,000
investment is going to lose $500 a month. I did not hear him say
that, but that is what happened.
My hon. colleague is going to be retiring after the election. He is
going to have to suffer because his investments are going to bring
him less money. Does the Minister of Finance care? Perhaps not.
The point is there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians across
this land who are being squeezed by the reduction in interest rates,
squeezed by taxes going up, squeezed because health care is not
there for them, all because the Minister of Finance says ``boy, am I
doing a great job''. Canadians know he is not doing a great job.
They know that their jobs are potentially in jeopardy. One in four
Canadians is concerned about a job. There are 1.5 million
unemployed who are looking for a job, and high taxes are
destroying these opportunities.
University graduates are asking how to get a job. The Minister of
Finance is saying they will have an extra six months to before they
have to start to repay their student loans. Let me assure the House
that each and every one of them would rather have a job
opportunity than an opportunity to defer the payment of a student
loan. But these are the types of things that are going on that we do
not hear about. We did not hear it in the government's tabling of the
estimates.
I refer to the people in power seeming to be able to get what they
want. In a stack of documents I have here there is a little interest in
what is going on in the department of heritage. If I remember the
numbers clearly, while the Minister of Finance says: ``I am
squeezing everybody, everybody is having to do with less'', does
anybody get more? Yes, the Deputy Prime Minister and the
minister of heritage gets more. I think she gets about $90 million
more, an 8.4 per cent increase in her budget.
An hon. member: Her Canada pension payments.
Mr. Williams: Not her Canada pension payments, it is for the
little programs she wants, the CBC, $10 million; flags for
everybody, another few million dollars; the information office, $20
million. She gets what she wants and everybody else has to do with
less.
She is on the left side of the party and she thinks government
exists to spend money, government exists to manage the economy
and manage people's money properly. She does not even know
what that means. That is why these estimates fall in hard behind the
budget. It tells us that Canadians are being duped by the
government.
The other thing I want to point out is the smoke and mirrors. The
Minister of Finance said that program spending is coming down
and we are finally getting a handle on this. But let us take a look at
the numbers. CRTC's budget in the main estimates is down by $18
million, from $22 million to $3 million. Wow, what is going on
here? I checked into it and I found that the revenues that were
collected have been netted against the expenditures for the depart-
8355
ment. Therefore rather than showing the $22 million which is
normally spent, the revenues have now been netted out and they are
down to $3 million. But it is still going to spend $22 million.
So what has changed other than the numbers on the piece of
paper? The facts are that the way the numbers are presented would
lead one to believe that major progress is being made. But when we
ask the questions behind it, we find that is not the case. That is the
story of the government. That is the story everywhere.
(1045 )
It does not matter if the department of heritage states at the last
minute that it wants another $10 million out of taxpayers to get
their favourite programs on TV. It does not matter if it is the
President of the Treasury Board who stands and says that civil
servant numbers are coming down. He is just moving them off the
balance sheet. It does not matter if the Minister of Finance stands
up and says that interest rates are coming down because of his great
management. That is also wrong.
I could go on and on. The point is that the election is coming up
and Canadians will have a real choice between the fiscal
responsibility and management by the Reform Party and the fiscal
irresponsibility by this government.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am wondering if I
might have unanimous consent to reply on behalf of the New
Democratic Party to the tabling of the estimates.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I hear nos.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order.
I was wondering if the estimates that have just been tabled are in
order considering a motion that was passed by this House
approximately one year ago. This motion gave direction to this
House as well as to components of the legislative branches of
government.
Today in raising this matter, I think it is the first time that the
motion could be put in its context and be applied to the business of
the House and in this case, the business of supply.
To remind us, back on December 11, 1995, we passed a motion
in this House of Commons that reads in part as follows:
Whereas the people of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of
Quebec's distinct society;
(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its
French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;
(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;
Mr. Speaker, that is the part of the resolution which I want you to
take under consideration, ``that the House undertake to be guided
by this reality''.
The fourth part reads:
(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches
of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct
accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, that is the item I am raising in this point of order, as
to whether this motion has been considered in the process of
determining the presentation of supply to the House. Mr. Speaker, I
refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 553:
Every question when agreed to assumes the form either of an order or a resolution
of the House. By its orders the House directs its committees, its Members, its officers,
the order of its own proceedings and the acts of all persons they concern;
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if you considered what the
motion's procedural significance had on the receivability of the
supply here today and would have on other bills, motions,
amendments, questions and other proceedings that are going to be
placed before the House. If you read the motion that was passed by
this House as I did, the government and this House must take the
reality that Quebec is a distinct society into consideration in all that
they do.
On page 16972 of Hansard, the Prime Minister tried to clarify
the motion when he said to us in this assembly:
Once it is passed, this resolution will have an impact on how legislation is passed
in the House of Commons. I remind Canadians that the legislative branch will be
bound by this resolution, as will be the executive branch.
Today the minister is a representative of the executive branch.
This is a real, dynamic recognition, recorded in the very heart of our country's
government.
(1050 )
Considering that the distinct society motion has been in effect
for over a year, those so ordered by this House have had sufficient
time to take the reality that Quebec is a distinct society into
consideration when planning budgets and drafting bills, including
any change as to how the proceedings of this House conform to that
order.
It is our responsibility at this time to ask those so ordered by this
House how they have considered the motion. You, Mr. Speaker, by
virtue of this motion have been ordered to do so. The minister who
just tabled the estimates has been so ordered. While under those
orders did he confer upon Quebec any rights, any privileges or
benefits not conferred upon the other provinces of Canada? That is
a very key question.
8356
In conclusion, many Canadians agree that Quebec is a distinct
society. However, they are concerned with the impact it would
have on them if it were entrenched in the Constitution. They are
also concerned with having this reality, as the Prime Minister
described it, recorded-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order, please. I have
listened very patiently to the hon. member in spite of some
concerns that others may be having and I fail to see any tie-in
between the point of order that he has raised and the form of the
estimates. I fail to understand why it would be that the estimates,
which appear to be in the normal form for estimates as required by
the rules and orders of this House and by our longstanding practice,
should take on a different form based on the point which the hon.
member has raised.
Accordingly, having heard nothing that would convince me there
is anything irregular whatever in the form of these estimates, I can
only say that I believe the hon. member's point of order is not well
taken. I think we should proceed with the business of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I think your decision is in fact
justified, and this is proof that the distinct society resolution meant
absolutely nothing because, as you see, in something as important
as the budget, it has no application.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I would ask the hon.
member to be circumspect and not to put words in the Speaker's
mouth. I merely indicated that the hon. member for Lethbridge was
out of order in questioning the Estimates tabled by the minister and
recommended by His Excellency in the House today and the
resolution we passed. That is all that I said.
[English]
I do not want the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois to draw
any other inference from what the Chair said as he is trying to do at
this time.
I would suggest we move on to the regular business of the
House. I do not believe that a point of order has been raised.
I will hear the hon. member for Lethbridge briefly, but I have
listened very patiently and I think he has had a fair hearing on this
matter.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time
which you have allotted to me because the matter is of very great
significance.
I would ask for a clarification on your ruling. I am not
questioning your ruling but in terms of clarification, with respect to
the motion which was passed on December 11, 1995, are you
saying that the House or a member of the executive council does
not have to consider that motion as ordered by the House as it
relates to a piece of legislation or the estimates of today or any
other matter? Is that what I interpreted-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): No. I simply said that the
hon. member had failed to show that there was anything in the
estimates which was not in compliance with the motion. I
respectfully suggest that was his point. Having failed to prove it on
any cogent argument, in my view the point of order is not well
taken and I so rule.
I am prepared to move on with the business of the House at this
point.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Lethbridge
specifically referred to the motion passed in the House on
December 11, 1995 and the fact that this House will take these
things into consideration.
The estimates which were tabled this morning by the President
of the Treasury Board contained no reference whatsoever that this
motion has been addressed in the preparation of these documents.
Therefore, I ask that the-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. I have already
ruled on this point. I think the hon. member is re-arguing the point.
The Chair has given a ruling and I think it is quite clear. There was
no evidence put forward in any of the lengthy argument of the hon.
member for Lethbridge to show that there was anything irregular in
the tabling of these estimates. I am sure that we could get into a
protracted debate as to whether the estimates have taken into
consideration the point that was adopted by the House in the
resolution to which the hon. member for Lethbridge has referred. I
suggest that is a matter for debate. It is not a matter of a point of
order.
(1055 )
The minister and the members who wish to argue this point can
do so on one of the allotted days when we will be considering these
estimates, as no doubt we will be over the next coming months. I
suggest that it is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order. The
estimates appear on their face to be in order and I respectfully
request that we move on.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I need some clarification.
This distinct society motion indicated that, in all its actions and
decisions, the government was to take this reality into account.
That was what was passed.
That being said, the estimates bear, among other things, on the
heritage department. Through the issue of culture, whether Quebec
or Canadian-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order, please. This is the
same point. As I said, we have already ruled.
8357
[English]
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present in both official languages the fifth report of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
This is the first report of the subcommittee on sustainable human
development entitled: ``Ending Child Labour Exploitation: A
Canadian Agenda for Action on Global Challenges''.
I would also like to thank the witnesses who appeared before the
committee as well as the members of Parliament for their work on
this committee. This is a very important report that I think will
guide the government in its approach to this very significant
question.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, ``The State
of the World's Children'' is the title of the latest Unicef report,
from which I quote the following: ``Today, over 250 million
children around the world-in countries rich and poor-work and
many of them are at risk from hazardous and exploitative labour.
Denied education and trapped in cycles of poverty, their most basic
rights, their health and even their lives are in jeopardy. The
contributing factors are multiple and overlapping, including the
exploitation of poverty, lack of access to education, and traditional
restrictions, particularly for girls''.
Today, the government is tabling the report of the sub-committee
on sustainable human development on this same topic, along with a
proposed action plan on this intolerable situation.
I must say that the Bloc Quebecois members took part in the
activities of this sub-committee with interest. Our active
participation contributed to improving the report, and the
government party accepted almost all of our recommendations.
We must point out, however, first of all, that the conditions under
which the final report was drafted and translated into French are
unacceptable.
I would just like to indicate that we played a significant part in
the drafting of this report, and we are calling for the government to
implement its 19 recommendations as promptly as possible.
* * *
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-84, an act
to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1100)
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-373, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act (provincial legislation contravening the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am, in fact, introducing two bills whose
purpose is to wake up francophone members outside Quebec who
are usually asleep or hide their heads in the sand when enforcement
of the Official Languages Act in Canada is at stake. The President
of the Treasury Board, when he was principal secretary at Foreign
Affairs, even tossed out the Official Languages Act.
This bill is intended to give enforcement of the Official
Languages Act in Canada more teeth. It would ensure that funding
earmarked for Canadian francophone communities gets to those
communities. Unfortunately, this money is appropriated by the
provinces for other purposes.
The bill therefore suggests that transfer payments to those
provinces be reduced, if the money does not go to these
communities or if the provinces violate the Canadian Constitution
as it applies to the minority rights of francophones. That is, in fact,
the case in most Canadian provinces.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-374, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act (social services for the French linguistic
minority of a province).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the second bill is along the same lines as
the first one. Its purpose is to ensure that the provinces that do not
use the portion of transfer payments which is designated for
francophone communities are fined accordingly by the federal
government, in other words, an equivalent amount is cut from
transfers to the provinces if the amounts allocated to francophone
communities do not go to those communities.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
8358
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-375, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal
Trade Implementation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce my
private member's bill, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal
Trade Implementation Act.
The agreement on internal trade that was signed nearly three
years ago was a start. However, it has not yet been completed. The
main obstacle to the completion of this agreement is the use of the
term consensus as it has been used by the negotiating committee
comprised of cabinet level representatives from federal, provincial
and territorial governments.
This committee has interpreted the definition of consensus to
mean unanimity. Therefore, any one government, regardless of
population, can impeded the progress of the agreement, and indeed
that of the Canadian economic union.
My bill will allow the federal government to use its
constitutional responsibility under sections 91 and 121 of the
Constitution to complete sections of the agreement on internal
trade. It is important to note that this action will be taken only in
situations where co-operative agreement between the provinces has
been sought and not reached.
(1105 )
This proposed approval formula will require agreement among
at least two-thirds of the provinces that have at least 50 per cent of
the Canadian population. This provision will facilitate the removal
of internal trade barriers and present growth opportunities to
Canadian businesses which previously have been restricted by
these barriers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 81(4), as amended for
the 1997-98 fiscal year, and Standing Order 81(6), I move that the
Main Estimates be referred to the Standing Committees of the
House.
Since the list is rather lengthy, I would ask that the list be printed
in Hansard at this point without being read.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Massé: I move the following motion:
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, laid upon the
Table on February 20, 1997, be referred to the appropriate Standing Committees of
the House, according to the detailed distribution list here appended.
[
Editor's Note: List mentioned above follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25, L30, 35,
40, 45 and 50
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15
to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Canadian Heritage, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75,
80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 125, 130, 140 and 145
To the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
Citizenship and Immigration, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15
To the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
Environment, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15
Privy Council, Vote 30
To the Standing Committee on Finance
Finance, Votes 1, 5, L10, 15, 20, L25, 35 and 40
National Revenue, Votes 1, 5, and 10
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
Fisheries and Oceans, Votes 1, 5 and 10
To the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Foreign Affairs, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, L35, 40, 45, 50 and 55
To the Standing Committee on Government Operations
Canadian Heritage, Vote 135
Governor General, Vote 1
Parliament, Vote 1
Privy Council, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 35
Public Works and Government Services, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35
Treasury Board, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20
To the Standing Committee on Health
Health, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
Human Resources Development, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35
To the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities
Justice, Vote 10
To the Standing Committee on Industry
Industry, Votes 1, 5, L10, L15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90,
95, 100, 105, 110, 115 and 120
8359
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
Justice, Votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45
Privy Council, Vote 40
Solicitor General, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Votes 1, 5 and 10
Veterans Affairs, Votes 1, 5 and 10
To the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
Natural Resources, Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 20, 25, 30 and 35
To the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
Parliament, Vote 5
Privy Council, Vote 20
To the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
Finance, Vote 30
To the Standing Committee on Transport
Privy Council, Vote 15
Transport, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40
To the Standing Joint Committee on Library of Parliament
Parliament, Vote 10
To the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages
Privy Council, Vote 25
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have four petitions. The first petition suggests that the charter of
rights and freedoms protects all Canadians, including those
convicted of crimes. Victims of crimes require specific rights in the
justice system.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to support the
private member's activities and developments of the victims' bill
of rights in this House.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition says that in June 1996 the Prime Minister of
Canada announced he would work toward diverting the Sable
Island gas pipeline to Quebec City. It is unacceptable for the Prime
Minister to decide the destination of Nova Scotia natural gas
without consulting Nova Scotians.
Therefore, Nova Scotians assert their right to control the
destination of Sable Island gas and demand that the federal
government cease tampering in this issue.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition calls on Parliament to urge the federal government to
join with provincial governments to make the national highway
system upgrading possible.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fourth petition requests that Parliament not increase the federal
excise