CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 12, 1997
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8943
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8945
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8947
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8947
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8948
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8948
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8948
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8949
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8949
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8949
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8950
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8950
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8950
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8951
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8952
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8952
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8953
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8954
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 8955
Bill C-383. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 8955
Bill C-384. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 8955
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8956
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8956
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8960
Consideration resumed of motion 8963
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8966
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8967
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 8970
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8971
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8971
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 38; Nays, 155 8975
Motion for concurrence 8976
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 126; Nays, 67 8976
Bill C-87. Motion for first reading deemed adopted 8977
Bill C-87. Motion for second reading 8977
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 126; Nays, 67 8977
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went in committee thereon, Mrs.
Ringuette-Maltais in the chair.) 8977
(Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.) 8977
(Appendix agreed to.) 8977
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 8977
(Preamble agreed to.) 8977
Motion for concurrence 8978
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 126; Nays, 67 8978
Motion for third reading 8978
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 8978
Motion for concurrence 8978
Bill C-88. Motion for first reading 8978
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.) 8978
(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.) 8979
(Schedules A and B agreed to.) 8979
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 8979
(Preamble agreed to.) 8979
(Bill deemed reported.) 8979
Motion for concurrence 8979
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 126; Nays, 67 8979
Motion for third reading 8979
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 8979
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 8979
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8983
Division on amendment deferred 8985
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8985
8943
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 12, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: Every Wednesday before the doors are opened it
is our custom to sing the national anthem. Today we will be led by
the hon. member for Cambridge.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to speak on a very important issue, DNA data
banking.
Recently I had the pleasure of meeting with members of the
Canadian Police Association who expressed the importance of a
national DNA data bank. The purpose of a DNA data bank is
fundamental to investigations and prosecutions of the most serious
crimes in Canada. A DNA data bank would act as a national
information system for law enforcement.
I fully support the concept of DNA data banking and ask that my
colleagues also defend its significance to society. I feel that
bringing this legislation to the forefront is long overdue. Perhaps
we should consider the motto that the Canadian Police Association
so adamantly believes in: Register criminals before firearms. After
all, it is our responsibility to ensure public safety.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the people of Alberta spoke and here is what they told us.
Their first and loudest message was that Albertans respect
politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say.
Albertans recognize that Ralph Klein kept his election promise to
eliminate Alberta's deficit, and they rewarded him with 63 seats
out of 83.
The people of Alberta told us that they expect politicians to be
responsive and listen to their voters. Albertans appreciate that the
Klein government listened to the people on such issues as health
needs and budget surpluses.
Finally, the people of Alberta told us they will never again let the
banks and the bond traders control the province's destiny. By an
overwhelming majority, they rejected deficit spending in favour of
fiscal stability and accountability.
I salute Ralph Klein and the people of Alberta for their
courageous efforts of the past four years. Our reward? The lowest
tax rates and the highest job creation of any province in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Conservative leader, who dared solicit the support of the Quebec
Liberal delegates assembled at last weekend's convention by
slipping provocative literature under their doors, was roundly
condemned by both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of
Immigration.
According to the Minister of Labour, the Conservative leader has
gone too far. As for the Minister of Immigration, she said it was
totally inappropriate.
Liberals are really not very thick-skinned. How would they have
described the stealthy crusade of the own leader, a backstage
skulker, during the night of the long knives in an Ottawa hotel in
1982?
These one-way democratic ministers hid their hats in their
pockets at the time of their leader's incredibly despicable act
during that night dedicated to quashing Quebec's legitimate
demands.
Mr. Speaker, ``Je me souviens'' and I am not about to forget.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have in my hand a letter from Mr. R. J. Fish, director of
engineering, railway safety directorate to an official of the CPR in
which the government official from the railway safety directorate
says that
8944
he is quite interested in the possibility of the railway's contracting
out the entire crossing improvement project.
``We would be very interested in hearing the railway's views on
this and will be contacting you shortly to set up a meeting to
discuss the above''.
Many of the people in my riding and other ridings across the
country who work for the signals department of the CPR and the
CNR are very concerned that the government is encouraging the
railways to contract out this kind of work.
It is bad enough that the companies they work for should be
considering contracting out their work, but when the Liberal
government is actively encouraging major private corporations to
contract out work, to bust unions, to look for cheaper wages for
people doing the same job, it ought to be absolutely ashamed of
itself.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Hungarian.]
[English]
First, Hungary will be celebrating its national day on March 15,
marking the Hungarian revolution of 1848-1849. Being the longest
and most heroic fight against feudalism in the 1848 ``Spring of
Peoples'' movement in Europe, the Hungarian revolution became
the symbol of the fight for freedom and human rights all over the
world. Second, Hungary is becoming more important to Canadians
because it is expected to be invited to join NATO in July of this
year. We, the members of the House of Commons, will be asked to
express our opinion on the enlargement of NATO membership for
Hungary and its political and security alliances with Canada.
(1405)
On these two occasions, let us keep in mind the small and newly
democratic country in the heart of Europe whose people and
government will soon be important contributors to European and
world security.
Kusunom.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the St. Catharines Jaycees celebrated their 60th
anniversary as a Jaycee Junior Chamber organization. The St.
Catharines Jaycees serve the community by developing tomorrow's
leaders through training programs and community involvement.
Projects include raising funds for the Niagara district airport, the
Garden City Arena and two local swimming pools.
The Jaycees have also sponsored the soap box derby, the Easter
egg hunt, the mayor's invitational grape stomp, Jaycee Garden
Park and the development and dedication of the Kristen French
Memorial in Jaycee Gardens. Three presidents of Canada's
national Jaycees have come from St. Catharines and I had the
honour and pleasure of serving Junior Chamber International in
1976.
I salute all present and former members of the St. Catharines
Jaycees and extend every good wish for success in the years ahead.
Congratulations and happy 60th anniversary.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Monday was Commonwealth Day.
[English]
This year's theme ``Talking to One Another'' is closely linked to
modern day technology as we celebrate the countless ways we now
have to communicate.
[Translation]
This high technology enables Commonwealth citizens to
exchange ideas in various ways, including distance education and
exchange programs.
[English]
Of course, having more ways of communicating does not
automatically bring improvements. Talking to one another is not a
one way process. We can explain our own points of view but we
must also listen to the views of others, something that all
parliamentarians should do, including myself.
[Translation]
Whatever the method of communication we choose, we must
keep speaking and listening to one another so that Canada and the
Commonwealth, and the whole planet of course can prosper.
* * *
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's
first teachers' colleges were inaugurated on March 12, 1857, when
the Jacques-Cartier and McGill teachers' colleges opened their
doors.
These institutions were established following a Quebec act
designed to improve the quality of education. They had the
mandate of preparing young people to work with children and
teenagers.
8945
Several generations of Quebecers, including myself, benefited
from a training and apprenticeship experience that they would
later pass on to those who followed in their footsteps.
Sister Simone Colpron, who is now almost 90, was a great
educator who had a strong influence on me. Through her, I want to
pay tribute to the men and women who paved the way to
excellence, and who continue, to this day, to make Quebecers better
educated and more qualified.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
week Canadians have witnessed one of the sorriest episodes in the
judicial history of Canada. Clifford Olson taunts the victims of
crime, mocks the justice system, but the responsible minister
dismisses any protest as just playing politics.
Shame on the minister for trying to dismiss attempts to give
victims and their families a platform. The pain and suffering of
innocent victims deserves a voice. It is about time the rights of
victims take precedence over the rights of criminals. It is about
time this country had a victims' bill of rights. This would give
victims the right to much more information, the right to
notification of significant events in the judicial process, the right to
compensation from the offender and the right not to be harassed or
intimidated by the perpetrator of a crime.
Why does the Liberal government continue to ignore the rights
of victims of crime?
* * *
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 27, 1997, the legislature of the province of Ontario passed
a resolution introduced by Sandra Pupatello, the provincial
member for Windsor Sandwich. The resolution calls on the
provincial government to ``stop cutting base funding of hospitals
and to allow communities to determine how to restructure their
hospital services and find efficiency savings based on their needs''.
Our local communities and hardworking doctors and nurses
know the best way to reduce health care costs. Their expertise and
priorities should be recognized. The federal government's
priorities were clearly stated in the 1997 budget announcement that
it would be reinvesting $300 million in health care over the next
three years by investing in a health transition fund, a Canada health
information system and increasing support for children's health
under two programs, the community action program for children
and the Canada prenatal nutrition program.
(1410 )
In recent weeks, the premier of Ontario and others have claimed
the federal government cut transfers to Ontario by 40 per cent. This
is not the case. The reductions in transfers was $1.2 billion or11.4 per cent. Next year Ontario will receive a total of $9.1 billion
in transfers.
The federal government has made health care a priority and it is
time the Government of Ontario did also.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is as a
federalist member of Parliament from Quebec that I rise in the
House today to denounce the strategy of the Conservative Party and
its leader, the member of Parliament for Sherbrooke.
For some weeks now the leader of the Conservative Party has
been travelling through the anglophone provinces promising that a
Conservative government would resolve the issue of national unity
and put an end to the separatist threat in Quebec.
In Quebec however, and again last Monday in his own riding of
Sherbrooke, the Conservative leader has relentlessly attacked
Quebec federalists and said almost nothing against the Bloc
Quebecois and their separatist allies.
Canadians have not been fooled by this double talk in the past.
The Conservative leader had better realize it soon, if he does not
want to lose the two seats he has in the next election. He had better
start talking the talk.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we sometimes see strange coincidences. At a time when
the federal government is asking the Supreme Court to rule on
Quebec's democratic right to achieve sovereignty, without the prior
consent of Prince Edward Island, France is about to print a stamp
commemorating General de Gaulle's visit to Montreal, in 1967,
and particularly his famous ``Vive le Québec libre''.
The Prime Minister, who is a long-time stamp collector,
hurriedly made a few suggestions to the French postal service,
asking them, above all, not to show the general, the Quebec flags,
or the city hall balcony. In other words, according to the Prime
Minister, the best stamp to commemorate this page in history
would be ``no stamp at all''.
Could it be that this knee-jerk reaction is dictated by a noble
intention to protect young Quebecers' health?
8946
After regulating tobacco company sponsorship in such a
fanatical way, the Prime Minister may have decided to go after
this other major threat to our young people's health: French
stamps.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, concerns
have been expressed over the last number of months regarding the
harmonized sales tax about to go in place in Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Newfoundland. It has been a major topic at my
town hall meetings and my visits to businesses where consumers
and businesses have expressed concerns.
Because of concerns expressed by both small business and
consumers, tax included pricing is being delayed until provinces
representing 51 per cent of the Canadian people agree to blend their
sales taxes with the federal goods and services tax. This is a victory
for us in Atlantic Canada.
There are major benefits to a harmonized sales tax with the
elimination of $700 million in hidden provincial sales taxes in the
Atlantic, $280 million of this in Nova Scotia alone, one sales tax
regime, a reduction in tax from almost 19 per cent to 15 per cent on
most items, and in Nova Scotia a lowering of the personal income
tax rate by 3.4 points.
With the changes recently announced I am confident that we can
now move forward on April 1 with the new harmonized sales tax
which will benefit Atlantic Canada-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec now ranks tenth among biotechnology centres in North
America.
In less than three years, Quebec went from 13th to 10th place
among the most important centres in North America. The number
of biotechnology companies has more than tripled, and revenues
have increased tenfold, from $25 million to $280 million.
The federal government actively supports this industry in
Quebec. In recent years, we have invested more than $20 million in
helping to create and maintain hundreds of specialized jobs.
Canadians have developed the skills and expertise that allow
them to compete with the world's great economic powers, and our
government is delighted to be a part of this development.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the event of an election this may be my last statement in this
House. Therefore I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the
House and all of the parliamentary staff.
I recognize the feelings of personal friendship that extend across
political lines, et qui surmonte les lignes de langues.
(1415 )
It is in committee that we recognize the difference in methods
but the common goal of most MPs is doing what is best for our
country. As for members of my caucus they are terrific.
I thank my office staff Don, Inge, Lise and Mike, and volunteers
like Gary and Marion. Hats off to the constituency association with
Jim, Roy, Alex, Art the two Bettys, Bob, Don, James, John, Ken,
Lavinia, Lois, Marion, Nora, Pat and Reed.
I am honoured to have served the taxpayers of
Nanaimo-Cowichan and I thank the people across Canada who
supported me in difficult times. My gratitude to every member of
my family and old friends like Al, Charlie, Ken, Les, Sid and Wes
who never wavered.
And, finally to my friend and wife Paula, I love you. Come along
and grow old with me.
The Speaker: It is not often that I make a statement in the House
but an incident occurred yesterday which I know touched many
members because you have been contacting me. It touched me
greatly also.
The background is this. A young Micmac girl who was here with
the Forum for Young Canadians wanted to bring an eagle feather
into the House of Commons yesterday and through a
misunderstanding-actually a mistake-she was told she could not
bring in the feather. Many of you are aware that my grandmother
was an Ojibway Indian and my Dad being Metis. I know I have
aboriginal blood in me.
To the young girl, Melissa Labrador, I extend the apologies of
this House. Of course it is permissible for an aboriginal to bring an
eagle feather into this House. It was a mistake. It will not happen
again.
8947
8947
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I must say it is not easy to take aim at the government in
this situation. In fact, they pulled a fast one on me.
Nevertheless, I will have to attack the Minister of Finance again
today. Three weeks ago, the Minister of Finance made a budget
speech in which his estimate of a $19 billion deficit seemed rather
high, considering the real figures he had at the time, figures which
we now have and which will probably put the deficit at around $10
or $12 million at the most. In fact, he was quite content to give us a
forecast that was twice as high, a forecast that was off by 40 or50 per cent.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In the private sector, and
we often refer to the private sector, what would they do with an
accountant who, three weeks before the end of the financial year,
was out 50 per cent in his forecast? He would be fired. I want to ask
the Prime Minister what he intends to do with his Minister of
Finance who is incapable of forecasting a deficit more or less
accurately?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before going any further, I may say that when
shareholders have their meeting and the board announces a bigger
profit than had been expected, generally the board is given a bonus.
(1420)
We hope and in fact we believe, since we are ahead of the game
with our forecast, that voters will give us a bonus.
Since this is the hon. member's last chance to ask me questions
as Leader of the Opposition, I would like to take this opportunity to
express our thanks. His departure will be no great loss for us but it
will be a great loss for his party. Not for us. Because, although he
can be aggressive, I must say I never felt I was being attacked
personally. We can disagree on ideas, but he is not one to make
personal attacks.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We are almost neighbours,
because when he goes home, he takes the road to La Tuque via
Shawinigan.
I think he will be missed by his party and by the House as Leader
of the Opposition. Fortunately, we stand to gain. I want to thank
him for the work he has done and I wish him the best of luck.
Now he can come back again with a supplementary, and I can
repeat that we are very proud of doing better than we expected, and
I will certainly not scold the Minister of Finance for this.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister was always as friendly as he is
today, question period would not be the same. Too bad this does not
happen more often.
There is something dangerous in what the Prime Minister said,
but seriously, I would like to get back to the substance of the
question. The Minister of Finance made a mistake in his forecast,
in other words, badly misinterpreted the indicators available to him
at the Department of Finance, and the fact that the actual figures
are far better, is of course wonderful, and of course everybody is
pleased, but we must be careful. This same inability to interpret
data could have produced the opposite result, unless the Minister of
Finance knew what he was talking about and did so on purpose.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Please be patient
with me, Mr. Speaker, this is my last question. Please bear with me.
Is this not a government strategy to put artificial pressure on
provincial governments which were forced to go along with more
than $4 billion in cutbacks over the past two years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the excellent results we now see followed decisions that
were made very early on when we formed the government.
At the time we did not know exactly what the outcome would be
so we developed a plan. The plan is working better than we
thought, and everyone should be very pleased about this.
We should also consider the fact that when we formed the
government, the Minister of Finance and I realized that the
previous government's budget forecasts were always more
optimistic by as much as 8, 9, 10 or 11 billion dollars than was
actually the case.
The Minister of Finance decided to be more rigorous and is to be
commended on the results we obtained. And the provinces,Mr. Leader of the Opposition, are much better off, because they pay
far less interest on servicing their provincial debt thanks to this
government's good management.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am convinced that the Minister of Finance had these
figures when he drafted his latest budget. What bothers us on this
side of the House is the minister's interpretation of those figures.
Since the Prime Minister today refers to good management that
has helped free up billions of dollars, is he not a little embarrassed
when he sees the unemployed workers in the maritimes and Quebec
who protested vehemently against the cuts in unemployment
insurance? Does he not think it is somewhat immoral that a
8948
government that collects $12 billion more than expected cut about
$1 billion annually in benefits for the unemployed, the poorest in
our society? Is that not immoral?
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, as the Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well,
when we made structural changes in programs like the employment
insurance program, the main objective was not to reduce the deficit
but to provide some impetus for job creation. The changes were
necessary to update these programs.
Second, I will give you an example of what the Prime Minister
just said. The previous government forecast a deficit of $32 billion
for 1993, and when we came to power, we found it was $42 billion.
As for the $6 billion change last month, changes are always made
at the end of the financial year. We have worked very hard to
rebuild the government's credibility and that is why we did this.
Something else now. In his first question to the Prime Minister,
the Leader of the Opposition hinted to the Prime Minister that he
should give me a raise, and if he wants to make a habit of this, I
wish he would stay.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, he certainly does not deserve a bonus for coming up with
$12 billion extra on the backs of the unemployed and the least
fortunate members of our society. The unemployed are not getting
any bonuses.
Let us talk about Canadian solidarity and equity, because that
seems to be the new slogan of the Liberal propaganda machine on
the eve of the election campaign, a slogan paid for with taxpayers'
money and appearing in ads in several dailies this morning.
This is what my question to the Prime Minister is about. Is the
Prime Minister going to put his own propaganda slogan ``Canadian
solidarity and equity'' into practice by handing over the $2 billion
he owes the Quebec government for harmonizing the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
the one hand, as the member is well aware, when I set the forecasts
for this year, there were three months to go, the last quarter. At that
time, I said that this year's budget would not exceed $19 billion.
There is a possibility that it will be less than $19 billion, as I
pointed out. Where does the figure of $12 billion come from? I do
not know. I think it was plucked out of thin air.
As far as Quebec's claim is concerned, the member knows very
well that Quebec has not lost any money. Under the formula,
provinces that lost more than 5 per cent of their revenues were
entitled to compensation. Quebec did not lose more than 5 per cent.
Quebec is in exactly the same position as Ontario, British
Columbia and Alberta.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, our forecasts are based on figures from his own
department, nowhere else. It is disgusting to hide the true size of
the deficit in order to conceal one's failure to do anything about
unemployment and the rise in poverty. That is the plain truth of it.
As for the GST, the Minister of Finance is the only one giving
out this version. The reaction throughout Canada, and from the
Premier of British Columbia in particular, whom I quote, is that:
``The federal government must treat all provinces equally. If it
compensates three Atlantic provinces, it must also compensate
Quebec''.
The Minister of Finance is in an apparently indefensible political
position. What is he waiting for to admit his error and pay Quebec
$2 billion so as to compensate it fairly and equitably as it is
requesting?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a little trouble understanding how the member can tell me I
am hiding figures, when he says his own figures come from my
department.
That having been said, I do not know where he has come up with
the amount of $12 billion. He may have done some calculations,
but unfortunately, as with other calculations, they were erroneous.
When we look at how Confederation is functioning, when we
look, for example, at technological partnership, Quebec has
received over 60 to 70 percent of the spinoffs to date. Quebec is
now receiving 31 per cent of transfer payments, with only 24 per
cent of the population, so we can see that Quebec is certainly
receiving its fair share, if not more. It would be very detrimental to
Quebec if the member were to continue in this vein. It is very clear
that Quebec has made money by harmonizing, while the other
provinces have lost more than 5 per cent.
* * *
(1430)
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last month while the government was trotting out its
budget, 38,000 full time jobs disappeared, 44,000 women lost
either part time or full time employment, and our young people
were dropping out of the workforce at a record not seen since the
1960s.
The so-called federal jobs strategy is an unmitigated disaster
with 1.5 million people unemployed, 2 to 3 million underem-
8949
ployed, 800,000 people working at two jobs to make ends meet,
and 1 out of 4 workers afraid of losing their jobs.
Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit that the federal
jobs strategy has been a disaster and start taking a new tack based
on tax relief?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have had occasions to talk a lot about the economic
policies of the government. We have been accused by the Bloc
Quebecois of being too successful in our fight against the deficit.
As a result of our policies, a situation has been created where at
this moment we have the lowest interest rates in 35 years in
Canada.
Anyone who reads the newspaper will realize that sales of
durable goods are increasing very fast and housing sales are
improving very fast. It is moving so fast that, I read in the Toronto
Star yesterday, some people in Toronto are selling their homes for
more money than the asking price.
This is a sign that the market is developing and the policy of low
interest reduction of deficit is the best way to create jobs. This is
why we have managed over the last three and a half years to create
more jobs than Italy, Germany, France and Great Britain together.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Prime Minister lists off the jobs that have been
created in Canada by the private sector, he only tells half the story.
He never tells about the jobs that have been killed by high
government taxes.
The government has never said how many jobs it has killed
through the $2 billion increase in GST. How many jobs have been
killed by the $15 billion increase in personal income taxes? How
many jobs will be killed by the $10 billion increase in payroll taxes
proposed by the government?
The 1.5 million unemployed Canadians would like to hear the
other side of the story. If the Prime Minister wants to tell the whole
story, will he tell the House how many jobs have been killed in
Canada by his high tax policies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have not increased any taxes since we formed the
government. However, because growth has come back into the
economy we have received more revenue.
It is very fascinating that the leader of the third party does not
distinguish between tax levels and revenues. If we gained more
revenue it is because people are working more. There is more
economic activity which is bringing in revenues to the government.
This is why the deficit is lower than predicted.
This is also why short term interest rates in Canada are 2.5 per
cent below short term interest rates in the United States. This is
why interest rates in Canada have dropped by more 4 per cent in the
last two years.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I lay before the House two irrefutable facts. First, the
Liberal government is taxing Canadians more heavily than any
federal government in history.
Second, we have the worst string of unemployment numbers
since the depression, 77 consecutive months with the
unemployment rate over 9 per cent.
(1435 )
There is a connection between these two facts. We are
demanding, in the name of 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, that
the government acknowledges the connection.
Will the Prime Minister finally acknowledge that taxes, taxes,
taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, the leader of the Reform Party ought to know that when the
Prime Minister refers to job creation he is referring to net job
creation. Those are additional jobs in the economy.
Second, we should also be very clear that the debate is not over
whether there should be tax cuts. The debate is what kind of tax
cuts should we bring in. In the last budget we brought in over a
three-year period more than $2 billion in tax cuts for the physically
disabled, students and low income Canadians.
If we want to understand the kind of tax cuts the Reform Party is
talking about, under its program a single parent earning $30,000
with two children will get a tax cut of $175. Under the same
program a one-earner couple earning $250,000 with two children
will get a tax cut of $6,700.
This is not about giving Canadians a tax cut. It is about
rewarding Reform's rich friends.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, motorcycle gangs are running rampant in Quebec. We all
know that our society is based on democratic values set out in the
provincial and federal charters of rights, but these charters were not
created to protect the likes of the Rock Machine and the Hell's
Angels.
Can the Prime Minister make a personal commitment, on behalf
of his government, to table a bill in this House as soon as possible,
that will ban the Rock Machine and the Hell's Angels in Canada, as
acknowledged groups of criminals and law-breakers?
8950
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone knows that the administration of justice within
a province falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial
government. I would like to tell the hon. member that the Quebec
Minister of Public Security, Robert Perrault, has said that a bill
such as the hon. member is calling for is not a magical solution.
In November 1995, former Quebec Minister of Public Security
Serge Ménard made the following comment: ``I remain convinced
that what we lack to fight organized crime is not legislation but
sustained law enforcement, and we have just taken a giant step in
that direction''. On September 26, the same minister said the
following: ``Quebec police authorities have all the means available
to them to control the explosion of violence between rival
motorcycle gangs. They do not need an anti-gang law to do so''.
When the Quebec police authorities say they have all the
legislation they need, and when this is something that falls under
their jurisdiction, it surprises me that the person who may be leader
of the Bloc Quebecois next week is already starting to meddle in
provincial affairs, whereas I respect the autonomy of Minister
Perreault and his predecessor, Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I imagine the Prime Minister is aware that the Criminal
Code is a federal matter. I would imagine that, after 33 years, he
must at least know that. I imagine he does. And I did not make any
reference to an anti-gang law.
The Prime Minister tells us that the police forces have
everything they need when, in fact, those who have everything they
need to sit back and laugh in our faces are groups such as the Rock
Machine and the Hell's Angels.
(1440)
I again ask the Prime Minister: Because the Criminal Code is
under federal jurisdiction, is he going to use the notwithstanding
clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to outlaw the Rock
Machine and the Hell's Angels? The choice is clear. Is the Prime
Minister going to protect the public, or the Rock Machine and
Hell's Angels?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my response to the hon. member is that I myself have
been Minister of Justice, and I am very proud to have been the one
responsible for giving all Canadians a charter of rights and
freedoms.
I take great pride in saying that, before making any changes to
the Criminal Code, any good federal minister of justice consults
and listens to those with the responsibility, such as the provincial
attorneys-general and ministers responsible for police forces.
Even though the Quebec authorities are saying that they do not
need an anti-gang law to deal with the problem, that what is
required is proper co-ordination between the various levels of
government, the various jurisdictions, the would-be leader of the
Bloc Quebecois is now asking me, a respecter of the Constitution,
to become a big bad centralizer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, taxes,
taxes, taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs, but the government has ignored the
blindingly obvious and forever has trotted out all kinds of job
creation schemes like the infrastructure program, job training
programs, money for its wealthy friends at Bombardier, and none
of it has worked. We have had 77 months in a row of
unemployment at a rate of over 9 per cent, the worst job creation
record since the Great Depression.
When is the millionaire finance minister going to get it through
his head that taxes-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask my hon. colleague to please put his
question. A couple of adjectives might be left out, but I leave that
to him.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, when is the finance minister going to
get it through his head that taxes are the number one killer of jobs,
and that by refusing to lower taxes he is personally responsible for
allowing one and a half million men and women to remain
unemployed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have now been in this House for a little over three years. We
have heard Reform members stand up time and time again talking
about the problems of the day.
After the first budget we said that we would have a balanced
approach, that we would cut spending and deal with jobs. The
Reform Party said do not deal with jobs, cut the deficit further. In
the second and third budgets we said exactly the same thing.
What we have is a picture of the Reform Party swallowing itself
whole. Reformers stand up and try to defend health care after
attacking health care for three years. They stand up and attack the
government's economic policy when they said they did not care
about jobs.
The hon. member has a chance in his preamble. His leader said
in Penticton that jobs were not a priority for the Reform Party. He
said that if he brought in his program there would be fewer jobs
today than there were three years ago. Does he deny it? Will he
stand up in the House and deny what his leader said in Penticton? If
8951
he is not prepared to say that his leader said that, then he should sit
down and let the country get on with the job.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
completely false and the finance minister knows it. The Reform
Party is the only party that has offered a real alternative to the
government's failed job creation policies in this country. Only the
finance minister would call 1.5 million people unemployed a
balanced approach to job creation. It is absolutely ridiculous.
(1445)
This week in the Senate committee studying the BST the
minister confessed that lower taxes would create jobs in Atlantic
Canada. By extension, obviously if we had lower taxes across the
country we would have lower unemployment across the country.
Why then is the finance minister continuously trotting out
rinky-dink programs like his infrastructure programs and his
recycled training programs when he admits that lower taxes are the
best way to create jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
rinky-dink, rinky-dink, the infrastructure program, tell that to
every mayor and municipality in this country.
Let us keep going. Rinky-dink, the R and D program for every
university and every teaching hospital. Tell that to the teaching
hospitals. Tell it to the universities.
Rinky-dink, helping students go back to school, helping workers
return to the job market. That is rinky-dink. I will tell you,Mr. Speaker, that is value and we will put our values against
Reform values any time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
On Monday, in response to a question on the adjustments the
minister had to make just two months after his bill's
implementation, he said, and I quote: ``Where unemployment is at
10 per cent, there is less likelihood of finding work that would give
people longer weeks. The aim of our system is precisely to
encourage people to accept as much work as possible''.
If that was really the minister's objective, how can he justify the
fact that the regions where unemployment is above 10 per cent for
unemployment insurance purposes, like the Montérégie and Hull,
and those that will exceed this figure are not included in the
adjustments? How does he explain that?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, we were
committed to monitoring the transition of employment insurance
very closely, and that is what we did.
The adjustments we made in the second month after its
implementation were made precisely because we are an attentive
government and do our work carefully.
We wanted to cover the 29 regions with unemployment above10 per cent, because we felt the problem was greater there, as work
is harder to find. So, where unemployment is at 10 per cent, we will
have two solutions. One will enable workers to combine weeks or
ignore weeks so that, at the end of 18 months, we can compare one
system with another or evaluate the fact that we did not touch the
system. We will be able to compare three elements.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should understand that, from the time the provisions were
on the table, we and others said that people would be discouraged
from working, because they are penalized for working short weeks.
(1450)
Will the minister acknowledge that these so called responsive
measures were designed not to solve the real problem with his bill,
but to calm the rumbling in the maritimes in an election period?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we must avoid the pitfall of
political cynicism. From the moment we fix a problem, what we
should do in the weeks and months that follow, what it is our duty
to do, is continue to listen to the people of Canada, to the Atlantic
provinces and to Quebec, which asked us to resolve this problem.
We will do so with the sense of responsibility we want to
demonstrate to Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
August 18, 1997 Clifford Olson will have his day in court courtesy
of the Liberal governments of the past and present.
Exactly what does the Prime Minister have to say to the
survivors of the heinous crimes that Olson has committed?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we empathize deeply with the concerns of the families of the
victims of Olson. We feel very badly that they are in this situation
which, in my view, was created largely by the Reform Party which
has been playing into Olson's hands and feeding his sick desire for
publicity.
8952
Reform Party members should excuse themselves and apologize
to the families of the victims and to Canadians generally for
helping Olson play out his sick fantasies.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
hog manure. It is this government with its legislation that has given
Clifford Olson a platform, this government. That is not the only
thing it has given Clifford Olson. He has an electronic typewriter, a
colour TV, movie channels, subscriptions to pornographic
magazines, free long distance phone calls, access to fax machines,
all at taxpayer expense.
Why should Clifford Olson get all these perks when his victims
get nothing, not even an apology, from the Liberal government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the ouse of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I could characterize, with a great deal of accuracy, my hon. friend's
question by applying to it the same phrase which he used when he
got up to ask his supplementary question. Only somebody whose
mind works in a very strange way would think that a person like
Clifford Olson was living in some kind of luxury.
I again say it is time the Reform Party apologized to the families
of Olson's victims and to Canadians generally for helping Olson
live out and pursue his sick fantasies. Why don't you get up and
apologize? It is about time.
The Speaker: I remind colleagues to address your remarks to
the Chair.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am going to speak to you.
Last December 11, the Canadian heritage committee reached an
agreement to protect copyrights. The Liberal members proposed
amendments demanded by the Bloc Quebecois to seal off the
gaping holes in copyright protection that were left in the original
version of the legislation. Some people at Industry Canada,
however, got all upset about the modifications, despite the fact that
they were justified.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. With the
government's tabled amendments concerning copyright just hours
old, can the minister assure artists that she has managed to
convince her colleague at Industry Canada that their rights are
more important than the egos of Industry Canada employees, and
that they will be protected?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon.
colleague that the Minister of Industry and myself, who were
jointly responsible for introducing the bill in question,
unanimously agree on the value of copyright, which is why they
will be included in the bill.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the minister to confirm that 75 per cent of plays are
unpublished and therefore unavailable in book stores. Does the
minister not find it indecent to deprive authors of their rights on the
pretext that their works are not available in book stores, when50 per cent of them barely earn $7,500 a year?
(1455)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the
interventions of creators who appeared before the committee-I
think there were some 90 briefs-and the people across Canada, we
tabled amendments this afternoon that will continue to respect
copyright provisions as examined by the committee.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of
State for Training and Youth. In January 1996 Human Resources
Development Canada signed three national framework agreements
with aboriginal groups from across the country on the delivery of
human resources programs and services provided by and for
aboriginal people.
Can the secretary of state give the House an update on the further
actions taken by this government to give First Nations people and
the Inuit the tools to develop employment programs that meet their
needs?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a follow-up to the signing of the
national framework agreements with the Inuit, Metis and the First
Nations, out of a possible 41 regional bilateral agreements to date,
we have signed 29. Tomorrow we will be signing three more with
three Inuit groups, the Baffin Inuit Association, the Kivalliq Inuit
Association and the Kitikmeot Inuit Association.
It goes a long way in showing the sensitivity we have toward
empowering aboriginal people. I think that bothers the Reform
Party but that is all right, we will continue on with our good work.
8953
Next year we will have expanded. When we sign all these
agreements it will be a total of $200 million. I know that all
members in the House will congratulate us on our good work.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in a split
decision today in the Federal Court of Appeal, Justices Linden and
Henry decided that the Canadian standard for the issuance of a
search of warrant was required to be satisfied before the justice
minister submitted the letter of request to the Swiss authorities to
search and seize Karlheinz Schrieber's bank documents and
records.
In laymen's terms, the Department of Justice was on a fishing
expedition without a legal base to do so. This has resulted in an
expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayer money defending
unjustified actions.
Is the Prime Minister going to waste more taxpayer dollars to
appeal this case to the Supreme Court in an attempt to carry on the
pretence that he and his government have a legal leg to stand on?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I just heard of this judgment. I think that one would want to have it
carefully reviewed by the law officers of the crown. The principles
involved in my view are rather important and one should not reject
categorically the possibility that this case should be appealed to the
Supreme Court of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
In December 1995, the Canadian government unilaterally
eliminated customs duties on car parts manufactured outside the
country, but assembled here. The companies that benefitted from
this measure would now like the Liberal government to eliminate
customs duties on finished vehicles.
Given that Canada has a substantial automobile industry
employing over 500,000 people and generating billions of dollars
in the economies of Quebec and Canada, will the minister commit
today to not reduce or eliminate customs duties on imported
vehicles?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will respond for the three of us. The matter is under consideration.
We will make an announcement as soon as we are ready.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the public
conflict of interest code states that friends of public office holders
should receive no preferential treatment in relation to any official
matter.
(1500)
Joe Thornley is the chair of the Liberal Agency of Canada
overseeing millions of dollars in contributions, making him one of
the highest ranking Liberals in the country. He is also a friend of
the heritage minister and was a senior member of her 1990 Liberal
leadership bid. Only when the minister assumed her post as
heritage minister did Thornley begin to receive heritage contracts.
Does the minister expect Canadians to believe he got no
preferential treatment from her in her department?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member does not
believe the statement I made in the House yesterday then I would
like to quote a statement made about the contracts: ``They were let
in a proper manner''.
That statement was made by the member for Kootenay East on
March 11, 1997 outside the Chamber.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the department of heritage is apparently preparing to
spend a lot of money to give the Parks Canada mascot a new image.
At the same time people who work at the national parks and our
historic sites are losing their jobs.
Could the minister justify the spending on this image makeover
when the quality of service at our parks and national historic sites is
deteriorating?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member is drawing
his question from the article I read in the paper, it spoke about a
beaver upgrade that was to modernize the symbol of the beaver.
It cost about $30,000 over a period of about two and a half years.
It predated my arrival in the department, but I can say that if the
department is looking for a symbol Canadians will recognize from
coast to coast to coast, without having to pay a penny, we have that
symbol. That symbol is right over there. It is called the Canadian
flag.
8954
8954
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of
Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to third reading of Bill
C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the
Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to
allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and
disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
Some hon. members: It is a disgrace.
* * *
(1505)
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 seven
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of grave
injustice that occurred yesterday in the public gallery of this place.
As you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, a young Micmac woman,
Melissa Labrador, who was visiting us as a participant in the Forum
for Young Canadians, was refused entry to the public gallery while
carrying a sacred eagle feather.
Traditionally an eagle feather represents courage, strength,
wisdom, vision, and is sacred. It is the closest connection to the
Creator. The presentation of an eagle feather is the highest honour a
person can receive. The eagle flies highest and sees the farthest.
This morning I had the opportunity to offer my personal regret to
Melissa Labrador for this unfortunate moment. However the hurt
goes deeper. Melissa has asked for a public apology from the
government and I am prepared today, on behalf of the government,
to extend an apology to all aboriginal people.
I am pleased that you, as Speaker of the House, as keeper of the
conscience of the House, are ensuring that no such incident every
occurs again in this place.
The Speaker: On a statement by ministers, if representatives of
the two official parties wish to make a statement they have the
same amount of time as the minister.
I put a question to the member for Lethbridge. Are you rising on
the statement by this minister?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: And, you will respond for the Reform Party.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Reform Party of Canada I would certainly like to support the
action you have taken as Speaker of this assembly and the Minister
for Aboriginal Affairs for the recognition and the apology extended
to the young lady who was deterred from coming into our gallery.
We certainly want to support that apology and recognize that quick
action was taken.
It is very difficult for the security people under the variety of
circumstances they face when different people come to the House
of Commons.
I recall a somewhat similar situation in the Alberta legislature. A
security person was asked to take very aggressive action and to be
careful that no one arrived in the galleries who may do something
that could harm someone sitting on the floor of the legislature.
In this case it was the House of Commons. I hope consideration
will be given to the actions of the security person as well. I am sure
the person applied the law as he thought fit at the moment. Maybe a
misjudgement was made. We have rectified that at this time, but
some concern should also be expressed from the House to the
security personnel that have done an exceptional job under many
circumstances for us as members of Parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Bloc Quebecois, I join with the Minister of Indian and Northern
Affairs in recognizing that the government must extend an apology
for the incident that occurred yesterday.
The Bloc Quebecois and the people of Quebec have always had
great respect for aboriginal people, as demonstrated time and time
again in our long-standing relations with these people. We regret
such an incident occurred. That is why, today, we want to make it
clear that the respect the people of Quebec have for aboriginal
people is always there.
8955
We feel that the apologies made today by the Minister were
justified and in order, and we support his action.
(1510)
[English]
The Speaker: When we have statements by ministers, the rules
of the House set out that a member from the official opposition and
a member from the Reform Party can intervene if they so desire.
However we have another rule that states whenever the House
altogether wants to give unanimous consent to anything it can do
so.
The hon. member for Churchill has approached the Chair and has
asked me if he could intervene. If the House agrees I will give the
floor to the member for Churchill.
Is there agreement for the hon. member for Churchill to address
the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was going
to rise on a point of order and ask for your guidance on this matter.
It is indeed an honour to rise.
I would like to acknowledge, if it is appropriate, your quick
decision on this matter as Speaker of the highest authority in the
land. As we know, the Creator honours this place.
I would like to present you or arm you with an eagle feather so
you can have it with you in this Chamber at all times.
The Speaker: I would consider it a great honour and I will
accept it.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the hon. member for Churchill
presented the Speaker with an eagle's feather.]
The Speaker: Let it be understood that I accept this in the name
of the Parliament of Canada and in the name of all of my
colleagues.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the third report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
entitled ``Think Rural'', a study of rural economic development in
Canada.
The committee heard evidence from a wide range of witnesses
from across Canada and reports its recommendations calling on the
government, the private sector and all Canadians to recognize the
uniqueness of rural Canada, its separate economic base, its special
challenges and its longstanding traditions, and to apply policies in
a manner that addresses these differences and provides rural
Canadians with access to all the country has to offer.
* * *
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-383, an act to provide for the settlement of labour
disputes affecting west coast ports by final offer arbitration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the timing of the bill is quite relevant since
we were talking about the labour code yesterday. The amendments
that we as a party put forward to the labour code would have
adopted final offer selection arbitration as a tool to be used in west
coast work stoppages. It is ultimately important that we discuss the
bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.) moved for leave to table
Bill C-384, an act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table an act respecting
the membership of the CRTC.
[English]
It is quite clear to me that the timing of the bill could not be any
better given the decision today by the CRTC to go after consumers
as it relates to various rates.
I am presenting a bill that will amend the Canadian
Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Act to
provide for representation of Canadian consumers on the executive
board of the commission, to require reports of commission
decisions to detail the way each commission member voted in
respect to those decisions, and to ensure that the commission
generally has regard to the cost effectiveness and the rights of
Canada consumers, particularly as they relate to the cable
production fund and the cable revolt of two years ago.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
8956
(1515 )
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions. The first contains approximately 325
signatures.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to enact Bill
C-205, introduced by myself, at the earliest opportunity, to provide
in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime
by telling the story of their crime.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition has approximately 75 signatures from the
Mississauga area primarily.
It calls on Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a
provision which is similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code to
prevent a father or mother without legal cause to place obstacles
between a child and its grandparents. It asks for greater
accountability and rights for grandparents to allow access to their
grandchildren.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table a petition circulated by Albert Vachon, of Garthby,
asking for the abolition of the Upper House, that is to say the
Senate.
This would represent yearly savings of $60 million, or $5
million per month, for the federal government. Needless to say, the
member for Frontenac supports this petition.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
table today a second petition like the one I tabled a few weeks ago
on behalf of residents of my riding who are asking Parliament to
pass legislation to set a ceiling on interest rates charged on credit
cards issued to consumers by banks and major retailers, based on
the Bank of Canada rate.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to table on behalf of my constituents a petition which
asks that the Government of Canada co-operate with the provinces
to make our highway systems better.
The operative clause reads: Therefore your petitioners call upon
Parliament to urge the federal government to join with the
provincial governments to make the national highway system
upgrading possible beginning in 1997.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing order 36, it is my pleasure to present two petitions. The
first petition has about 250 names.
The petitioners believe there are profound inadequacies in the
sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of impaired
driving charges. They request that Parliament proceed immediately
with amendments to the Criminal Code that will ensure the
sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or of
causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the severity of
the crime and zero tolerance toward this crime.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition has 550 signatures and is from people not only in
my constituency but is from a broader base.
The petitioners believe the current justice system continues to be
lenient on criminals, allowing them to re-enter society without
receiving sufficient punishment and without facing proper
responsibility and accountability for their actions. The current
methods of punishment are not acting as proper deterrents and are
not producing the desired effects of lower crime rates and safer
communities.
Therefore, they call on Parliament to amend the appropriate laws
to include corporal punishment as an alternate method of
punishment for those adults who are repeat offenders and who
choose not to be governed by more conventional methods.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
present a petition signed by 54 of my constituents, which I endorse.
The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with the provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions. The first calls on Parliament to not increase the
federal excise tax on gasoline.
(1520 )
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, asks that the equal pay for work of equal
value legislation take effect immediately and that workers be
reimbursed at the rate recommended.
8957
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by constituents of
Lambton-Middlesex pursuant to Standing Order 36, and duly
certified by the clerk of petitions.
The petitioners request that Parliament amend section 7 of
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize the
fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from
undue interference by the state, recognize the fundamental right
and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their
children, and urge the legislative assembly of the province to do
likewise.
[Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver-Est, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by over 100
residents of the greater Vancouver.
[English]
The petitioners ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and
newspapers under the GST because education and literacy are
critical to the development of our country.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of my constituents to table some
petitions. The first petition calls on the government to lower the tax
on gasoline, another calls on the government to eliminate the tax on
reading materials.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition from my constituents calling on
the government to join with the provinces to work on establishing a
national highways policy.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to follow the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. We are
doing a very good job of getting some air time today.
The petition deals with the subject of impaired driving. The
petitioners from the Durham region call on the government to
ensure that future penalties reflect the severity of the crime of
impaired driving.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to ask the House for its unanimous consent to withdraw my private
member's bill, Bill C-301, entitled an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act.
In view of the passing by the government of Bill C-63 which
improves the mechanisms for the administration of elections and to
the extent that Bill C-63 encompasses many of my suggestions,
such as the establishment of a permanent voter's list, and the fact
that it has taken over a year to draw my bill, I ask that you,Mr. Speaker, support my request.
May I please have the consent of the House to withdraw my Bill
C-301.
The Deputy Speaker: Does our hon. colleague have the
unanimous consent of the House to withdraw his bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Bill withdrawn.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers also be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that, because
of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended
by 5 minutes today.
[English]
Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ended
March 26, 1997, the House will go through the usual procedures to
consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practices,
do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
8958
8958
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1525)
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That this House condemn the federal government which, because of its policies, is
in large measure responsible for increasing poverty in the regions of Quebec,
especially the loss of 10,000 jobs at Canada Post; the offloading of regional airports
and ports without adequate financial compensation; the tightening of employment
insurance eligibility criteria that has adversely affected seasonal workers, among
others; the setting of fees for coast guard services; the significant reductions in
fishing quotas in Quebec; the refusal to extend the framework agreement on regional
economic development with the Quebec government; and, finally, increasing
unilateral intervention in regional development matters without consideration of
Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to inform you that I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Laurentides, who is the
seconder of the motion.
With your permission, I will also read this opposition motion, for
which we deserve to be congratulated. It is time that we, on this
side of the House, take stock and condemn the government which is
blissfully moving toward an election, as if things were going well,
when in fact Quebec and Canada are in a deep slump.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House condemn the federal government which, because of its policies, is
in large measure responsible for increasing poverty in the regions of Quebec,
especially the loss of 10,000 jobs at Canada Post; the offloading of regional airports
and ports without adequate financial compensation; the tightening of employment
insurance eligibility criteria that has adversely affected seasonal workers, among
others; the setting of fees for coast guard services; the significant reductions in
fishing quotas in Quebec; the refusal to extend the framework agreement on regional
economic development with the Quebec government; and, finally, increasing
unilateral intervention in regional development matters without consideration of
Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
I will deal with certain issues mentioned in the motion, and leave
it to my colleagues to discuss other ones. I should point out from
the outset that, as regards regional development, a frame of
reference called the Economic and Regional Development
Agreement, the ERDA, has been in place since 1974, between the
Quebec and federal governments, as the secretary of state probably
knows.
The Liberal government opposite is increasingly circumventing
this agreement, which has been in existence for over 20 years and
which led to the harmonization of relations between the two levels
of government with respect to regional development, which is
recognized as a primarily provincial, Quebec in this case, area of
jurisdiction.
One needs to know that, in 1993, when the members across the
way came to power, 62 per cent of funding for regional
development came by way of the ERDA, while today, in 1996, we
are receiving only 33 per cent in this manner. In other words, two
thirds of these public funds are being used as the federal
government sees fit, sometimes arbitrarily, supposedly in an
attempt to promote regional development.
Why? So that the federal government can be more visible, score
political points. So that the Secretary of State for the Federal Office
of Regional Development for Quebec can visit the 53 CFDCs and
score political points on behalf of his government, cut ribbons,
smile nicely, hold press conferences and pretend that there is
harmony between the Government of Quebec and the federal
government and that there is a genuine intervention and consensus
strategy, when in fact there is not.
What there really is, in the case of CFDCs, is competition with
regional economic development corporations, which have been
there for a long time and which were created by the Government of
Quebec and come under its jurisdiction, coming under the
department of industry and commerce for example.
In addition to this hit and miss approach, there is also the fact
that it is being done through the federal office of regional
development. They do this by circumventing and duplicating what
is being done or what was already being done in Quebec. Recently
they changed the mandate of FORD-Q. It was supposed to analyze
submissions from small businesses seeking grants, and evaluate
their projects. Funding was cut, so the mandate was changed.
Instead of getting rid of this agency, they changed its mandate and
turned its employees into advisers to small business, a role that was
already being played by the Department of Industry and Trade.
(1530)
They set up the Idée-PME program which is directly targeted to
small businesses in Quebec and is in a way competing, at
taxpayers' expense, with other public sector resources for small
businesses, which tends to make the whole process of seeking
financial assistance from the government unnecessarily complex.
Things are also changing at the Federal Business Development
Bank. The name has been changed. It is now called, rather
pretentiously, in my opinion, the Business Development Bank of
Canada. The legislation authorizes the federal government to
approach local and regional stakeholders under the jurisdiction of
the Government of Quebec. Arbitrarily, without prior consultation,
the government decides to intervene in a jurisdiction that belongs
to the Government of Quebec.
We can hardly call this co-operation. We can hardly call this
strategy. Certainly not when we are talking about the so-called
8959
co-operation between the Government of Quebec and the
Government of Canada, with taxpayers' money, not hand-outs as
the Secretary of State for Regional Development sometimes seems
to imply, as though it was federal money, not money paid by
Quebecers through their taxes. We should not forget this.
On a macro-economic level, I think we should compare
FORD-Q with its Canadian equivalents. There are two. In Eastern
Canada we have ACOA, for the development of the maritime
provinces and in Western Canada, the Western Economic
Diversification Agency.
Suppose we stick to ACOA. Compared with what Quebec
receives through FORD-Q, if we consider the number of
unemployed workers concerned in Quebec and compare this with
the number of unemployed workers in the maritimes, the latter
receive four times as much for an equivalent number of
unemployed, if we look at it on that basis. If we look at it on a per
capita basis, it is five times as much. So this is the profitable
federalism the secretary of state was talking about last week when I
asked him a question about regional development.
Remember also that not only do the maritimes receive far more
proportionally, but altogether, in terms of regional development,
the maritimes receive five times as much money from Ottawa as
Quebec does.
Furthermore, we have this very controversial decision, and
Quebecers are becoming increasingly upset about this, the decision
by the Government of Canada to give the maritimes $1 billion in
compensation for harmonizing the GST. Of this $1 billion, part of
which goes to New Brunswick, $250 million comes from Quebec,
and part of that will go to New Brunswick. Thanks to this money,
the engaging Premier of New Brunswick will be able to use
Quebec's tax money to recruit Quebec industrialists and bring them
to New Brunswick, thus competing with the Government of
Quebec and the Quebec economy. This is appalling. In fact, there is
evidence that this was going on during the recent trip to China by
Team Canada.
It also needs to be known that, where the GST is concerned, not
only did the maritimes get $1 billion but, as was pointed out during
question period, using a cooked-up formula the Minister of Finance
finds ever so pleasing, the Government of Canada is refusing to
provide Quebec with the same amount, proportionally, which
would be in the order of $2 billion, compared to their $1 billion.
This offers a clear illustration of the cost-effective federalism the
Secretary of State referred to last week.
(1535)
Where a number of activities are concerned, the concept of
regional development can be broad and vague on occasion. One of
those activities is the coast guard, which was also referred to in the
motion. The coast guard was inherited by Fisheries and Oceans
from Transport Canada, with a mandate to manage the ports of
Canada, including those along the St. Lawrence, and it was decided
to charge users of the St. Lawrence.
This three-tier fee system involves charges for navigational aids,
that is buoys, lighthouses and so forth, as well as charges for
dredging the river and the waterways leading to the St. Lawrence
ports and for icebreaking. The latter is the most significant, and
would be the most painful, if ever the federal government sticks
with its decision to set fees which would net the federal
government $160 million over the next three years leading up to
the year 2000. All of this totally ignores any possible impact
studies available. The actions taken in this area were the product of
an amateurish approach by those concerned only about the costs of
the coast guard, apparently without any concern for the major
negative impacts that might result if this new fee scale is
implemented as the government plans.
Seventy-five per cent of the witnesses, who knew what they were
talking about, who knew how to do a case-by-case impact study,
begged the federal government to reconsider, because of the threat
this represented to the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence ports
compared to their competitors on the U.S. east coast, the Canadian
east coast, and even the Mississippi.
Since you are indicating to me that my time is up, I will conclude
by saying that the way the federal government is going about this
illustrates the ever more pressing necessity for Quebec to attain
sovereignty so it can finally be in charge, and for the federal
government to stop being involved, not in regional development,
but in regional anti-development.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will have
the opportunity in a while to talk at length on the Canadian
government's intervention strategy with respect to regional
development and specifically in the Province of Quebec, my area
of responsibility.
I would like to say right off that the government's strategy
applies to the country as a whole and is aimed at bringing the
government and the people closer together to enable the
government to be sensitive to the needs of the people and to give
the public the full benefit of its services.
I listened to the previous speaker, my colleague from
Trois-Rivières, talking about the rural development agreement. In
the light of what he was saying, I have a hard time understanding
the fact that my colleague does not seem to realize that the regional
development agreement has expired. My colleague seems not to
understand either that the renewal of the regional development
agreement was in doubt and that discussions were held between the
Province of Quebec and the Government of Canada.
8960
I would ask him if he is aware of these discussions.
In closing, my colleague said that I spent my time giving press
conferences and cutting ribbons. I have the impression that the
ribbons I cut must be 24 carat gold because the official opposition
is focusing on them on a day set aside for regional development.
However, I can understand that it might hurt them too, because our
government is particularly effective in the area of regional
development.
(1540)
In my colleague's riding of Trois-Rivières, for example, we have
invested over $7 million since 1993. If he asks the people there if
they think we should leave, he will see what they have to say.
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, with respect to these agreements, I
will answer that we know, and the secretary of state is well aware,
that this kind of agreement has been around since 1974. We are also
very well aware that the last one was not renewed.
We know that it was not renewed because the federal
government wants to have an increasingly large say in the
management of these agreements. It wants to put pressure on the
Government of Quebec, which is a constitutionally legitimate
body, to call the shots on regional development. Either the federal
government wants to circumvent the Government of Quebec, or it
wants to get along with it. Increasing power is needed if regional
development is to be carried out on the pan- Canadian scale he
mentioned.
We, however, claim that we have our own way of doing things.
In this regard, it would perhaps be a good opportunity for the
secretary of state to give some meaning to the empty notions of
distinct society the Prime Minister is so proud of saying he
introduced, or tried to introduce, into the Constitution, when we
know it is an empty shell. Perhaps the member for Outremont could
make an effort to recognize that the people to which he belongs
have a different way of doing things, instead of trying to get us to
swallow a Canadian vision and logic, which is causing Quebec to
lose out on regional development.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments
of the minister, and particularly of the member for Trois-Rivières.
Given that Quebec is receiving $11 billion more than it
contributes to the Canadian federation, given the importance of the
role of governments in regional development, could the member
explain to us where SDI stands? Where does Innovatech stand?
Where do Quebec's provincial organizations stand in relation to
regional development?
The federal government is investing, but a number of regional
development projects are on hold because of the footdragging of
the opposition and especially of the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, this illustrates perfectly the
contempt these people have for the Government of Quebec and for
Quebecers.
When we talk about a surplus of $11 billion, it is because we are
pleased to be receiving unemployment insurance, we are pleased to
be poor. We are pleased to have no real economic development. We
are pleased to have no strategy. We are pleased to be poor.
This is a Quebecer telling us this. It is hard to believe. When we
talk about the SDI, the Caisse de dépôt, these are organizations
that, with the Quebec Department of Industry and Commerce, are
working daily to try to improve the situation as much as they can
within a constitutional context that gives the Government of
Quebec barely half the powers to try to organize its development
year in and year out.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great interest that I rise today to speak to the motion of my
colleague, the member for Trois-Rivières.
This motion condemns the federal government which, because
of its disastrous policies, is in large measure responsible for
increasing poverty in the regions of Quebec. My riding of
Laurentides covers a large part of the Laurentides region, which is
subdivided into the Hautes and the Basses-Laurentides. The
Basses-Laurentides, closer to the Montreal area, have more heavy
industry, while the Hautes-Laurentides further north, rely more on
small business and tourism in particular.
My riding, which begins in the St-Jérôme area and ends over 100
kilometres further north, therefore depends for its livelihood on
small business and tourism.
I will start off by looking at the tightening of employment
insurance eligibility criteria, which will have a major impact on my
riding, given the heavy reliance on tourism. Tourism is seasonal
and implies seasonal workers.
The new criteria will mean that fewer workers will receive
benefits and that the benefits for those who qualify will be reduced.
For a riding like mine, where the unemployment rate is already
higher than the average for Quebec, this means even less money for
workers, even more workers forced to go on welfare. This shortfall
in workers' income therefore means more poverty.
(1545)
In regional economies with high unemployment and poverty, UI
reform will make matters worse. The Liberal government is
certainly not going to help the regions survive and develop by
driving people into poverty. Let us not forget that the Liberals are
8961
drawing money directly out of the UI fund, which consists of
money paid by workers and by employers, over $5 billion this year,
in order to reduce its deficit. It is utterly shocking.
Another area that is of particular interest to regions in Quebec is
that of highway transport. Everyone knows that our highway
system in Quebec has deteriorated and is now in need of major
investments to keep it in good condition.
Let us look at what the federal government is spending in this
area, and what it has set aside for Quebec. Between 1952 and 1986,
although Quebecers were paying the same federal gasoline taxes as
other Canadians, Quebec received a measly 16.5 per cent of federal
spending on roads. Between 1986 and 1988, this fell to 13 per cent.
In 1991-92, Quebec received only 4.2 per cent of federal transfer
payments to the provinces to help build, repair and upgrade roads.
Yet federal fuel taxes in Quebec are close to $1 billion. In return,
the Quebec road system receives on average only $30 million
annually. Thirty million out of one billion: a windfall for the
federal government but grossly unfair to Quebec.
This shortfall in revenue has a serious impact on regional
development, since the highway system is an essential tool for
development. People from the Outaouais and Ontario who go
skiing at Mont-Tremblant in my riding know that the highway
system is not good if they take the road north at Montebello. But
they do not know that the federal government is not providing its
share of funding for Quebec's highway system.
Another issue that directly concerns the people of Laurentides,
one that has been in the headlines for several months, is Mirabel
airport, a perfect example of the inefficiency and devastating
impact of federal intervention in Quebec territory with respect to
air transportation.
In 1969, without any consultation, the federal government
unilaterally decided to proceed with the most extensive
expropriation exercise ever seen in this country, involving 80,000
acres of farm land, to be used to build Mirabel international airport.
Twenty-seven years later, we know that 5,000 acres would have
been ample for the airport's needs.
The federal government estimated that 30 million passengers
would be going through Mirabel by 1990. Today, Mirabel and
Dorval together get only 8.3 million passengers annually. When
Mirabel was under construction, the federal government said it
wanted to make greater Montreal the port of entry for air traffic in
eastern North America. A few years later, it awarded the seven
largest European carriers the right to land in Toronto. This federal
decision was to be the main reason why Montreal never became the
port of entry for European traffic in eastern North America.
Add to this the federal government's refusal to proceed with
phase II of the Mirabel master plan under which domestic traffic
would gradually be transferred from Dorval to Mirabel. We now
see the disastrous effects of having two airports side-by-side, with
all the communications problems that entails. Twenty years ago,
Montreal airport attracted almost as many passengers as Toronto,
but in 1995, Montreal dropped to third place, with 8.3 million
passengers annually, after Toronto with 20.9 million and
Vancouver with 11.1 million.
Out of 53 countries which had access rights to Montreal, only 17
exercised those rights.
Always without public consultation, Aéroports de Montréal,
ADM, created by the federal government to manage Mirabel and
Dorval, announced in February 1996 that international flights
would be transferred from Mirabel to Dorval. This decision is the
latest in a series of ill-conceived decisions and mistakes by the
federal government, as former Liberal minister André Ouellet was
to comment.
During this time, irreparable damage has been done to the
volume of air transportation in Montreal, hundreds of millions of
taxpayer money has been wasted and more than 10,000
expropriated landowners have suffered.
(1550)
The federal government's bungling, its lack of vision, and its
contradictory decisions in particular, will have accomplished
nothing more than to deprive Montreal of its role as air traffic hub,
in favour of Toronto.
Other subjects concern the people of the Laurentians, a matter
linked directly to the federal government: the federal wish to
introduce measures to register, and set fees for, sailboats, rowboats,
pedal boats, canoes, kayaks and so on. Ottawa would like to
register all pleasure boats, to make their owners purchase licences
which would cost from $5 to $35 yearly, to require minimum skill
and knowledge levels of all persons operating these boats, and to
set up a system of fines similar to those for motor vehicles. For the
Laurentians, with their numerous lakes, such a measure would be a
total catastrophe. This tax in disguise would be unacceptable, and
the proposed monitoring measures unenforceable.
An idea like the one proposed by the Liberals is quite simply
buffoonery. There are, I believe, more important things to be doing
than going around putting licence stickers on pedal boats and
making sure that those using them are pedalling forward,
backward, or whatever.
Another thing: the federal decision to require Canada Post to
withdraw from delivering ad mail, with the loss of 10,000 jobs.
That is surely the biggest single job loss in the country. The
government claims that the private sector can easily take over, but
that is far from reality for regions with low population density. The
costs of private distribution are far higher in these regions. Thus,
the federal government's decision means the virtual disappearance
of ad mail in many regions, and considerable job losses in those
same regions.
8962
Finally, for the farmers in my riding, the federal government
keep on cutting back the budgets and services affecting them. In
the latest budget, the federal government announced the total
elimination of dairy subsidies. This will translate into a $107
million loss for Quebec.
Since you are indicating that I have just one minute left, I will
move on to my conclusion immediately.
The various matters I have addressed demonstrate clearly that
the Liberals bear a large share of the responsibility for the
impoverishment of the various regions of Quebec. Their decisions
are unfair to Quebec, and they have the effect of pushing it even
closer to the edge. The coming election will show the Liberals what
their strategy to isolate and crush Quebec has really done.
Quebecers are not blind; they are capable of judging the actions of
the little guy from Shawinigan and his gang.
All of this shows Quebecers even more clearly that their future
path is the one that leads to sovereignty. Not even Chrétien, Martin,
Dion or Pettigrew can deter us from that path, which for us is a
natural and a rational one.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the
other side of this House, they are talking about the federal
government's bungling of regional development. I can tell you that,
if the federal government bungled regional development, we would
not be having an opposition day today. However, I will take the few
minutes I have to talk to some of the issues raised by my colleague.
First is the matter of unemployment insurance.
I was one of the Quebec spokespersons on this reform. I
believed, I believe and I will always believe in this reform. This
government had the backbone to carry out a reform that everyone
wanted, that was indicated by all of the international organizations,
starting with the OECD. The employment insurance reform will
make the system fairer, will make more seasonal workers eligible
for benefits, and will ensure greater stability of contributions.
We will recall that, in 1993, the Conservatives had predicted
higher contributions. With our reform, we not only lowered them,
but ensured their stability.
(1555)
In addition, the program now has active measures to enable
workers to be trained in order to quickly return to the labour
market. This is what we have done.
Inappropriate remarks are also being made about the
employment insurance surplus. Yes, there is a surplus at the
moment. However, people always neglect to mention that, during
the recession at the end of the 1980s and at the start of the 1990s,
the unemployment insurance-now the employment
insurance-fund was at least $5 billion in the hole.
Who looked after fixing the deficit? Who looked after paying the
interest? The Government of Canada, which guaranteed Canadians
continued benefits. That is what profitable Canadian federalism
with a vision of security is all about.
Finally, I find it a bit odd, and I want to link up with my
colleague for industry, that these people are becoming much more,
in fact, overly centralizing. Now they are asking the Government of
Canada to become involved in roads and highways, which are
under provincial jurisdiction.
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by replying to the hon.
member for Outremont.
The reason there is an opposition day on regional development is
because there is a lot of bungling that we wanted to draw attention
to.
When we speak about employment, or unemployment,
insurance, I do not know whether the minister is very aware, and
we see here the pressure brought to bear, the Minister of Human
Resources Development was already forced to make changes to his
bill because it does not work. Worse yet, with this bill, people are
going to pay premiums and never be able to draw benefits.
Seasonal workers in an area of my riding where up to 75 per cent
of workers are seasonal are going to pay premiums and never be
able to draw UI because it is based on the number of hours now and
because the system was not designed with them in mind. So he has
nothing to teach us, because we are the ones who see these people
in our riding offices and we are the ones who have to work with
them.
I would also like to remind the minister, who is responsible for
regional development, that it is very important that he pay more
attention to the Mirabel situation, that he speak to his colleague in
transport and bring pressure to bear to get things moving, so that
my region no longer has to pay the price because of an error made
by this government that he is perpetuating.
So make a decision and do something for the people of our areas
who have been suffering for years because of a decision made by
this government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that
you will find consent for the following order. I move:
That any recorded division requested with regard to private members' business
M-31 later this day, March 12, 1997, be deferred to the conclusion of Government
8963
Orders on April 7, 1997 and that any recorded division requested with regard to
business pursuant to Standing Order 78 on March 13, 1997 be deferred until the
conclusion of Government Orders on March 17, 1997.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to the motion
presented by the official opposition. This will give me a chance to
expand on the role played by the Canadian government in regional
development and also to set the record straight.
Before I start my speech, I would like to make the following
points.
(1600)
The Canadian government plays a fundamental role in regional
development, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada. And if
the official opposition wants to try and get the Canadian
government out of its regional development role, I simply want to
point out that as long as I have my current responsibilities, I will
ensure that the interests of all Quebecers are served-
Mr. Bellehumeur: We saw that with Bill C-71. We saw that with
the Montreal Grand Prix.
Mr. Cauchon: -and ensure that people wherever they happen
to be in the province of Quebec have access to the services of the
Canadian government.
Listen to them shouting. They are shouting because this goes
against their purely partisan dogma.
Mr. Speaker, let us consider the motion for a moment. It says:
That this House condemn federal government which, because of its policies, is in
large measure responsible for increasing poverty in the regions of Quebec-
I will not qualify the motion as far-fetched, because this would
be unparliamentary, but I certainly do not agree with it.
Let us recall the fundamental role played by this government
since 1993. We took over a government that was in trouble. The
Prime Minister asked for a number of reforms, which were judged
and considered major reforms. Today, these reforms have started to
bear fruit to the benefit of all Canadians, which means that in the
regions people are already enjoying the obvious benefits of these
reforms.
Consider for instance the issue of public finance. Thanks to the
work done by my colleague, the Minister of Finance and by all
Canadians-because everyone did his share so that we can all turn
the situation around-thanks to all this, today we have the lowest
interest rates we have had in 35 years.
Members opposite refuse to point out the positive effects, the
positive results that the government has achieved. Take for instance
a small business in one of the regions, which wants to borrow $1
million over ten years. The annual savings due to lower interest
rates amount to $33,400. That is tremendous.
And take a private citizen anywhere in Canada who wants to
borrow $15,000 to buy a car. In terms of the interest he would
otherwise have to pay he will save about $483 annually.
From the outset, the reform of our public finances has produced
incredible results for all Canadians, so that today we can look to the
future with optimism. And we also see the economy is picking up.
Another reform I would like to mention briefly is of course
program review, a fundamental reform that allows us to better
target our programs and rethink the way we do things. This reform
has also produced tremendous results for the regions.
As far as the Federal Office of Regional Development is
concerned, there used to be some 45 programs, but now there is just
the one, called IDEE-PME, a sensible and accessible program. This
program is based on the enhanced contribution potential of the
Canadian government. It is well focussed, essentially on small and
medium businesses in the regions, and thus impacts on the driving
force of economic development. It is a program with a number of
focal points: R & D innovation, market development, exports in
particular, all focussed on enhancement. This involves fostering
entrepreneurship. That, essentially, is the basis of the program
(1605)
The other side says that the Canadian government has no reason
to exist. Just look at the IDEE-PME program. Who can deny that
the Canadian government has competency, knowledge, expertise,
where international market development is concerned? What about
Team Canada and its success, what about the embassies and
consulates throughout the world?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Cauchon: Who can deny the competency, knowledge and
expertise of the Canadian government where research and
development are concerned? The more I have to say, the clearer
and more striking the truth becomes, and the more they
holler-which is perfectly normal.
Who can deny that the Canadian government knows what it is
doing when it speaks of the new economy? We are heading toward
8964
a knowledge-based economy. We have to create centres of
knowledge, something the Canadian government has had a hand in
for some years already. We have been able to create a network of
institutes or research centres in Quebec that are the envy of many in
other parts of the world. To mention but a few: the IRB or
biotechnology research institute, the INO or national optics
institute, the Institut national de recherche scientifique, the
National Research Council.
I imagine it does not suit my colleague to admit this, but in the
riding of Trois-Rivières there is an institute that owes its existence
to the Canadian government: the hydrogen research institute. This
is our vision within the context of the new economy: to work in
partnership to create tools that will enable all regions to structure
themselves and to develop economies which will enable them to be
competitive nationally and internationally.
In terms of innovation, not only are we undeniably competent,
but, in the last budget, we announced the creation of the Canadian
foundation for innovation with a budget of $850 million. This
foundation is based on a partnership. It could have a future budget
of $2 billion. This initial investment should be followed by
investments by the private sector or various interested provincial
governments. The foundation will enable us to intervene in areas
like health, the environment, the sciences and engineering.
The federal government aims to support the public through these
various development activities and ensure that we can act where we
really have the skills and the know-how.
We can talk now more specifically about our projects in the
Province of Quebec. Let us look at some examples. In terms of
market development, and the export market in particular, we have
set up with the Business Development Bank of Canada and the
Departments of Industry and Foreign Affairs a program called
NEXPRO designed to help new exporters. It is providing 1,000
future exporters with information now through the NEXPRO
program that will ensure they have the tools they need to penetrate
markets and face the competition when they reach the point where
they want to or are able to export.
We provided some 30 sessions in Quebec under this program and
invested over $3 million. In this area as well, we can talk of an
investment of $150,000 in Estrie international 2007, an export
commission, already producing interesting results for the region.
There is also Chaudière Appalaches, an international marketing
plan for the tourist industry. This project is supported by over 50
companies. I could also mention the $50 million in the last budget
allocated to the Business Development Bank of Canada to help out
companies in the tourist business.
(1610)
As for the other area of activity, namely innovation, research and
development, I could give you the example of the regions of Laval,
Laurentides and Lanaudière, where $300,000 was provided to the
Conseil des bio-industries du Québec. This goes to show that we
are focusing on biotechnology and providing assistance in that
area. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, we have helped the Société de
technologie de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue.
In fact, in every region of Quebec, the FORD has made
representations to five financial institutions to make nearly $150
million available to help businesses adapt to the new economy, all
that in Quebec alone. All this was done through the Federal Office
for Regional Development to make loans available, while letting
the banking industry develop a new culture, a new philosophy.
On entrepreneurship, we have focused on young people. We
have worked both together with my colleague, the Minister of
Human Resources Development, and through partnerships, helping
set up student clubs in colleges and universities and supporting
these young people so that they can develop the entrepreneurial
spirit and fibre we will need at the turn of the next century.
These investments, and I mentioned only a few, represent only a
small portion of what we are doing for the public in terms of
providing a simple yet remarkable structure for regional
development. There are 13 regional offices across Quebec, 55
CDICs and 8 CDECs on the island of Montreal. This is a very
simple and very flexible structure easy to understand for everyone.
We want to ensure that our services are readily available and that
we, the Government of Canada, can keep in touch with the people's
needs and reality. That is how we were able to act in the
Gaspé-Lower St. Lawrence-Magdalen Islands region with the
coastal Quebec program for the North Shore, a $13.5 million
program. That is how we were able to develop the Montreal
strategy and help the people in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
region.
In fact, apart from all this, there is our vision as well as our
ability and desire to act through various agencies, first the FORD-Q
but also the CDICs. In addition to all this, we also provide quality
service. We provide very competent advisers to the public. I have
worked with the federal office staff for over a year now, and I can
tell you these people are doing a remarkable job. They are
dedicated, they care about regional development, and they want
entrepreneurs to succeed in the regions. This is why the Canadian
government is proud to be involved and to work with people to
promote regional development.
Members opposite often complain about government
interference and unilateral action. However, the examples I just
mentioned
8965
are unequivocally based on a consultation of the communities
concerned, and on a partnership.
When the opposition claims that we go over the head of the
Quebec government to consult directly with the organizations and
the people who are familiar with regional development, it is not
insulting my government but, rather, Quebecers who are involved
in economic development.
It is like indirectly telling these people that they are not very
responsible and that they should be monitored by the Quebec
government. Let me tell you that the people with whom I work in
Quebec to promote economic development are very competent.
They have a vision and the federal government will continue to
work with them.
(1615)
The Canada-Quebec agreement was also mentioned. I find it
really extraordinary to hear the hon. member saying that we
refused to renew the agreement, that we do not want to proceed
with an agreement.
First of all, the agreement on regional economic development
with the Quebec government had expired. However, the population
of Quebec must know that my colleague, the finance minister, who
was my predecessor as minister responsible for the federal office,
did approach the Quebec government several times to renew the
expired agreement. Of course, they do not mention this, but people
should know about it.
In 1995, my colleague approached the Quebec government not
once, not twice, but four times. We have approached the Quebec
government four times to sign a harmonization agreement, first on
January 12, 1995, and then on April 5, July 5 and August 11, 1995.
Of course, Quebecers will have understood that that request from
the Canadian government was refused, even turned down, and they
will have understood why. A referendum was coming, and since
those people do not have the best interests of the population at heart
but only their political interests, there was no way they would help
show that federalism was working.
Therefore, as a responsible government wanting to provide good
services to the population, we went ahead and reshaped our
programs. Today, our programs are centred around elements based
on our services and skills. But I would add that I do think a
harmonization agreement is not really necessary, since we are
acting in partnership and this is under our own jurisdiction
according to the new programming.
However, a meeting was organized. Maybe my friends do not
know it yet because, in view of the motion, I am under the
impression that they do not know what is happening at their head
office, but a meeting was held on February 19, 1997, with the
representatives of the Federal Office of Regional Development,
and there are some discussions and exchanges concerning a
possible agreement. But it is much too soon to say what we think of
it, since we do not even know what the Quebec government wants.
When we do know what they want as a government, we will be
able to make a decision. Actually, we do not really know with
whom we should be dealing in that government. Should it beMr. Chevrette, Mrs. Harel or Mr. Trudel? Perhaps my colleague,
who is familiar with the workings of the head office, could try
knocking on their doors to find a solution or somebody we could
deal with.
This is essentially what directs our action, and I think it is
important that we as the Canadian government be dedicated to help
the regions. Our action is based on the effectiveness of our
services. It is also based on a deep respect for what the local
population wants and needs, and for what the situation is locally.
To conclude, I think we should first ask my colleague on the
other side to consult with the head office and ask it to clean up its
own act as far as regional development is concerned. In fact, a
white paper will be published soon.
What saddens me is this: what the Bloc Quebecois wants to do
today is not so much to criticize the Canadian government for its
regional development policies as to try to prevent it from taking
further action in this area, because what action it is taking is right
on target. The federal government's action does respond to the
population's expectations and does serve the population well. It
will stay the course.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find
it hard to listen to the Secretary of State talk about the involvement
of the Quebec government with such snobbishness.
You have to realize that the Government of Quebec has to deal
with the entire problem. It has to deal with the whole issue of
regional development. That is why there can be some tension and
adjustment problems between Minister Chevrette and Mrs. Harel.
(1620)
The government of Quebec is not just playing around with the
issue of regional development. It is not pretending to deal with it. It
does not interfere with the CFDC, the 55 CFDC. The main
objective of the federal government is to go strut its stuff in the
regions and get chummy with some of the local elite to get them on
side.
The Province of Quebec is concerned about economic
development, technological development and exports. It is the
Canadian government's responsibility to deal with foreign affairs.
Once we become sovereign, we too will be concerned about
international trade, just as the Government of Canada is today.
8966
Let us stop the cuts to transfer payments to the provinces, and
especially to the Province of Quebec. The Government of Quebec
has some good technological development programs, which it will
be able to improve.
I have a simple question for the Secretary of State. Where does
the anti-sponsorship policy of the Minister of Health fit into the
regional development strategy? There is some concern about that,
as we saw in the media. Where was the Secretary of State when we
addressed the sponsorship issue that affects every region in
Quebec, as well as the Montreal Grand Prix, the Trois-Rivières
Grand Prix and the Jazz Festival? We know he was not comfortable
with this issue, just like the President of the Treasury Board and
even the Prime Minister and the two hot shots from the Montreal
area. Where does this fit in with their willingness to really-
The Speaker: Before turning the floor over to the hon. member,
I would ask my colleagues to address their remarks to the Speaker.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, you see the approach they are taking
with the people of Quebec. When Quebecers do business with the
Canadian government, suddenly they are no longer Quebecers, they
are now local elites because they are doing business with the
Canadian government. Let me tell you that what you are calling a
local elite is far-
The Deputy Chairman: Please address the Speaker.
Mr. Cauchon: I would be pleased to do so. When they speak of
these local elites, allow me to tell you that these people they are
busy looking down on today are trying to serve the public well.
They have established a partnership with the Canadian government
because we have set up programs that meet their expectations, their
interests, and their needs and that allow them to structure their
region's economic development in terms of the realities of the 21st
century.
As far as the tobacco bill is concerned-
Mr. Bellehumeur: We would like to hear you.
Mr. Cauchon: I would not call my colleague's remarks
irresponsible, for that would be unparliamentary. The health
minister's bill was what the public wanted and called for. It was a
bill that people wanted. It is a question of public health. My
colleague managed to strike a balance between going ahead with
the bill and the various interests in the Montreal region-
Mr. Bellehumeur: Why did you disappear, Martin?
Mr. Cauchon: -by extending the deadline until 1998. Sponsors
realize they now have two summers to make the adjustment. I must
also point out that this bill does not ban sponsorships; it regulates
them. Obviously, the opposition has been going around saying all
kinds of things.
Mr. Godin: Tell the truth.
Mr. Cauchon: Strictly speaking, it will have no impact on
economic development. When we talk about the economic
development of Montreal, the one government that has been
present, that had a vision, was the Canadian government.
The Deputy Chairman: I split question period between the
parties. I did not see the other colleague. The hon. member for
Prince George-Peace River.
(1625)
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the junior minister
responsible for regional development in Quebec, FORD-Q, a
contradiction that appears to be in the funding for regional
development.
In the 1995 budget speech, to great fanfare, the finance minister
announced a refocusing of regional development programs and
agencies in Canada. He bragged about how streamlining would
save taxpayers millions of dollars. The 1995 budget estimated the
expenditures would be cut by about half over a period of time and
would save taxpayers over $500 million.
In the 1997 budget we noticed that regional development was
conspicuously absent from the budget speech.
I wonder if the hon. junior minister would explain the
contradiction. It now appears that the funds being spent on regional
development, including FORD-Q, will actually increase.
The latest numbers that we were able to discern is that
FORD-Q's budget is going to increase by about 11 per cent to over
$400 million in fiscal year 1997-98. How can that contradiction
exist with the cuts that were announced in the 1995 budget?
I know he is going to try to say it is because of the extension of
the infrastructure program. However, clearly the 1995 budget was
supposed to allocate funds for the extension of the infrastructure
program. It was supposed to be factored in.
I wonder if the junior minister could explain how the taxpayers
are supposed to be experiencing cuts and savings in dollars being
expended on regional development, not only in Quebec but across
Canada, when now we are seeing an actual increase in funding? I
wonder if he could tell us what the actual numbers are that the
government intends to spend over the next fiscal year on regional
development.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting. Through that
question we can see the philosophy of Reformers. They talk on that
side of the House about spending. They see regional development
as an expenditure. On the government side we see regional
development as an investment. It is a very important investment.
8967
The Reform Party would like to see a free market without any
government intervention. Reformers would like us to be in a
society where there are only rich people. But it appears that in
our society there are some regions which have to be helped out
by the Canadian government.
A major role is played by regional agencies across Canada. We
are playing a major role not only with the offices of FORD-Q but
with Industry Canada and the community futures program.
When they talk about the contradiction in the budget, it appears
they may be quite weak on the other side of the House. It seems that
the budget has been affected a bit because we will manage, as we
have in the past, the infrastructure program. It was included in this
year's budget and last year's budget. If they need any further
details they can go to public accounts and they will see that the
budget is a public matter.
(1630 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on the Bloc motion.
While I agree with the opening of the motion, I cannot agree
with much else. Unfortunately I cannot support the motion. The
motion states:
That this House condemn the federal government which, because of its policies, is
in large measure responsible for increasing poverty in the regions-
The motion goes on to talk about Quebec. As a matter of fact the
motion mentions Quebec four times. As the Bloc is the official
opposition I would have hoped, as all Canadians would hope, that
its members would have taken a Canada-wide view of the
government's incompetence and what it has done to address
poverty in the country.
Before I get into my remarks I have to make reference to the
secretary of state's reference to low interest rates. I have heard
more about low interest rates in the House as if they are the answer
to job creation and to our future. Low interest rates cut two ways.
Not everybody benefits. There are retired Canadians who count on
decent interest rates. To say that low interest rates are the solution
to Canada's problems is not true. It is certainly not going to get the
economy moving or create the jobs I keep hearing about from the
other side.
A survey was done by the Chamber of Commerce in my
community on what the federal government needs to do to
encourage, expand and create jobs. Ten items are listed in the
survey: the elimination of the deficit; elimination of the debt;
reducing business regulatory burden; making tax levels
competitive; fixing workmen's compensation; fixing labour
relations; reforming education; abolishing interprovincial trade
barriers; improving the infrastructure program, and promotion of
environmental sustainability.
Of the 10 items listed I do not see any mention of lower interest
rates. Lower interest rates appeal to those who know about
borrowing. We should not be encouraging borrowing, we should be
encouraging businesses and, indeed Canadians, to pay their way.
The cart is before the horse. Businesses are not looking to borrow
more so they can put off their bankruptcy. To suggest that lower
interest rates is the answer in a period of record bankruptcies is not
going to work. Members can continue to talk about low interest
rates but the unemployment figures continue to show that low
interest rates are not creating employment.
The Bloc member for Laurentides talked about the mess the
Liberal government has made of Mirabel. It brought to mind the
mess the Liberal government has made of Pearson airport. Mixing
Liberals and aviation is like mixing alcohol and gasoline, it is a bad
combination for the taxpayers of Canada. Mirabel has cost
Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and Pearson
airport will cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of
dollars.
When the government talks about regional development, how
concerned it is and how important it is, just think about Pearson
airport. That airport means jobs and regional development all
across Canada and the government decided to cancel it on the basis
of a quickie 30 day report. Pearson airport continues to deteriorate,
costing jobs not just in rebuilding that airport but in development
all across Canada.
The motion before us is a little like a garage sale. Everything is
in there except the kitchen sink. I am not too sure, it might be in
there too, and of course it would be sink from Quebec.
The problem is that all of Canada is hurting. It is not just poverty
in Quebec. Poverty certainly is there, unemployment is there but it
applies from coast to coast. It is the result of the failed policies and
the lack of vision of this Liberal government.
(1635)
Speaking about vision, I saw in the media last week the Prime
Minister has now realized that vision is important. He was talking
about the fact that going from day to day or week to week is not the
answer, that governments have to have a vision for the future. It is
encouraging to hear after three and a half years that the government
has discovered the need to have a vision, to have a plan that is
longer than two years if the country is to be successful.
The Liberal government's failure to address the most serious
problem of the country is the reason for such high levels of
unemployment, the reason for the poverty, the reason for the
crushing tax burden that we are all under and the reason for the
deteriorating social programs. The government has failed to deal
with the deficit and the debt. It has failed to deal with it quickly and
decisively.
8968
The government has the deficit turned around and it is coming
down, but it is coming down far too slowly. It is not fast enough
to stimulate the economy and it is slow enough that it is increasing
the debt and the payments that are made on that debt.
The government has been in power for three and half years and
the unemployment numbers are almost the same today as they were
when it was elected. There are 1.4 million Canadians unemployed,
two million to three million Canadians under employed and one in
four Canadians worried about their jobs. They have no confidence.
The debt is $600 billion, or will be shortly, and $50 billion in
interest payments on that debt. One-third of every tax dollar goes to
pay the interest costs on that debt. It does not create one job. It does
not do anything for poverty. It does not do anything for our social
programs but it certainly is the reason our taxes are so high.
The answer to the motion that the Bloc has put forward today is
to reduce the size of government and be able to offer tax relief, put
more dollars in the hands of consumers and get off the backs and
out of the pockets of industries, the entrepreneurs who really create
the jobs.
Unfortunately the Bloc motion suggests that more government
spending is the answer. Reformers disagree with that. You cannot
buy your way to prosperity. That just cannot be done. It cannot be
done in our home, it cannot be done in business.
Reformers are saying we have to reduce and rescue. We have to
reduce spending and rescue those programs, rescue our social
programs, rescue the initiative and the drive that our entrepreneurs
have. Or we have to pare and preserve: cut back so that we can save
those jobs and save our social programs, versus what we have been
doing for the last 25 years which is tax and terminate. We have
been going down that same road now for 25 to 30 years, ever
increasing taxes, never doing anything about unemployment and
the threatened social programs.
It never ceases to amaze me that someone does not stop and say:
``What we have been doing is not working. There has to be a better
way. We have got to look at an alternative''. Even Mr. Bouchard,
now that he is the leader in Quebec, realizes the importance of
tackling the deficit. He wants to get the finances of Quebec in order
because he knows that is important to the economic strength and
job creation in the province of Quebec.
Look at what two cost cutting premiers have done. I am thinking
of Premiers Klein and Harris. Premier Klein has eliminated the
deficit and is creating jobs. He has just been rewarded for the job he
has done with a resounding endorsement by the people of the
province of Alberta. He has been true to his word. He has
eliminated the deficit and Alberta is creating jobs. The debate that
they are going to have in Alberta now is about what to do about the
surplus. Should they be spending it on social programs, health and
education. What a pleasant debate that would be to have.
Premier Harris is doing the same thing in the province of
Ontario. He is doing what he said he would do and he is going to
create jobs. He is going to get the economy moving again. The best
social program people can have is a job.
(1640 )
I will quickly review the Bloc motion which includes Canada
Post, regional ports and airports, the coast guard, fishing quotas
and the EI changes. I will comment first on the 10,000 jobs lost at
Canada Post. It was part time employees whose jobs were lost
because of the elimination of unaddressed ad mail being delivered
by Canada Post. The private sector will probably pick up those
jobs. A lot of people objected to the fact that Canada Post delivered
some of that unaddressed ad mail, to which some of them took
exception.
The federal government had to do something about ports and
airports because they were not viable. They have been losing
money for years and have only been able to carry on because of
huge subsidies from the federal government. The federal
government cannot continue that. The reality is if they cannot be
profitable then they should not be subsidized and supported by the
taxpayer.
Coast guard fees are now set for each region. There are different
costs in different parts of the country so the government has taken
the position that those costs should be reflected. Where there is
ice-breaking in one port but not in another, the fees should reflect
that additional cost. One region should not be supporting another.
Concerning the fishing quotas, fish are like tax dollars. There is
not an unlimited supply. Former governments overspent which has
put us into the problem we are in today with the $600 billion debt.
Fishermen were doing the same thing. They were overfishing with
the belief that there was no bottom, that they could keep doing it.
Unfortunately the reality is that there was a bottom, they could not
continue to fish.
Reformers believe politics should be removed from the
determination of quotas, that quotas must be established if this
valuable resource is to be rebuilt. The government should remove
the politics from the setting of quotas and hopefully that will see
the fishing industry survive and grow again.
As a party we have always been very clear on what to do with
employment insurance. We would like to see it returned to what it
was originally intended to be, an insurance program to help those
who through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed. It
8969
should be a temporary bridge until people are able to find work
again.
We do not believe that regional eligibility is the way to go. We
believe that eligibility should be determined on a national basis
rather than on a regional basis in order to be fair to all Canadians.
I have touched briefly on some of the things that are mentioned
in the motion. We agree with the Bloc that the government is the
problem but we disagree with the Bloc on the solution to the
problem. We can fix the problem.
I would like to look at the record of the government that has put
us in the position we are in today. It is a record that has
disappointed all Canadians, particularly the 1.4 million who are
currently unemployed.
We have had 77 months of unemployment at a rate above the9 per cent level. This is on the record of the government and former
governments. Two to three million Canadians are underemployed
and one in four Canadians are worried about holding their jobs. The
federal debt is increasing to over $600 billion with interest
payments approaching $50 billion which is more than is spent on
old age security or the seniors' benefit, employment insurance and
health care combined.
Because of the government's go slow approach to reducing the
deficit, which should have been addressed far more quickly, it has
added to the debt and it has added about $10 billion to the servicing
the cost of the debt.
(1645)
In Quebec and right across Canada the income of the average
Canadian family has been reduced by some $3,000. There is less
income because of fixed wages over those years. At the same time
the government has brought in some 36 indirect tax increases.
Therefore Canadians have seen their disposable income eliminated.
The last tax increase will be the increase in CPP premiums which
will represent about a $10 billion tax grab.
That is a killer of jobs. Earlier the finance minister
acknowledged that payroll taxes were a killer of jobs. At a time
when we need jobs the government introduces a plan that will hurt
job creation.
The finance minister said the CPP premium increase was not a
payroll tax, that it was an investment. I would like him to convince
hard working Canadians who are deeper in debt than they have ever
been and are having difficult times making ends meet that this is an
investment. Canadians are not looking for investments. They are
looking for tax relief so they can start meeting the bills that come
due weekly.
We have record debt and record bankruptcies, and the Liberals
are talking about lower interest rates. The savings of Canadians
have been diminished. A report from an economist stated that the
real problem in Canada today, aside from the fact that 1.5 million
Canadians are unemployed, is that 13 million Canadians have lost
their purchasing power. They have no ability to buy and get our
internal economy moving. They are struggling under a tax load.
They are not looking for investment. They are looking for tax
relief, which is the answer to job creation.
The Prime Minister said he would run in the upcoming election
on his job creation performance. We as a party look forward to that
because in the 3.5 years he has been in power those jobs have not
been created. The reliance on low interest rates will not create the
jobs Canadians are looking for.
The latest numbers on unemployment are still 9.6 per cent and
9.7 per cent. The finance minister admitted his frustration but he
certainly did not think there was any real problem. He continues to
hope that somewhere down the road it will turn around.
He did not blame business, but the problem is that the finance
minister and the government are not listening to business. This is
not the route businesses have been asking the government to take.
The Chamber of Commerce and the CFIB have been saying that the
best thing the government could do to create jobs is to reduce the
deficit and get the books in balance as quickly as possible. The
business community is saying that is the way to create jobs in
Canada. A letter from the president of the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce said very clearly that eliminating the deficit quickly
was critical to job creation.
Unbelievably in the budget the government talked about another
infrastructure program. The government's $6 billion infrastructure
program created about 10,000 jobs. That is a pretty expensive job
creation program. It was one that was criticized by the auditor
general. If that $6 billion had been given to Canadians in the form
of tax cuts, by the year 2000 it would have resulted in the creation
of the 162,000 jobs. The auditor general indicated that many
infrastructure programs would have gone ahead without that $6
billion of borrowed money. It was not money the government had.
Unbelievably the Liberals have another infrastructure program,
although they are being a little cautious this time. I do not think
they are talking about canoe museums, boccie courts or hockey
arenas. This time they will stick to what they said in the red book
about sewers and roads, which can really be described as
infrastructure.
(1650 )
The finance minister spoke about how great the infrastructure
program was and how it was supported. The infrastructure program
is a shell game. It is a two for one deal with our own dollars. There
8970
is one taxpayer in the country and that infrastructure program was
buying their votes with their own tax dollars. The answer is to pay
our way, not to go deeper and deeper into debt.
I talked about Pearson airport because it was mentioned by the
Bloc member for Laurentides. What greater piece of infrastructure
did we have in Canada than Pearson airport, and it continues to
decline.
The government has failed to deal with interprovincial trade
barriers which affect jobs across Canada. Those barriers are costing
hundreds of thousands of job. The Canadian Manufacturers
Association said they were costing Canadian taxpayers $6 billion.
Yet government members travel all around the world talking about
exports but not doing anything about enhancing trade in Canada,
which would do something about creating jobs in Canada.
I appreciate the opportuntiy to speak to the motion today. I
suggest to members of the Bloc who introduced the motion that the
best thing they could do for poverty and job creation in Canada is to
get off their separatist agenda and go after the government to do
something about its out of control spending.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first, I would like to make a few comments to my colleague from
the Reform Party on the general plan he outlined earlier. I would
tend to agree with the Liberal Party on this. We are still talking
about federalism.
And speaking of federalism, I have to make a few comments to
the member across the way, the member for Outremont, who spoke
earlier. He said: ``We contributed; we did this, and we did that''. I
would like to remind my colleague across the way that when he
talks about this money, we pay for that, it is our money. So, when
Quebec becomes sovereign, we will have the same power to do
these things, except that we will be far more competent.
Mr. Gagnon: With less money.
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, the member
across the way is saying that we will have less money. I regret, but
we pay our taxes and we will be able to do directly what we want
with that money.
I find always it fascinating to see that federalists want to hang on
to their jurisdiction. When I hear them say that they have the
expertise, I wonder what kind of expertise they are talking about.
This reminds me a national conference that was held last fall and at
which young people and older people came from all over Canada to
talk about problems facing young people. Whether it is about
young people or something else, we are always told, to my
astonishment, that Quebec is always asking for something. Let me
remind you that Quebec is not the only province demanding some
kind of decentralization. Everybody wants it.
We were told from coast to coast that the problems are at the
regional level, and problems vary from region to region. Why,
then, should we keep a whole bunch of public servants in Ottawa to
develop programs to solve regional problems, when those
problems are so utterly different.
What I am saying, really, is that regions are in a much better
position to come up with programs that will solve regional
problems. That is the real answer. When Quebec is sovereign, we
will know our problems better, and federalism will not stand in our
way.
I have to admit I am discouraged, but I will roll up my sleeves.
My region of the Saguenay and Lac Saint-Jean has a very high
unemployment rate. Now that I am a member of Parliament, I
might be tempted to expect something from the federal system. I
have given up on federalism, and that is why I will roll up my
sleeves.
(1655)
In the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, people are starting to
undertake regional initiatives. Mention has been made of the
networking operation under way in the Lac-Saint-Jean region, and
when I say networking, I am referring to a regional initiative that
meets a regional need.
I think the Bloc Quebecois agrees that most jobs being created
today are certainly not being created by the federal government but
by small businesses. We know that to start up a small business
often takes people who have business sense, a bright idea, a person
with the entrepreneurial potential to develop that idea and in fact
there are not many people in the community who have that
potential. Of course it also takes money.
Often people are looking for partners to start a business, and that
is what led me to set up the networking operation in my riding,
which serves to seek out people with different skills that might be
combined for the purpose of setting up the joint project.
Let me explain. If a person has an idea but not necessarily the
entrepreneurial potential to put it into practice, there might be
someone else who feels like starting a project but does not really
have either an idea or the money. If money is the problem, then we
look for someone else who has money.
This local initiative has yet to produce results, but it is well on its
way, I can assure you. Local initiatives like these will help us deal
with employment problems. This example is one of many.
Canadian federalism is certainly not the answer to our problems.
When I hear my Reform Party colleague or the hon. member
opposite say that federalism is there to save us and create jobs, I am
very sceptical indeed.
8971
[English]
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I feel I was left out
of that exchange but I am pleased to have an opportunity to
respond.
The member touched on the plight of young people when we talk
about the unemployed. The rate for young people is much higher
than the 9.7 per cent. It is probably closer to 15 per cent and 16 per
cent. Unfortunately in times like these employers will sometimes
go for experience rather than enthusiasm, and young people are
hurting.
The member also alluded to the fact that small businesses are
creating jobs. He is absolutely right, but we need to help those
small businesses create the jobs.
When I spoke earlier I referred to the results of a survey of small
business in my riding. The member might be interested in doing a
survey of the small businesses in his riding. The results showed
that businesses were looking for tax relief. They are looking for the
government to act in a fiscally responsible way. They are looking
for the government to get its books in balance. They are looking for
the government to get out of their pockets and off their backs and
then they will create jobs.
Nowhere in my survey were they talking about low interest rates
being the answer to job creation, which is what the government
keeps talking about. The government is not listening to business. It
is not listening to the real creators of jobs in Quebec, Ontario or
right across Canada.
The government has to put the fiscal house in order, get the
books in balance and then offer tax relief. That will create the jobs
Canadians are looking for and will certainly go a long way to
saving the social programs the people of Quebec are as concerned
about as all other Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, we have been following this debate with
great interest and I can see that the Reform Party is almost as much
in the dark as the Bloc Quebecois is about what regional economic
development is all about.
It is even surprising to hear them say that and dare put federalism
on trial. I listened to the hon. member for
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean denigrate the benefits of federalism,
when we know that the federal government has spent $800 million
to help his own region get back on its feet.
(1700)
I remember that, last summer, when even members of the
opposition, people from the West were welcomed with open arms
by the people in Lac-Saint-Jean; when families from other
provinces sent food to the people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean,
when the Canadian government sent its experts, the Canadian
Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard, the people in that
region could not thank me enough.
We can easily see that the 80 per cent paid by the federal
government, by all Canadians, is a source of embarrassment for the
opposition because this is a benefit of federalism. In a way, this is
the true spirit of federalism, because we are well aware that we can
count on all Canadians to invest in the regions, not when times are
easy, but especially when times are tough.
We could also put the Bloc on trial, because the members of the
Bloc Quebecois do nothing in the area of regional economic
development.
Have the Bloc members ever come up with an economic
development program for Quebec's regions? Never. I had to come
up with an additional $5 million to help out the Gaspé fishers. I had
to act on behalf of those who are not properly represented.
The next campaign will not be on a motion by the Bloc, it will be
the trial of the Bloc. We will explain to Quebecers that federalism
works for Quebecers, particularly those in the regions.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for Simcoe Centre has 20 seconds.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Madam Speaker, in 20 seconds I
just want to say that the government is on trial and its day is
coming. It is just weeks away. I look forward to the trial and I look
forward to the government's standing up and defending its record
on jobs, jobs, jobs, the elimination of the GST, the crushing taxes
that we are under and deteriorating social programs.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, in Quebec, there is an expression which goes something
like this: Since we are in a mess anyway, why not go all the way.
This is unbelievable.
During the debate on the issue before us today, I heard the
member for Outremont sing the praises of regional development as
if there had been no regional development until he came along. I
would like to remind him of three very important facts.
First, the Quebec government has been concerned with regional
development for more than 30 years. The Quebec government has
long demanded of the Government of Canada that it be the only one
involved in its own regional development.
Let us not forget that when we came here in 1993, the Office of
Federal Economic Development and the Business Development
Bank of Canada already existed in Quebec and the economic
development agreements had already been in existence for two
decades.
8972
The Office of Federal Economic Development was merely a
division of the Department of Industry. There was no parent
legislation governing it, as is the case for western economic
diversification and ACOA in the maritimes, or even for FedNor
in northern Ontario.
What did we do when we got here? In 1993, we immediately
tried to determine who was responsible for regional development.
It was a certain minister of Finance. In this House, even if we asked
the government about its regional development activities, there
was absolutely no decision making, no dialogue with Quebec and
no answers to Quebec's very simple requests concerning regional
development.
Quebec has always said to the federal government: ``Just transfer
the money and tax points, because regional development is our
concern''.
(1705)
Having been asked for a while, but to no avail, who was
responsible for regional development, the federal government was
suddenly inspired and decided to change the focus of the industry
legislation. I remember. It was Bill C-46.
This change of focus also changed all of FORD's objectives,
which became directly related to the Department of Industry. For
the first time, we had a real minister in charge of development.
Who was it? None other than the Minister of Industry, who comes
from Ontario. This confirmed that Ontario had been made
responsible for regional development in Quebec.
We were slightly embarrassed by that situation naturally, so at
the next cabinet shuffle, our colleague, the member for Outremont,
was called upon to help the Liberals save face. Our colleague from
Outremont could be seen in the windows of the 13 regional
development offices, handing out Canadian flags along with the
cheques attesting to the federal government's involvement in
regional development. But all this was very much out of line with
Quebec's traditional demands.
On this point, I would like to bring back to your attention one
provision of Bill C-46. When the Department of Industry was
restructured, they said it would have the authority to design,
recommend, co-ordinate, manage, promote and implement
programs and activities associated with regional economic
development in Quebec. The Ontario minister was given the power
to interfere directly in Quebec's regional development. Not only
could he do so directly, but bills like those concerning the
Department of Industry, the Federal Office of Regional
Development and the Federal Bank contained provisions giving
him the right to bypass Quebec and deal directly with stakeholders,
even at the level of school boards and municipalities.
I would like to know where our colleague, the member for
Bonaventure-îles-de-la-Madeleine, was when Quebec underwent
a major decentralization as the result of a political choice. Let me
remind him of the extensive consultations undertaken so that all the
regions could participate in the development of strategic plans. In
Quebec, each region has prepared strategic plans for its regional
development, that way we can be certain that all regions actually do
develop.
Why? Because traditionally the regional development coming
from Ottawa had a tendency to be focused on the central regions. In
the last decade of the ERDA, over 40 per cent of the money was
invested in the Montreal and Quebec City areas, that is to say in the
central regions, the reasoning being that if these regions developed,
the others would benefit also. But the reverse happened.
Development left the regions for the central areas.
It was always that way, because in the minds of regional
development officials in Ottawa, a province is a region, it is as
simple as that. In Quebec, however, we know full well, in the area
of regional development, that we have five administrative regions
and 95 regional county municipalities working together to channel
development according to social, economic and cultural priorities.
This government has always refused to acknowledge the expertise
that Quebec acquired in the area of regional development.
(1710)
How can the government say it has a regional development
strategy when it refuses to even consider the strategies developed
by the various regions of Quebec in their strategic plans.
It is not we who pushed the idea all the way to the regional
secretariat, it was Minister Picotte himself, then in the Liberal
Bourassa government, who said: ``The regional partnership
structure will extend to strategic plans, to ensure that all
government departments that inject money into the regions do so in
accordance with regional development plans''. That is what
development partnership is all about, but the federal government
refused to listen.
As evidence of this, I just want to point out something, because I
heard my colleague from Outremont, who deals with regional
development, say that Quebec refused to sign some agreements.
Speaking of agreements, I would like to remind him-I just want to
relate this little anecdote because it is priceless-that we signed a
regional development agreement in the summer of 1994, but that
the federal government refused to sign it, using the political
context as an excuse and arguing that it had just signed during that
same week an agreement in another area of jurisdiction. It said that
two agreements were too much.
When my colleague from Outremont says that Quebec did not
want to sign, it did so according to some very clear directions. I
recall very clearly that Minister Chevrette, who was responsible for
regional development, and his colleague, Louise Beaudoin, of
Intergovernmental Affairs, had told the government that they
wanted to sign the agreement providing its implementation were
8973
deferred by one year. They wanted all regional development
policies in this agreement to fit in with regional development,
regional secretariats and regional development agreements.
At that time, the finance minister and his officials rejected the
agreement. If it is not signed today, it is simply because the federal
government does not want to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction and
continues to clearly demonstrate its determination to centralize and
to subject Quebec's regional development to national standards as
part of a national blueprint that does not take into account Quebec's
strategic plans and the prime objectives of regional development.
That is what this government is doing in terms of regional
development. All federal legislation uses this wording that gives
the minister the right to bypass the regions and the Quebec
government and deal directly with stakeholders.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is: the hon.
member for Frontenac-food inspection.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
a comment and then I will ask a question of the hon. Bloc member
with respect to the motion before us today as presented by the Bloc.
I take exception to the first sentence which condemns the federal
government because of its reprehensible policies which in large
measure are responsible for increasing poverty in the province of
Quebec. What increases poverty in any province? What increases
the lack of opportunity and the lack of growth in any province? It
always starts with the people who live there. It starts with the
municipal level of government, then the provincial and then the
federal government comes into play.
With the exception of the Canada health and social transfer, the
CHST, which the federal government has reduced and which Bloc
members could argue is the reason there has been less money going
to Quebec in that program, other than that everything else that is
happening in the province of Quebec that is going downhill is the
responsibility of two parties, the PQ and the BQ.
(1715 )
When I came here three years ago the PQ was running a deficit
of about $4 billion. Within a 5 per cent margin, even under
Bouchard it is still running a deficit of $4 billion. When every other
province and every other level of government are reducing deficits,
that provincial government did not make substantial reductions in
its deficit. It was not in the billions of dollars. Maybe it was in the
hundreds of millions.
Now the premier has to negotiate with the unions to get them to
agree that there will be a balanced budget by the year 2000. It is all
to come. It is all promises. Nothing is actual. Nothing is factual. He
is in real trouble.
The BQ has done nothing in the House to admit that fact. It said
it was coming here for one term and not running again. Now it is
running again. It came here to say let's separate. The majority of
people in Quebec voted no to separation. They voted no to getting
out of the union. They want to stay in Canada, yet there will be a
third referendum.
The BQ is responsible for the poverty in the province of Quebec.
Because of the uncertainty, because of the unstable economic
climate, a number of companies have moved from the city of
Montreal which used to be a great city.
I grew up just outside Ottawa. I used to be proud to visit the big
city of Montreal. I thought at that time that it was so much bigger
than Ottawa, so much more beautiful than Ottawa. It is still a
beautiful city but unfortunately when I go down streets now I see
barricades in front of office buildings. I see graffiti written on the
walls of office buildings in downtown Montreal off rue
Sainte-Catherine. It is embarrassing.
I am a proud Canadian. I love the province of Quebec. I saw it
every day of my life when I was growing up by looking across the
river. Here we have a party that will not admit the fight is over. It
came here. It had its shot and lost.
Bloc members say they believe in democracy. They say they
believe in the will of the people. Why do they not accept the will of
Quebecers who say they want to stay in Canada?
That uncertainty is creating instability. That political blindness
is hurting a province that could do a lot better by getting its
economic house in order and not crying for regional development
funds that only go more or less into high risk ventures, which
would mean subsidizing failure. I say to the hon. member across
the way in the Liberal Party that is why I do not believe in regional
development programs. They do not go into infrastructure. They go
into failed high risk ventures.
It is the member's party and the PQ that are responsible for the
poverty in Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): How much time do I have
left to answer, Madam Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): You have 30
seconds remaining.
8974
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Madam Speaker, first of all,
I would like to invite the hon. member to travel not only to
Montreal, but also to other, more remote and typical, regions of
Quebec. But it is hard to get a feel for the situation from a
distance.
I think that, by coming to Ottawa, the Bloc Quebecois has been
able to make all English Canadians from the other provinces aware
of what is really going on in Quebec. The democratic will of the
people was expressed in the last referendum, and might I remind
you 49.4 per cent voted yes. That is not insignificant. It is almost a
tie. I think, therefore, that many Quebecers have exercised their
democratic right to express their opinion.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, we were initially supposed to complete this
debate at 5.20 p.m. but, because of the ministerial statement, I
would like to ask the consent of the House to go to 5.25 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the
debate on regional development during this opposition day,
because I represent a region which has been a testing ground for the
ineffectiveness of Canadian federalism.
In eastern Quebec, people are sovereignist because they are
francophone and they believe in the future of Quebec's
francophone population, but they are also sovereignist because
they believe that, to ensure our development, we must have control
over our future.
(1720)
We had a taste of every possible federalist recipe. We went from
the eastern plan, to the Quebec planning bBureau, to the
Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to ad hoc activities,
and now to the Federal Office of Regional Development, whose
officials are doing their best. Under the Conservatives, the FORD
was used, to some extent, to divert activities from the Department
of Industry.
Once the Liberals came to office, they kept the FORD, but they
did not give it any money. And then they came up with IDÉE-PME.
It is a bit like a telephone booth: it gives an opportunity to access
other federal departments. People working in the regions do their
best with what they have. Every public servant does his best.
The problem with regional development is not related to
individuals, but to the architecture. Regional development is one
area where Canada's architectural problems are truly noticeable,
and we are not talking minor problems. Since we, Bloc members,
arrived here in Ottawa, we have also noticed that there are some
very important sectors related to regional development, including
the transportation sector.
For a long time, it was believed in Quebec that the transportation
sector only dealt with highways. People were not very familiar with
air, marine and railway transportation. For a long time, people
thought of railways as rather quaint. Since we, in the Bloc
Quebecois, have been here, we have told Quebecers how important
these areas are, how we should have control over them in order to
ensure appropriate regional development.
When you go over all the areas where Quebecers were let down
in terms of regional development, you think about the 10,000
Canada Post jobs that were lost and the dumping of some regional
harbours and airports. Quebecers have been saying for at least 20
years that if the federal does not want to maintain the harbours it
should transfer them to us. It took one year to develop a policy and
for the last year the department has been trying to revise it in order
to give something to someone.
We have yet to reach an agreement. However, regional
authorities have not remained idle. For instance, the Cacouna port
authorities have made some strong representations and they have
kept at it. They want results, but the federal government is too
slow. With the economic situation changing ever so quickly, we
cannot have governments unable to react rapidly.
Since we are part of NAFTA, we have to ensure that our regions
can quickly export their goods and that we have the appropriate
transportation means to do so. We cannot wait 10 or 15 years, these
things must be done very quickly. Will someone on the government
side address the issue of regional development, since they have
undertaken the most harmful reform for the regions we have ever
seen, the employment-insurance reform?
We know that this reform required two years of consultation and
that, two months after its implementation on January 1, 1997, the
government has already made changes because it realized that the
arguments invoked by the opposition throughout the reform period
were valid.
It was true that people who had accumulated five or six hours in
a week would be penalized if no way could be found to ensure that
this did not reduce the number of weeks of benefits. There will be
other such changes in the months and years to come. For example,
asking young workers to accumulate 910 hours adversely affects
regional development because those who cannot do so will simply
move elsewhere. And once they settle elsewhere, it is unlikely they
will move back home, which is not good for regional development.
The people in government are not worse than their predecessors.
The problem with regional development in Canada is not caused by
individuals. All governments try to do their best. But they try to be
good plumbers when architects are what is really needed.
8975
If there is a sector that will help us to convince people that
sovereignty is the solution for Quebec, it is regional development.
I challenge any of the government members in the next election
to try and convince us that the actions of the federal government
helped in any way to reduce the gap between the unemployment
rates in Quebec and those in the rest of Canada.
You can rest assured, especially in eastern Quebec, where we lost
a seat because of the inaction of the member for Bonaventure-
An hon. member: Exactly.
Mr. Crête: -that they will learn their lesson next time, when
there will be only four ridings in eastern Quebec, but these four
ridings will vote for the Bloc Quebecois.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being5.25 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put
forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of
supply.
Is the house ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
(1755)
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 257)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wayne-38
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gilmour
Graham
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
8976
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Wood
Young
Zed-155
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Cauchon
Daviault
Finestone
Gagliano
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goodale
Guay
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Mercier
Paré
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs.
Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the motion lost.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1997,
be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I would propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, NDP members will vote no on
this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will support the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 258)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Serré
Shepherd
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed -126
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Grubel
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hermanson
8977
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (North Vancouver)-67
PAIRED MEMBERS
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Cauchon
Daviault
Finestone
Gagliano
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goodale
Guay
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Mercier
Paré
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Szabo
Venne
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1800)
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-87, an act for granting Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for
the financial year ending March 31, 1997, be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-87, an act for granting Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for
the financial year ending March 31, 1997, be read the second time
and referred to committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I think that you will find
unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote on this
motion, the Liberal members voting yes.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, NDP members present will vote
no.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 258.]
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried. Therefore, the bill is referred to committee of the
whole.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went
in committee thereon, Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais in the chair.)
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise
to seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following
motion. I move:
That the Senate estimates vote 1(b) be reduced by $2 million which is the increase
being provided in the supplementary estimates to the unelected, unaccountable
patronage heaven.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I rise to seek
the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I
move:
That the Canadian Heritage estimates vote 5(b) be reduced by $60,000 which is
the amount of the contracts received by the heritage minister's senior advisor in her
failed leadership bid.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Deputy Chairman (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais):
Order, please. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-87, an act
for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public
service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1997.
On clause 2
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the President
of the Treasury Board if the bill is absolutely identical to those we
adopted in the previous years.
Mr. Massé: Madam Speaker, this bill is absolutely identical to
bills adopted in the past.
(Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.)
(Appendix agreed to.)
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
(Preamble agreed to.)
(1805 )
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
8978
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-87, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada
for the financial year ending March 31, 1997, be concurred in at
report stage (without amendments).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The members of the official opposition
will be voting no, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, NDP members present vote no.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes on the
motion.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 258.]
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): When shall the
bill be read the third time? Now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on the
previous motion to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe there would be a consent
to apply the results of the previous vote to the following: the supply
bill motion for third reading; concurrence in interim supply for the
year ending March 31, 1998 and for the supply bill motion for
second reading and reference to committee of the whole.
Mr. Massé moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 258.]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That the House concur in Interim Supply as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $33,194,135,278.35 being composed of:
(1) nine-twelfths ($25,397,186,592.00) of the total of the amounts of the items set
forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998 which were
laid upon the Table Thursday, February 20, 1997, and except for those items below:
(2) eleven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 35,
Environment Vote 5, Finance Votes 15 and 20, Fisheries and Oceans Vote 10,
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Vote 5, Human Resources Development
Votes 5 and 35, Industry Votes 30 and 35, Justice Vote 1, National Defence Vote 10,
Natural Resources Vote L15, Public Works and Government Services Votes 20 and
25, Transport Votes 1 and 20, and Treasury Board Votes 5 and 10 (Schedule A) of the
said Estimates, $2,423,142,384.68;
(3) ten-twelfths of the total of the amount of Environment Votes 1 and 10, Human
Resources Development Vote 10, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes
15 and 40, Industry Vote 40, Justice Vote 5, Parliament Vote 1, Public Works and
Government Services Vote 15, and Transport Vote 35 (Schedule B) of the said
Estimates, $5,373,806,301.67;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998.
[
Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 258.]
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Massé moved that Bill 88, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the
financial year ending March 31, 1998, be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-88, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the
financial year ending March 31, 1998, be read the second time and
referred to committee of the whole.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 258.]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went
into committee thereon, Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais in the chair.)
(1810 )
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Order. House in committee
of the whole on Bill C-88, an act for granting to Her Majesty
certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the
financial year ending March 31, 1998.
8979
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Chairman,
I rise on a point of order. The main estimates were tabled on
Thursday, February 20. Supplementary estimates (B) were tabled
on Monday, March 3.
In 1968, the House adopted the McGrath report on procedural
reforms. The spirit of the reforms to the business of supply was to
give all members an opportunity to examine the main estimates
thoroughly so that they would be well informed when they voted.
We will be voting tonight on $33 billion for interim supply
which we have had only eight sitting days to examine.
Supplementary estimates (B) contain $806 million worth of
expenditures which we have only had six days to examine.
I wonder why the government is rushing to pass these supply
motions when the opposition could have at least until March 30,
1997 to further examine both sets of estimates.
[Translation]
On clause 2
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, once again, I would ask the
President of the Treasury Board to tell me if this bill is in every
respect consistent with the one concurred in a few minutes ago.
Mr. Massé: Madam Speaker, the proportions requested in the
bill are for all essential needs of the federal public service until the
second period for the authorization of expenditures in 1997-98.
The bill does not release the full amount of any of the items. The
bill is in the usual form of interim supply bills. Concurring in this
bill will in no way prejudice the rights or privileges of members to
criticize items in the Estimates when these are examined in
committee.
The usual undertaking is hereby given that these rights and
privileges will be respected and that they will be neither abolished
nor restricted in any way through concurring in this bill.
(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.)
(Schedules A and B agreed to.)
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
(Preamble agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill deemed reported.)
[English]
Mr. Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask, when the
maximum volume for nos exceeded that of the yeas, you assumed
those motions were all passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Adopted on
division.
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-88 be concurred in.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, official opposition
members will be voting no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no.
(1815 )
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, NDP members present vote no.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division no. 258.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Massé moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the third
reading stage of the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 258]
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
_____________________________________________
8979
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from December 10, 1996 consideration of
the motion and the amendment.
8980
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the order that
was adopted earlier today with respect to Private Members'
Business Motion No. 31, I believe you will find consent that at
the conclusion of the debate on Motion No. 31 today, a recorded
division be deemed requested and deemed deferred until Monday,
April 7, 1997 at the conclusion of the time provided for
Government Orders.
(1820)
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, I would like to point
out that we will have an amendment to Motion M-31 and that we
agree that the vote be deferred to April 7.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak the motion by my colleague from Red Deer
which would allow all proposed peacekeeping or peace
enforcement commitments involving more than 100 Canadian
personnel to be put to a free vote in the House for approval or for
rejection. I believe that is a very reasonable request in a democratic
fashion, something that this party over here has a difficult time
understanding. We certainly saw an example of it a few minutes
ago.
Peacekeeping has become one of the most important aspects of
our foreign policy. It has allowed Parliament some influence on
foreign conflicts. The problem over the years is that modern day
peacekeeping has become both dangerous and extremely costly.
Therefore it is important for Parliament to chose wisely which
missions it will participate in. The risks and the costs should be
evaluated. The mandate and the rules of engagement should be
known and the chances of success should be examined.
Motion No. 31 would allow these points to be raised in
parliamentary debate followed by a vote when all members could
represent their constituents and let their vote count.
When the soldiers from Wild Rose are ordered to put their lives
on the line, I would like to think that I would be able to say to them
Parliament looked at all the facts and made the best decision in
their interest.
The problem with this Liberal government is that there is always
too little too late with decisions being made in a rush behind closed
doors. Currently troops are already on a plane on their way to a
mission before we are even asked if they should be sent. Then they
question whether we have the resources in place for this mission.
This was seen most recently in February when the Canadian
government again decided to keep our peacemakers in Haiti for
another five years. Canadian taxpayers had already paid over $430
million for this mission and now we find there is no end in sight.
However, the government did not consult with Parliament before
making this expensive and irresponsible decision; nor has it offered
any long term solutions or plans.
If ever there was a need for elected representatives to have a
voice, it is in these situations. The Canadian people expect
Parliament to face up to the responsibility of sending our troops on
these missions. When our soldiers go it should be a Canadian
decision endorsed by the House of Commons. We have to be
accountable to the people and give them concrete reasons why
Canadian soldiers have gone on peacekeeping missions with their
tax dollars.
Canadians want accountability for a change, which only a full
parliamentary debate and a free vote can provide.
It has recently been reported that the Canadian people are
starting to question why the Canadian government is always quick
to volunteer our troops for every mission. The repercussions of this
are being felt by our troops both physically and emotionally. Some
Canadian soldiers served four tours of duty in the former
Yugoslavia in a three year time period. This created tremendous
hardship and family stress for them.
As reported in Monday's Ottawa Citizen: ``Peacekeeping has
produced hundreds of psychological casualties. At least six soldiers
have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, the result
of witnessing the horrors of war on a daily basis. They live in
almost constant depression. Hundreds of others, as many as 20 per
cent of all peacekeepers, could be suffering from various forms of
stress according to defence officials''.
(1825)
The problem is the average Canadian does not know what a
peacekeeper must endure today. Since 1994 there have been about
2,000 Canadian soldiers overseas every year. So far 16 Canadians
have died during these missions, 3 from battle wounds and the
other 13 from accidents or disease. More than 115 Canadians have
been wounded, most in the wars that have raged in the former
Yugoslavia.
To commit our forces to the atrocities going on in today's world
is not a decision to be taken lightly. Peacekeepers today are
plunged into the middle of civil wars. This is why a full debate of
the matter is imperative. We have an obligation to stand up for our
troops at every turn, to discuss the lives of our young people and
the place our country has in the world.
Parliament should develop criteria in order for the decision to be
made in a thorough manner. In other words, we must know every
aspect, from the cost of the mission to the exact mandate to how
long we are going to stay. It clear that Canadians are willing to aid
8981
the international community for humanitarian and security tasks,
but we can no longer be the world's 911 number.
To date Canada's approach to peacekeeping has placed serious
strains on the armed forces. Problems with equipment such as
shortages of helmets, communications equipment and obsolete
armoured personnel carriers have plagued operations. Fewer
soldiers with fewer resources have been required to participate in
more missions. Tension and burnout have been evident from too
many tours too often.
These factors have to be considered for every mission. As well,
we have to learn from the experience of past peacekeeping
missions. The events in Rwanda and Bosnia are evidence of this.
The Minister of National Defence was kind enough to provide
each member of Parliament with a chart outlining peacekeeping
and humanitarian operation cost estimates. This chart clearly
shows four missions that will be ending throughout 1997. With
these dates clearly outlined there should be more than enough time
to debate and vote on whether these operations should be
continued.
This is why Motion No. 31 is so timely. It would allow each
member of Parliament an opportunity to raise any issue related to
these missions on behalf of their constituents and make their vote
count as such. I would encourage all members to vote in favour of
Motion No. 31 in order to empower Parliament to stand up for our
troops.
There have been too many times that decisions are made behind
closed doors. Then we use party politics and the power of we will
punish you if you do not vote the way we tell you to vote. Decisions
are made behind closed doors even before a debate begins. When
that happens that makes this place a farce. To start a debate on a
Monday when a decision has already been made on the past
Thursday behind closed doors, with government members being
told how to vote and that they must vote that way or be punished, is
a sham, a shame and a disgrace to democracy.
I have made these kinds of statements before in the House and
recently on the Internet someone made a comment regarding my
comments about backroom decisions, closed door decisions. I
would like to read it. It is from an individual who is a political hack
from the old days and from the old way of doing things. Let me
quote, showing the attitude and the way they look at how we should
operate. This person has been in politics for years: ``As for
backroom deals, that is the nature of politics. That is how you get
things done. If the government was truly above politics then things
would never work right. For example, without the heavily attacked
patronage system, important positions would go to people of
questionable loyalty who may work to subvert the government and
to undermine its efforts. Again, having no experience with
government, Reform would have little or no understanding of this
principle. Politics is a dirty business. No, you would want the best
politicians in there who could cut those backroom deals, make
those backroom decisions and keep things running well''.
(1830)
A person who has been in politics in this land for a number of
years told me that was the way to run the country. In other words,
the Canadian public or the Canadian taxpayer should not be
involved in all these decisions. We should simply go behind closed
doors because the average Canadian and the normal taxpayer are
too stupid to make good decisions. I am sick and tired of that kind
of democracy. It must end and this is a good chance to demonstrate
that we can do it.
Mr. McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the
hon. member. Accepting the thrust of his speech, would he not
recollect the debate on several occasions in the House on Canadian
contributions to UN peacekeeping missions and the consensus that
developed in which the minister of defence at the time indicated
that wherever possible issues of this sort would be referred back to
Parliament?
Would he not consider-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It seems the
hon. member is asking a question or making a comment and this is
not the time for that. This is the time for debate.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is an
important motion and this is an important issue. All members of
the House are concerned about the handling of information about
the way our peacekeepers are deployed and the way authorization
is given for that deployment. Above all, we want to ensure that it is
a transparent process so that all may know the consequences of
what we are doing.
The motion proposes very little in the way of changes to make
Canada's peacekeeping policy process more transparent. The
simple reason is that the process is already extremely open.
The suggestions that unilateral decisions are being made behind
closed doors have ignored the facts. Such assertions have no basis
whatsoever in reality. The process, as it now exists, is one of the
most open in the world. How many other countries have
established Internet sites and conducted surveys to determine
public support for involvement in peacekeeping missions?
I argue that such countries are few in number, yet our hon.
colleagues insist the existing Canadian system is opaque and in
need of reform. These statements are difficult to accept.
[Translation]
Furthermore, the principle underlying such a motion supports
the thrust of government policy. It has been and will always be our
policy to put to this House directly or through its Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade all issues
8982
involving peacekeeping. When it has been possible and necessary
to do so, that is what the government did.
We recognize the importance of thoroughly and freely debating
all proposals to deploy Canadian forces personnel and we attach
considerable importance to the opinion expressed in this House.
For these reasons, the government is working to ensure that
Canada's peacekeeping commitments are debated each time the
occasion arises.
[English]
Furthermore, the minister and the government have indicated a
willingness to adopt new and interesting procedures to enable this
to take place.
The mover of the motion, the hon. member for Red Deer, knows
very well that we have had the occasion in the foreign affairs and
international trade committee to examine the deployment of troops
in Haiti. On an extensive basis we were able to hear witnesses. We
were able to have a frank, open debate in circumstances which
were, I would submit, preferable to an exchange of views in the
House which often tends to be adversarial in nature. We should be
looking at that way of dealing with it. That is how we will deal with
issues raised by the member for Wild Rose. He said that these were
very costly and dangerous and must be evaluated. We are able to do
that in committee in many ways far better than we are able to do it
in the House.
(1835)
I urge members of the House who are concerned about this
matter and about the way Canadians feel about peacekeeping to
examine some simple figures. In 1995, in spite of what the member
for Wild Rose said, the results of a study documenting Canadian
opinions on foreign and defence policies found that 79 per cent of
those polled considered peacekeeping important for Canada.
A February 1996 study showed that 75 per cent of Canadians
wanted our current commitment to peacekeeping to be maintained
or increased. A similar percentage of respondents indicated that
they believed peacekeeping to be a very positive source of
Canada's international reputation. It is obvious the Canadian public
recognizes the importance of peacekeeping to Canada
internationally. Furthermore, Canadians firmly support our
involvement in peacekeeping.
[Translation]
The high level of support shown leads us to wonder about the
real value of this motion. The argument that the issue must be put
to a parliamentary vote so electors may have their say simply does
not hold water. They have already had it, in a much more
significant way than they have for years. The same is true for the
members of this House. Cabinet has not acted unilaterally behind
closed doors in considering peacekeeping commitments. This
House has had many opportunities to debate the issue, and the
government has considered members' opinions.
[English]
What is quite concerning about the motion is the possible
detrimental affect it could have on Canada's ability to effectively
participate in international peacekeeping efforts.
For the last 40 years Canada has been an open international
leader in peacekeeping. Our unparalleled reputation has resulted
from our willingness to act in difficult circumstances and on short
notice. These characteristics have become even more important in
recent years. Gone are the days when peacekeeping was turned to
only after a superpower had brokered a ceasefire between two
states. Now the international community finds itself having to
respond to internal conflicts causing humanitarian disasters of
unprecedented magnitude.
[Translation]
Given the nature of those crises the international community is
often confronted with, it has become obvious that the UN and its
members do not have sufficient capability to react quickly. Canada
has been a leader, making suggestions and looking for ways to
develop mechanisms to increase the capability of the international
community to react quickly to complex emergency situations.
A Canadian report entitled ``Towards a Rapid Reaction
Capability for the United Nations'' has been an important
contribution in this exercise. The UN has implemented a number of
recommendations in this report, including the establishment of
permanent headquarters for the rapid deployment of peace
missions that will give the UN a whole new capability.
[English]
Nationally the Canadian Armed Forces has developed the
disaster assistance response team or DART to respond quickly to
international humanitarian disasters. Canada has also come
forward in actual times of crisis showing the leadership for which
we are renown. During the recent crisis in eastern Zaire, Canada
stepped forward to lead the international community to action.
What a terrible irony it would be for Canada, one of the most
ardent international supporters of rapid reaction, to take measures
to make its own system cumbersome, in fact in some cases
virtually useless.
[Translation]
That will be the likely outcome of this motion. Making Canada's
peacekeeping commitments dependent on a vote in Parliament
would be detrimental to Canada's leadership and effective
contribution to international security.
8983
The amended motion demanding that all proposals for
peacekeeping or peace enforcement commitments be put to a vote
in Parliament would considerably reduce our ability to make a
timely contribution to international efforts. Whether it is the
commitment of a unit the size of a battalion or just a couple of
military observers, the difficulty would be the same. Obviously, we
could not keep the leading role we now have in international
peacekeeping if our participation were subject to such constraints.
(1840)
[English]
Therefore the motion has implications not only for our
international reputation but also for the lives of those people we are
seeking to assist. It has become increasingly clear in recent years
that without a rapid response from the international community
countless lives which might have been saved will indeed be lost.
Canadians such as generals Dallaire and Baril know this all too
well. The imposition of additional constraints on our ability to act
nationally would fly in the face of all that we have tried so hard to
achieve in the international arena.
[Translation]
In moving this motion, the hon. member neglected several
highly significant realities about the world of today. First and
foremost, it must be realized that events develop quickly, often
with tragic outcomes. To insist that Canadian peacekeepers be
reduced to doing nothing until the House can meet and debate the
issue, while innocent people are suffering as the result of a conflict
or a humanitarian disaster, is foreign to the interests and values
Canadians hold dear.
The international community has learned one thing from the
tragic events of recent years: we must act promptly when we are
called upon. The motion in question could totally prevent us from
doing what we have demanded of other members of the
international community: providing a rapid response.
[English]
The hon. member also seems to ignore an even more immediate
reality. As I have said, the government has consistently
endeavoured to bring matters related to Canadian peacekeeping
commitments before the House or before the appropriate
committee for debate and informed discussion.
Furthermore, it has provided the Canadian people with a direct
means to express their views concerning their country's
peacekeeping policy. The Canadian public has expressed its
opinion. It firmly believes in and supports Canada's role in
international peacekeeping.
[Translation]
The Canadian government and the Canadian public are proud of
the lead peacekeeping role Canada has assumed in the world. Our
role in this area is important for Canadians, for Canada, and for the
world.
We cannot support this rather unwise motion, which can only
serve to diminish Canada's role in the noble enterprise of
peacekeeping.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to conclude the debate on my Motion No. 31.
The motion is designed to try to allow Parliament to have more
control, more discussion and more open debate on the sending of
our troops on peacekeeping missions. It is not intended to be
against peacekeepers, to say that we do not do a good job, or to say
that Canadians are not behind it. This is a motion simply to provide
accountability for decisions that are made.
Even though peacekeeping is one of the most important aspects
of our foreign policy, the Prime Minister and the other elites in the
government do not want Parliament to truly participate in the
making of decisions. They want to have sham debates or no debate
at all. They refuse to allow parliamentarians access to crucial
mission information until the dye is cast. They refuse to allow
members a vote on whether the peacekeeping mission is in the
interest of our country or the interest of our troops.
A perfect example of this disregard for Parliament occurred just
a few weeks ago when the government leaked to the press the fact
that we would be staying in Haiti for the next five years. There was
no consultation. There was no mention of cost. There was no
mention of the best interest of our troops.
It was just another unilateral decision by the government. Even
though the Minister of Foreign Affairs promised to consult he
broke his promise. Even though the minister assured Canadians
``when Haitian President Préval was here, he indicated a very
strong interest in having the international presence of the UN force
and the Canadian force end as soon as possible'', guess what. He
did not mean that either. Even though Canadian taxpayers have
already paid over $430 million for this mission, we now find out
there is no end in sight. No wonder the federal debt is $600 billion.
(1845)
It is not true that committee has the opportunity make the
decisions and debate the issues. I use as an example the mission to
Zaire which was decided on a weekend. In fact, the member for
Rosedale and I heard from a news reporter that the decision had
been made for the Zaire mission. We were not consulted. There was
no opportunity for Parliament to make a decision.
8984
To say that we need 24 hour decision making, I again use the
example of Bosnia. The situation there has gone on for hundreds
of years. There was no panic to make a decision.
The situation in Haiti of the dictatorship has gone on forever. I
was in Rwanda in 1985 and I knew there was a problem. There was
lots of time for Parliament to debate it, two years to make a
decision. I mentioned Zaire. That problem did not just pop up
overnight. Very seldom will that argument hold any water. If it did
there would be ways to deal with it by way of an amendment to the
motion.
The issue of peacekeeping goes far beyond the issue of money. It
goes to the lives of our Canadian troops, their parents and the lives
which could be lost or shattered by crippling injuries. When we
send our soldiers abroad we are asking young men and women to
take a serious risk for the country. They could be shot, taken
hostage, blown up by land mines. There are numerous examples of
this.
For the sake of these soldiers, we in Parliament must ensure that
the government is not being irresponsible in its decisions to
participate in these missions. It cannot be because the Prime
Minister watched CNN and made a decision on a weekend. We
must not let the government rubber stamp missions where lives
will be lost. We must accept responsibility as legislators and
demand a full debate will all the information on the table.
Only after the debate, when we know the risks, the mandate, the
rules of engagement, the duration and the cost, can we decide if the
mission should go forward.
Then we must hold a free vote. A free vote is critical because it
forces individual members to assume responsibility for the safety
of our soldiers. When young men and women from our ridings are
going to a war zone or a country where government has broken
down, we owe it to them to find out the facts for ourselves. The
lives of Canadians are more important than pride, the party or the
government.
In conclusion, when we vote on the motion each of us will make
a choice for which we should be held accountable. Our choices will
show Canadians what we think is most important, the lives of our
soldiers or what the party brass says.
I will end here and let the vote speak for itself so that Canadians
from coast to coast can see where their members stand when it
comes to the lives of our soldiers.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we have had in
this particular area of United Nations peacekeeping missions and
Canadian contributions to them a very high level of debate in
recent years. It is a debate to which members on both sides of the
House have contributed significantly.
As the member for Rosedale rightly reminded us, Canadians
have a special interest in UN peacekeeping. The concept is a
Canadian creation. It was the brain child of our then foreign
minister and later Prime Minister Lester Pearson. He recognized
that there is a period in a conflict in which in a certain sense the
parties have exhausted themselves emotionally and physically and
where the interposition of a third force may allow them to retreat
without intolerable loss of face. It is in this context thatMr. Pearson proposed a UN peacekeeping force for the resolution
of the Suez crisis.
(1850 )
It worked perfectly and it has become known as the special
Canadian contribution to the United Nations international
organization. He was later recognized for his work with the award
of the Nobel peace prize.
This was an area, if one considers the participants in this
particular difference-Great Britain, France, Israel and Egypt-in
which there was special Canadian interests apart from the idea of a
foreign minister who was a UN man par excellence.
Similarly, I would have said with the Congo in 1960, which was
the next big exercise in a UN peacekeeping operation to which
Canadians contributed, there is a special Canadian interest in every
issue where the presence of a French speaking force is crucial and
one with openings to the English speaking world and recognizing
the American interest in all these things. The Canadian mission
becomes logical, sensible and almost inevitable.
The lesson from our debates in the House in recent years and in
the present Parliament has been that we need to redefine our roles
in missions, that we have to be more selective in the allocation of
our energies, our forces, our contributions to missions and that we
should, as far as possible, husband our scarce resources and apply
those to situations where there is a Canadian special interest.
I would have thought, and I would agree with people on both
sides of the House on this, as to some of the more recent missions,
the Somalia mission, I would have thought by most tests, it was not
a good case for Canadian involvement at the very beginning. There
is something to be said for the thought echoed by the hon. member
opposite that when the telephone rings at five in the morning and
somebody says that they need our help, maybe the correct response
is to say: ``George, why do you not go back to sleep and call at
regular hours?''
Somalia was a case where the special expertise in terms of the
language, in terms of the significant Canadian ethnic community
with links to the territory, in terms of knowledge of the culture of
the region, the special problems of language and religion, and also
the historical divisions within the country was absent. These were
outside our knowledge. In some senses it was a tragedy waiting to
8985
happen when we sent over, in essence, a regiment trained more or
less for anti-terrorist activities.
I would have said that Bosnia was possibly an issue of which we
should have been more cautious although there were special
pressures on us by members of Canadian communities with roots in
the homelands of the former Yugoslavia. On that we can leave the
question open.
However, the main issue is that the pragmatic consensus which
has developed in the debates in the House over the past several
years is that Parliament should be involved. I remember the
Minister of National Defence making this view known to the House
during the course of the debate. Sensibly any administration,
recognizing the political aspects of these operations and the
dangers of misconception or misconstruction of a mission, should
be very sensitive to parliamentary opinion. I believe these
undertakings were given sufficiently at that time.
The problem we have with this motion is that we recognize the
spirit. We believe the spirit has essentially been accepted on both
sides of the House, but it does introduce, with its too narrow limits,
too specific limits, a limitation that frankly could be extremely
troublesome in a period of international crisis solving where urgent
action is required.
On that basis, I believe we could say to the party opposite
moving this issue that the spirit is there. I think the spirit is
accepted and understood on both sides of the House in a
responsible way. However, our suggestion to the members opposite
is that the tethering limits of the motion create serious impediments
to situations in which Canadian interests and Canadian special
knowledge and competence suggest an intervention.
Looking at the situation in Somalia, the United States was
involved.
(1855 )
The U.S. admiral advising the United Nations in that situation
simply did not understand that American federal conditions could
not be replicated in a country that was more similar in its social
political organization to, for example, Great Britain in the 13th
century. I am speaking in terms of the confrontational situation of
feuding feudal barons. In Bosnia largely the exercise in policy
making had been made in a few key European foreign ministries
and not necessarily along lines that were sufficiently broad in their
conception to yield a lasting solution.
On that basis I thank members of the third party for their
contribution. It adds to the thoughtful contributions of earlier
debates made in particular by the member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands and the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan. These
sentiments are understood and appreciated on this side of the
House.
It is in this spirit I repeat the thoughts of the member for
Rosedale. We think the limitation is too tethering. We think it could
be a serious impediment in a crisis situation. In any case the
pragmatic understanding on both sides of the House is enough to
achieve the spirit of what has been contributed to this thoughtful
debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
order made earlier this day the recorded division stands deferred
until Monday, April 7, 1997, at the conclusion of the time provided
for Government Orders.
_____________________________________________
8985
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, QB): Madam Speaker, I
urge you to keep an eye on the government. It is about to pull
another fast one on us. This time, it is food inspection.
This is the problem. I asked the Minister of Agriculture last
week about his plan to withdraw from the inspection of processed
meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables.
When you go grocery shopping, you buy pâté made by La Belle
Fermière or cretons or tête fromagée made with pig's heads, fruit
juice, fruit cocktail or other processed food, and now the federal
government wants to withdraw from inspecting this type of
processed food.
There would be implications for recipes and labelling. When you
buy pâté, there are certain ingredients in this product, and at the
8986
present time, federal inspectors go to small processing plants to
check whether the labelling reflects exactly what is in the product.
Now the government wants to withdraw from this type of
inspection.
These inspections have been done in Canada since 1959-almost
40 years-and done very well. The industry is happy and takes
them in its stride. Industries have in fact asked the federal
government to continue to provide the inspection service, for
which they would be prepared to pay a fair price. The federal
government asked its officials to do a study, which shows that the
quality could drop in this sort of product. The health of our fellow
Canadians could ultimately be affected.
Last week, I was listening to the Prime Minister talk about
tobacco as he eliminated cigarette sponsorship of sports and
cultural events; he said it was bad for the health of our children.
In this case, although the industry is prepared to pay a fair price,
the government is considering withdrawing from this sector.
I think the department of agriculture should ask cabinet and the
minister to take a step backward, give the people what they already
have today and continue to provide the same service.
In order to save a few million dollars, the government would run
the risk of imperiling a significant element in the processing of
meats, poultry, fruits and vegetables-industries, as usual, found
primarily in Quebec. It would seem that every time things go well
in Quebec the government tries to throw a wrench in the works to
show that things are not going so well.
I see that the parliamentary secretary will be responding, as the
minister is in Japan at the moment. I hope he takes that into
consideration and encourages his minister to go back on this
decision to stop food processing inspections.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, current
regulations require mandatory prior approval and registration of
labels, processes and formulations for domestically produced and
processed vegetables, fruit and products as well as domestic and
imported processed meat products.
All other food products regulated by Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada are marked without a mandatory review and industry is
solely responsible for label compliance. While the service provides
some value from an inspection point of view, the service could be
provided by the same private sector that currently supports
non-mandatory areas.
During the business alignment plan discussions relating to
possible areas of cost reduction some industry representatives
indicated that the service was neither necessary nor wanted.
However there was not consensus among the various industry
organizations. With the government's desire to provide more
uniform treatment of food products and to encourage industry to be
more self-reliant, the existing program was reviewed.
Several options including termination of the service have been
developed. A working group involving industry and consumer
organizations and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada staff has been
formed to produce a consensus report by late April 1997.
The goal is to implement this consensus during the second half
of the 1997-98 fiscal year. In the interim delivery of the present
service will be continued. The final result of these consultations
will reflect the fact that the health and safety of Canadians
continues to be the major priority of our department.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to be adopted. The House
therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.04 p.m.)