37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 034
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 22, 2001
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| CANADIAN LANDMINE FUND
|
| Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
| TREATIES
|
| Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
1010
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Fuel Pricing
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1015
| The Environment
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1020
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1025
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-18. Second reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1030
1035
1040
1045
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1050
1055
1100
1105
1110
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1115
1120
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1150
1155
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1200
1205
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1210
1215
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1220
1225
1230
1235
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1240
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1305
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-18. Second reading
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1330
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1335
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1340
1345
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1350
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1355
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| WORLD WATER DAY
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1400
| MEMBER FOR CALGARY SOUTHWEST
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| FIGURE SKATING
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA CENTRE
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| GREECE
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| RUSSEL GOODMAN
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1405
| GOVERNOR GENERAL'S AWARDS
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| WORLD WATER DAY
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| MAPLE SYRUP INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| CAMILLE THÉRIAULT
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1410
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| FIGURE SKATING
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| GOVERNOR GENERAL
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| TOURISME AMIANTE
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| FIGURE SKATING
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
1415
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| L`AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. John Manley |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PUBLIC SERVICE
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1440
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| POTATO PRODUCERS
|
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
1445
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| TAXATION
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1450
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| LUMBER
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1455
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1500
| NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| CONTAMINATED WATER
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1510
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1515
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1520
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| The Speaker |
1525
| Questions on the Order Paper
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| The Speaker |
1530
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| The Speaker |
1535
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| JUDGES ACT
|
| Bill C-12. Second reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1540
1545
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1550
1555
1600
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1605
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1625
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1630
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Mr. John Bryden |
1705
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
1710
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1715
1720
1725
| Mr. John Bryden |
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Motion
|
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1750
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
1755
1800
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
1805
1810
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1815
1820
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1825
1830
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 034
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 22, 2001
The House met at 10.00 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
CANADIAN LANDMINE FUND
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I take this
opportunity under Standing Order 32(2) to table, in both official
languages, the 1999-2000 report on the Canadian Landmine Fund
entitled “Measured Steps”.
This report illustrates that our efforts to eradicate
anti-personnel landmines and to assist communities affected by
these weapons are making a concrete difference. The use,
production and trade of anti-personnel mines are declining,
victim rates are falling and over 22 million stockpiled mines
have been destroyed in recent years by more than 50 countries in
the world.
Canada continues to provide global leadership on the landmine
issue. In 1999-2000 we supported mine action programs in more
than 20 countries and continue to work with other states and
civil society organizations to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. secretary of state but this is the tabling of documents
and not debate nor statements.
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a document.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. member is
supposed to simply table the document and not make a statement.
For the hon. secretary of state's knowledge, tabling of
documents is simply to table a document with a very short
explanation. If the secretary of state wants to add anything, he
could use statements by ministers to state what he has to say.
* * *
TREATIES
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I take this
opportunity under Standing Order 32(2) to table, in both official
languages, 49 treaties that were entered into force for Canada in
1999, as well as the acts of the 1989 Washington conference and
the 1994 Seoul Congress of the Universal Postal Union, which
entered into force for Canada in 1991 and 1997 respectively.
1010
In keeping with recent practice, I am also tabling CD-ROMs that
contain the text of these treaties in an electronic format. The
CD-ROMs have reduced paper burden, while at the same time
providing wide accessibility to the treaties through the
Library of Parliament.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of
order in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this eighth report later this day.
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the
Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of
Tuesday, February 13, in relation to Bill C-8, an act to establish
the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. The bill is the result
of many years of study and consultation by a number of committees
and task forces.
On behalf of the committee, I thank members of parliament,
committee staff, departmental officials, witnesses and
stakeholders for their work. As a result of their hard work, we
have produced a very important piece of legislation for the
Canadian financial services sector and Canadian consumers.
The committee has considered Bill C-8 and reports the bill with
amendments.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the eighth report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
FUEL PRICING
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, under
Standing Order 36, I have three separate petitions to introduce
and table.
The first petition was signed by a group of Winnipeg people who
call upon government to intervene and do something in the matter
of spiralling, out of control energy costs. This group of
Canadians is calling upon government to set up an energy price
commission that would hold the oil companies accountable for the
energy prices that they charge.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition I would like to introduce is a very thick one.
Literally thousands of Canadians have signed this petition which
calls on the federal government to increase the amount they pay
into health care.
They point out that currently the federal government only pays
13.5% of the total health care costs and the provinces have to
deal with the rest. These people feel that this opens the door
to a two tier, American style, privatized health care. They plead
that the government stops that possible trend and direction.
CANADA POST
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
third and final petition that I would like to table today is from
a group of residents of various communities throughout British
Columbia who are calling upon government to change the
relationship or to change the law that pertains to rural route
mail couriers. This is the only group of workers in the country
who are specifically denied the right to free collective
bargaining.
These people feel very strongly that the 5,500 rural route mail
couriers across the country would benefit from repealing section
13(5) of the Canada Post Corporations Act.
1015
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition on behalf of thousands of citizens of
Peterborough who believe that a Via Rail link between Toronto and
Peterborough should be re-established.
They point out that Canada signed the Kyoto protocol and that
Canada has undertaken to reduce greenhouse emissions. They
suggest that developing sustainable transportation, such as
commuter rail services, is one way of meeting those objectives.
The petitioners believe a commuter rail service between Toronto
and Peterborough would be environmentally most acceptable. They
call upon parliament to re-establish the VIA service between
Peterborough and the city of Toronto.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a second petition to present on behalf of people who suffer from
end-stage renal disease, their relatives and those who support
them.
They call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian institutes
for health research to explicitly include kidney research as one
of the institutes in its system to be named the institute of
kidney and urinary tract diseases.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
third petition is yet another petition from citizens of
Peterborough who are interested in re-establishing the VIA Rail
route.
The petitioners point out that there are dramatic cost savings
in terms of highway costs as compared with rail costs if there
were a commuter service in the greater Toronto area between
Peterborough and Toronto, that it would be economically
beneficial by enhancing employment mobility for Peterborough area
residents and by making the greater Peterborough area more
accessible as a tourist and educational destination.
These petitioners call upon parliament to authorize the
re-establishment of VIA service between Toronto and Peterborough.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I rise with regard to questions on the order paper. I
put a number of questions on the order paper, two of them a year
ago. They will be celebrating their first birthday within 30
days of the House. This is two parliaments without answers to
those questions.
On a personal basis, I know the parliamentary secretary is
trying but the government refuses to answer very important
questions put there.
I refer to Erskine May and Marleau and Montpetit in terms of
order and substance of those questions. It has been confirmed by
the table and the clerk that they meet all the rules and
procedures of the House.
The question is, what is the government trying to hide? This is
very important because it relates to the sale of military
equipment to other nations, 40 helicopters and 10 Challenger
jets. It is important that we know the answers to those
questions. Again, what is the government trying to hide? Why
does it not answer those questions?
It is an abuse of parliament. I should be up on a question of
privilege. I have four questions on the order paper. All
members, regardless of party affiliation, can only put four
questions on the order paper. It is a contempt of parliament in
the sense that members who do have their roster filled on the
order paper with four questions are then restricted and cannot
put any further questions on the order paper. That is not right.
Technically, it silences members of parliament.
Would the government tell me why those questions after one year
have yet to be answered? Is there any logical reason why members
are not entitled to answers to which the Canadian public is
demanding answers? It is as simple as that. When will the
government cough up the answers to those very important
questions?
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members will
agree that we consider written questions very important.
The member opposite's characterizations of what has gone on here
are perhaps a little inaccurate, and I think he is being overly
dramatic.
1020
In any event, the procedure followed here is not materially
different from the procedure ordinarily followed for written
questions. I explained yesterday and on previous occasions that
we are working to develop the answers that would be most suited
to the hon. member. That customization and extra effort, which I
have asked the government to put forward, will probably serve the
member and all the members in the House if he could just allow
the customary few days.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is not an
exaggeration. Those questions are there and, in terms of form
and substance, they have been approved by the Clerk of the House.
They have been sitting on the order paper for one year. We are
demanding answers to those questions.
Again, what is the government trying to hide in terms of selling
military equipment to rogue nations and maybe terrorists groups?
We do not know. We are entitled to answers to those questions.
It is as fundamental as that. We are following the rules of the
House. We want answers to questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): We are getting into
debate here. I can still give the floor to the hon.
parliamentary secretary if he wishes to address the issue
briefly.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, this is a routine proceeding.
I think you have been overly generous with the hon. member. He
has made his point. He is waiting for answers to his written
questions and I have indicated that those answers will be
forthcoming.
The hon. member suggests that there has been a year of a
collection of time here. I just want to point out to the House
that this parliament has been in existence for only a couple of
months. This is a new parliament. The member may wish to look
back into a previous parliament and at another procedure, but
what we are dealing with here is a relatively new parliament. In
good faith, I have indicated to the member that his answers will
be coming in due course in the appropriate procedure.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
further on that point, I feel very strongly as well that the hon.
member has a very valid point. One year is an absolutely
unacceptable period of time. It not only spans one year, but it
spans two parliaments.
The other point raised actually affects me personally. Frankly,
my questions are not languishing in some question limbo or in
some government pool of unanswerable questions. What bothers me
and affects me as a member of parliament is that we are limited
to only four questions. We cannot ask a fifth. We have now
rendered this particular member of parliament impotent, if we
will, in the matter of putting questions on the order paper.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but I have been advised by the table that those
questions that were asked during the last parliament cannot be
carried over into this parliament. Rules and procedure tell us
that if hon. members do want their questions answered, they have
to resubmit the same questions to the government. I hope this
explanation serves.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
clarity. I appreciate the member for Winnipeg Centre helping me
out on this, but in terms of the clarity of this issue, those
questions were resubmitted. We have gone through two
parliaments. They were put on the order paper last June.
Following the election, they were re-entered into the system and
deemed to be in order by the Clerk of the House. The
parliamentary secretary—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I can understand the
hon. member's frustration, but technically those questions die at
the same time as the writ is issued. I will repeat that if the
hon. member wants to resubmit those questions, he can submit
those questions again to the government. In the end, the two
interventions that I have heard will certainly pass on the
message that if the government needs to be more effective, it
will be.
1025
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, for my own information and
so that all members here know what the rules really are, the hon.
member for New Brunswick Southwest already pointed out that he
did resubmit the questions since the election to this new
parliament.
What I understand from the Speaker right now is that if the
member is serious about getting his questions answered, he should
resubmit his questions. Have the rules changed to such a point
where if we really want a question answered, we have to keep
resubmitting it over and over again? How many times can we ask
the same question or resubmit it?
Just for the information of the members here, in a situation
like this, once we have submitted the question and we are not
getting an answer, is the only way to get an answer to resubmit
the question?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): As I see the situation,
the questions have been resubmitted and of course they are then
subject to a timetable. Like I said, the member's message is
quite clear and I take it that the government will make the
effort to respond timely to those questions.
Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill C-18, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak today at second reading of Bill C-18 which amends the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act with respect to the
equalization program.
[Translation]
This legislation stems from the landmark agreements reached by
Canada's first ministers on September 11, 2000 on a plan to
renew health care, improve support for early childhood
development, and strengthen other social programs.
[English]
In support of these agreements, the federal government is making
the largest contribution ever to health, higher learning and
social services: a new investment of $23.4 billion over the next
five years.
Most of this funding, $21.1 billion, was legislated in Bill C-45
last fall and is being provided through the Canada health and
social transfer, CHST, which I will discuss in a moment.
At the first ministers' meeting, the issue of equalization was
also raised.
The bill before us today fulfils the commitment made by the
Prime Minister at that time to lift the ceiling on the
equalization program for the 1999-2000 fiscal year.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister also asked the Minister of Finance to consult
with provincial and territorial finance ministers on how best to
follow through on this commitment. The finance minister has
recently completed his consultations.
[English]
Before discussing Bill C-18, let me take a moment to set the
legislation in context. I want to briefly explain how the
federal system of transfer payments works and the importance of
the equalization program itself.
The federal government, in partnership with the provinces and
territories, plays a key role in supporting the Canadian health
system and other social programs. The provinces and territories
deliver their own health care, education and social services,
while the federal government provides them with financial
assistance through transfer payments.
Today the federal government transfers approximately $40 billion
to the provinces and territories. It does this through three
major programs: the CHST, equalization and the territorial
formula financing.
Because of transfers, all Canadians can expect: equal access to
public health care; a safety net to support those most in need;
the freedom to move throughout the country to seek work; higher
education and training available to all who qualify; and
reasonably comparable services wherever one lives.
1030
I will take a moment to look at each of these federal transfer
programs individually because there has been some confusion and
misinformation in the Canadian public.
First, I will speak to the Canadian health and social transfer.
The CHST upholds the five medicare principles of the Canada
Health Act: universality, comprehensiveness, accessibility,
portability and public administration. It also ensures that no
minimum residency period is required to receive social
assistance.
This block fund is provided on an equal per capita basis to
provinces and territories in the form of cash and tax transfers
for health care, post-secondary education, early childhood
development and social programs.
[Translation]
The new funding legislated last fall is the fifth enhancement in
the CHST since 1995. CHST cash transfers to the provinces and
territories will now rise to $18.3 billion in 2001-02,
$19.1 billion in 2002-03, and $21 billion in 2005-06—at which time
CHST cash will be 35% above its current level of $15.5 billion.
[English]
I will speak briefly about tax transfers. This is one of the
least understood aspects of the CHST despite the fact that tax
transfers are fundamental to how the program functions.
In 1977 under established programs financing, one of the CHST's
predecessor programs, the federal government transferred tax
points to the provinces. The federal government decreased its
personal income tax by 13.5% and its corporate income tax by 1%
so that the provinces could raise taxes by an equivalent amount.
The net impact of tax points on taxpayers was zero. It was
totally transparent. However the impact on the federal and
provincial governments was very real. Indeed, tax point
transfers represent increased revenues to the provinces and
foregone revenues for the federal government. It was done so the
provinces and territories would have direct access to revenues to
fund health care, post-secondary education and social programs.
In 2001-02 the value of transferred tax points will account for
nearly $16 billion, about half the total amount provided to
provinces under the CHST. That point is often forgotten by
members opposite.
The second federal transfer program, equalization, provides
extra funds to less prosperous provinces to enable them to offer
comparable programs and services to their residents. Payments
are unconditional and provinces can spend them as they see fit.
In 2000-01 seven provinces are projected to receive equalization
payments totalling $10.8 billion.
Territorial formula financing or TFF, the third transfer
program, recognizes the higher costs of providing public services
in the north. In 2000-01 payments provided under this program
are forecast to be $1.4 billion.
These are the federal government's three major transfer programs
and, as I mentioned, they provide approximately $40 billion
annually to the provinces and territories.
Bill C-18 specifically deals with equalization, a program that
in many ways expresses the generous spirit of Canada.
Equalization has been in existence since 1957 and has played an
important role in defining the Canadian federation. It is unique
among federal transfers in that its purpose was entrenched in the
Canadian constitution in 1982.
[Translation]
As stated in the Constitution, “Parliament and the Government of
Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization
payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient
revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public
services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation”.
[English]
Phrased another way, its purpose is to ensure that less
prosperous provinces can provide reasonably comparable public
services without their taxes being out of line with those of more
affluent provinces.
1035
At present, seven provinces qualify for federal support under
equalization: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Ontario,
Alberta and British Columbia are not eligible.
The fact that equalization was one of the few programs exempted
from restraint measures during the mid-1990s illustrates the
importance the government attaches to it. The government clearly
understands what equalization means to receiving provinces.
Equalization has increased faster than anticipated. It has
grown by 33%, or $2.7 billion, since our government took office.
Equalization estimates are updated twice a year as newer data
become available regarding economic developments and their
impacts on provincial revenues.
Estimates show that equalization is at its highest level ever.
The latest official estimates released by the finance minister in
February show that payments to receiving provinces will be about
$1.8 billion higher than estimated last October.
[Translation]
These higher figures are not due to the poor economic
performance of receiving provinces. On the contrary, payments
are increasing immediately by an estimated $1 billion due in
large part to the exceptionally strong economic growth in
Ontario over the last two years.
[English]
Of this amount, $52 million is for 1999-2000 and $955 million is
for 2000-01. The other $800 million is the additional funding
that will be provided to receiving provinces through passage of
the bill.
Allow me a moment to explain how the equalization program
operates. It is quite technical and misunderstood. Equalization
is the most important federal program for reducing differences in
the abilities of provincial governments to raise revenues.
Federal and provincial officials review the program on an ongoing
basis to make sure the differences are measured as accurately as
possible.
In addition, the legislation is reviewed every five years. The
last renewal was in 1999. Payments are calculated according to a
formula set out in federal legislation, and adjust automatically
in response to economic developments in the provinces.
When a province's economy is booming relative to other
provinces, its equalization payments automatically decline under
the formula in proportion to the increased wealth of the
province. Conversely, when a qualifying province's fiscal
capacity declines due to a slowdown in its economy, its
equalization transfer automatically increases.
[Translation]
In this way, the program acts as an automatic stabilizer of
provincial government revenues. Equalization payments are
subject to “ceiling” and “floor” provisions.
[English]
The ceiling provision provides protection to the federal
government against unexpected increases in equalization payments.
In other words, the ceiling prevents changing economic
circumstances from driving equalization payments through the
roof. The ceiling thus ensures the program remains sustainable
in the long run.
The floor provision is the other side of the coin. It provides
protection to provincial governments against sudden large
decreases in equalization payments.
The ceiling for 1999-2000 was set at $10 billion and, except for
the provisions in this bill, will grow at a rate equal to the
growth of GDP in subsequent years.
I now turn specifically to Bill C-18, which lifts the
equalization ceiling only for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. As I
explained earlier, lifting the ceiling fulfils a commitment made
by the Prime Minister last September at the first ministers
meeting.
[Translation]
The communiqué issued at the end of the meeting clearly states
that “the Prime Minister agreed to take the necessary steps to
ensure that no ceiling will apply to the 1999-2000 fiscal year.
Thereafter, the established Equalization formula will apply,
which allows the program to grow up to the rate of growth of
GDP”.
[English]
While the final cost of removing the ceiling will not be known
until the fall of 2002 when the final estimates for 1999-2000
become available, the cost is projected to be $792 million.
1040
That amount will be allocated among the seven eligible provinces
on an equal per capita basis. Each will receive the same amount
of money per person because the ceiling affects all provinces in
the same way. Removing the ceiling for 1999-2000 means that each
receiving province will receive $67 per person.
The total breakdown per province is as follows: Newfoundland
will receive $36 million. Prince Edward Island will be eligible
for $10 million. Nova Scotia will qualify for $62 million. New
Brunswick will receive $50 million. Quebec will get $489
million. Manitoba's payment will be $76 million, and
Saskatchewan will receive $69 million.
I want to clarify an issue relating to the new equalization
estimates released in February. The recent announcement of an
additional $1.8 billion in equalization payments has generated
reaction among some people. Some see the funds as a slap in the
face if their own province's allocation is small, or they
complain of favouritism if the allocation to other provinces is
large.
Equalization payments are based on a formula that measures the
relative performance of provincial economies. That formula is
applied the same way to all provinces.
[Translation]
All provinces that have a revenue-raising capacity below the
standard receive payments from the federal government. Why?
Because the federal government is committed to the
idea that all provinces should be able to provide comparable
levels of service to their residents.
[English]
Provinces do not receive the same amount of equalization because
they do not have the same economic circumstances. This year
Saskatchewan needs $230 per person to be brought up to standard,
while Newfoundland needs $2,000 per person. Per capita figures
are multiplied by the total population of a province to arrive at
the total equalization payment.
Quebec, despite the second lowest per capita equalization
entitlement, generally receives the highest total payment because
of its large population. At the other extreme, P.E.I., with its
second highest per capita entitlement, generally receives the
lowest total payment because of its small population. I hope
these explanations will help clarify the issue for my hon.
colleagues.
I will review a few points. All parts of the country cannot
generate the same revenues to finance public services. Federal
transfers, therefore, help ensure that important programs are
adequately funded. Transfers also help ensure that all Canadians
receive reasonably comparable levels of public services no matter
where they live in Canada.
The result is that we all benefit from knowing we live in a
country where health care, education and basic public services
are provided at roughly comparable levels of quality in all
provinces.
In considering the legislation I urge all hon. members to keep
in mind that federal transfers have increased significantly in
the last few years. Over $35 billion has been added to the CHST.
Equalization entitlements are up $2 billion annually since
1995-96 and are expected to increase. Removing the equalization
ceiling for 1999-2000 will add almost $800 million to transfers
alone for that year.
[Translation]
I want to impress upon this House that, through this bill, we
are fulfilling the Prime Minister's commitment to lift the
equalization ceiling for 1999-2000, which means more money for
the receiving provinces. Bill C-18 underscores the priority the
government places on equalization and helps ensure that the
receiving provinces continue to have resources to provide the
services their people need and want.
[English]
I will conclude with a quote from the finance minister. After
his meeting with the Atlantic finance ministers a few weeks ago,
he said:
The federal government in the end always has to act in the
national interest, and part of that acting in the national
interest is ensuring that every single province is treated
fairly.
This is exactly what Bill C-18 does. It continues the tradition
of fairness with which equalization has been delivered for over
40 years. I urge all hon. members to pass this legislation
without delay.
1045
[Translation]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-18.
The official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, supports the
principle of equalization payments, but we do have certain
concerns relating to this particular bill.
[English]
The official opposition does support in principle the
constitutional obligation of equalization but has particular
concerns with respect to the bill.
We just heard a fairly comprehensive overview of this
legislation from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance. We also heard him set it within the larger context of
federal fiscal transfers to the provinces. However, the bill is
quite narrow in its scope, much narrower than my hon. colleague's
comments would suggest. It is strictly limited to increasing or
lifting for one particular fiscal year the ceiling for
equalization payments. It does so for the fiscal year 1999-2000,
now nearly two years past.
At the outset, my colleagues and I are bound by the
democratically approved policy of our party to support the
principle of equalization. Our manifesto states:
We recognize that different provinces and regions of Canada have
different levels of wealth but all wish to provide similar
services to their residents. Therefore we are committed to the
constitutional principle of making equalization payments to
ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to
provide the residents with reasonably comparable levels of basic
services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
We do support the notion that in a large and complex federation
with fairly significant disparities in wealth, income and
standards of living the federal government ought to play some
function to equalize access to core public services at reasonably
comparable levels of taxation.
Having said that, we do believe that the current formula and
structure of equalization should be open for serious debate and
review. Most provinces have called for such debate. We in the
official opposition would like to be on the record as embracing
that. We believe there are many problems with the current
system, many unintended consequences that have the effect of both
penalizing those provinces that are successful in terms of
economic development and growth and penalizing taxpayers in the
so-called have provinces.
It is often observed that in a country as wealthy as Canada it
is inappropriate to suggest that we have seven provinces out of
ten that are perpetual have not provinces. The mentality of the
current equalization system perpetuates an attitude among some
which is contrary to economic development.
One point we in the opposition have raised and hope to explore
is the idea of opening negotiations to look at allowing provinces
that are now bringing on stream certain non-renewable resource
revenues to not be penalized in their equalization payments from
the federal government for those new revenues for at least a
period of time.
As the system is currently designed, there is what many
economists refer to as a welfare trap phenomenon, where earning
incremental income, or in this case developing incremental
revenues to the provincial treasury, results in a proportionate
reduction in federal transfers to the equalization program. This
is a perverse incentive against domestic economic development
among the so-called have not provinces.
That is one of the many areas that ought to be explored.
1050
We ought to explore whether indeed the formulae are applied or
calculated on a fair and equitable basis and whether all
provinces rather than some provinces should be included in the
calculation of the equalization formula, as some provinces have
suggested. We ought to take a hard and close look at the
application of both the floor and the ceiling of equalization. We
should see whether this program is really working to equalize
access to core public services across the country at comparable
levels of taxation.
It has been observed by academic economists including, for
instance, those at the C.D. Howe Institute, that perhaps a better
way of equalizing access to quality public services across this
broad nation is through income sensitive transfers to persons as
opposed to insensitive transfers from one government to another.
These economists have asked us to reflect as policy makers on
the paradox, for instance, that there are members of, say, my
constituency, a western riding in Alberta that is the largest
contributor to equalization, who earn below average incomes. They
are from modest families with modest means who are nevertheless
obliged to pay a very large share of federal taxes. A portion of
their taxes goes to finance the equalization program.
Most of my constituents would not object to the general
principle of sharing opportunity and wealth across the nation.
However, these economists ask us to reflect on how efficient this
transfer of wealth is from government to government and from
taxpayer to taxpayer in a way that is not sensitive to income.
When the lower middle income family in my riding pays more taxes
to finance equalization, it may have the impact of improving the
road system, or the health care system which, for instance, is
used by, among others, higher than average income people in other
provinces.
Some economists have suggested that the current way the program
is designed is perhaps not the best way to maximize the
equalization of opportunities across the country. They suggest
that instead the best way to do that is to redistribute wealth
from higher income people, wherever they live and in whichever
province they happen to reside, to lower income people, the
working poor, who need a hand up. That is an interesting
observation by academic economists, which I think ought to be
included in the broader and more thorough review of the principle
of equalization and its application.
I also think that this larger debate unfortunately has not been
engaged by the government. Instead, the government tends to
approach the issue of equalization on an ad hoc basis and in the
crucible of very political negotiations with the provinces. That
is not necessarily the best way to make good public policy.
I would point out, for instance, that the bill brings to us an
amendment that lifts the ceiling on equalization payments for the
fiscal year 1999-2000, pursuant to an agreement struck between
the Prime Minister and his provincial counterparts on September
11 of last year.
Hon. members will no doubt recall that the date, September 11,
2000, was about a month before a federal election was called.
Certainly the Prime Minister had the electoral timeline in mind.
All of the premiers and public commentators were certainly aware
of the very distinct possibility of a federal election on the
horizon. It was in that very politicized context that this
agreement was reached.
1055
Some commentators have said that what we have before us today,
this lifting of the ceiling, was a political demand put on the
table in a horse trading session with the premiers and that the
Prime Minister agreed to lift the ceiling for at least one year.
That is not exactly how we ought to make serious, sober public
policy decisions regarding hundreds of millions of taxpayer
dollars, in this instance increasing equalization payments by
some $792 million.
The ceiling is there for a reason: to protect the federal
government from unforeseen increases in these payments. It is
matched by a floor as well so that provinces are protected from
an unforeseen reduction in equalization payments. For some 20
years now, I think, we have had this system that precludes wild
variations or aberrations in the payments, either too much or too
little, to the provinces. For the Prime Minister to simply
politicize this very important part of the equalization structure
in the crucible of an election campaign shows that he is not
really committed to a serious, sober review of equalization and
its application. That is something we would call on the
government to engage in.
I am pleased to say that my hon. colleague from Portage—Lisgar,
who is the official opposition critic for regional equity, will
be speaking to the bill later today and will perhaps outline some
of the principles he thinks should be included in a general
review of equalization and the federal-provincial transfer
arrangements.
Our party did support certain elements of the accord reached
between the premiers and the Prime Minister in September of last
year, particularly with respect to the restoration of funds
stripped out of the Canada health and social transfer fund since
the 1995 Liberal budget. I know I do not need to remind this
place that in that budget and since that budget, the federal
government removed some $23 billion in real hard cash dollars
that were designated to the provinces to finance the highest
priority program areas of Canadians, namely health care, higher
education and other social priorities.
In poll after poll Canadians register health care as their
single highest public spending priority. Yet when the government
was given an opportunity to demonstrate its fiscal priorities,
what did it choose? It chose to slash, gut and eviscerate health
care funding to the provinces, a decision that had a very clear
and tangible impact on the delivery of care to Canadians in need
of health care. My colleagues and I for several years now have
been consistent in saying that this was the wrong choice to make,
a choice which the Prime Minister sought to undo in the September
accord of last year, from which this bill derives.
It was the wrong choice to make because it reflected the wrong
priorities. Between 1993 and 1999 the deficit was eliminated.
About two-thirds of that deficit elimination came about through
increased revenues to the federal government, in part because of
higher tax rates imposed by it and in part because of automatic
tax increases through the then deindexation of the tax code and
various other revenue measures. Basically because Canadians were
working harder and working longer hours, they were paying more to
the federal government.
1100
About two-thirds of the so-called deficit elimination is
attributable to higher taxes which are now at the highest level
in Canadian history as a percentage of our gross domestic
product. It leaves us with the highest income tax burden
relative to GDP in the G-8 and, further, the highest corporate
income taxes in the OECD, the 23 principal industrialized
economies of the world. That is the legacy of the fiscal policy
of tax increases over the past decade.
The other third of the deficit reduction can be traced to the
so-called spending restraint. It is the government's worst
spending cuts. Three-quarters of the spending cuts involved in
the deficit elimination exercise came about in the $23 billion
reduction in transfers for health care to the provinces. Another
very large chunk came about through gutting the capacity of the
Department of National Defence to provide the resources for our
men and women to defend our sovereignty and meet our
international obligations.
If we take out national defence and the CHST, the rest of the
federal government averaged a spending cut of only 3%. That
reflects the fiscal priorities of the government. It was willing
to cut health care transfers by one-third, by about 33%, and to
virtually gut the capacity of our defence forces; but when it
came to the myriad of other wasteful Ottawa bureaucratic spending
programs they remained virtually untouched.
I will give some examples of wasteful programs: the Minister of
Canadian Heritage with free flag giveaways, multimillion dollar
handouts, grants to Liberal special interest groups, subsidies to
bloated crown corporations, and the Minister of Industry with
billions of dollars wasted on corporate welfare.
Then there is the general waste of mismanagement, duplication
and misadministration of the federal public sector. It was
virtually left untouched because the easier choice for the
government was to pass the buck on to the provinces rather than
fixing its own problems in its own backyard. They in turn had to
pass the buck on to health care consumers. That is a synopsis of
the fiscal choices of the government during the past several
years.
Bill C-18 has come before us as part of a package. It was a
sweetener to have the provinces accept less than a full loaf in
terms of restoration of the CHST transfers to 1993 levels. In
the September accord last year the governments agreed to increase
those health transfers to only $21.1 billion. The money taken
out since 1993 was at least $23 billion. The government was
still about $2 billion short on its CHST cut in the accord that
it negotiated with the provinces last September. In order to
make up for this continued shortfall in critically needed
health care funding, it offered to raise the ceiling on
equalization. That is why the bill is before us today.
I would like Canadians and my colleagues to understand the
political and fiscal context of the bill. In other words, had
the government not made the wrong choice to slash health
transfers by a third in 1995, had it not stubbornly stuck by
that, and had it instead made different choices and reduced
wasteful spending in Ottawa programs that do not affect real
people, we would not have Bill C-18 before us today. The
provinces would not have been so short of revenue that the poor
ones would have demanded this aberrant lifting of the ceiling on
equalization.
1105
In its frantic pre-election effort to cover up the enormous
mistake it made in terms of slashing the health care transfers,
the government decided to make a change in the pre-existing,
longstanding arrangements with the provinces with respect to
equalization.
I do not quibble for one moment with certain provincial
governments and premiers for seeking any way they possibly could
to get more federal transfers into their provincial treasuries to
reinvest in the health care and other social spending which had
been stripped by the CHST. I do not object at all to their
principled and effective advocacy on behalf of provincial
taxpayers and health care consumers in this respect.
I am sure all my colleagues would agree that it would be in the
best interests of the administration to have predictability and
stability in the application of equalization agreements. We
ought to try to play by the rules. Surely we could all agree
that it is good public policy not to make exceptions from year to
year. However the reason the government made the exception it
did in the bill before us today with respect to the ceiling on
equalization was to cover up for its own political mistake, its
enormous policy blunder in its 33% cut in health transfers to the
provinces since 1995.
We do not feel the government has much moral authority to come
before us and say that it has decided out of the kindness of its
heart for one particular fiscal year to raise the ceiling on
equalization payments to the provinces to account for unexpected
economic events two fiscal years ago. That is nonsense.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance knows as
well as I do that bureaucrats in the Department of Finance are no
doubt rolling their eyes today as they watch the debate go
forward. They know this is undermining the overall integrity of
their program. In a way it, politically it had to
happen in order to reinvest the money that had been taken out of
the health transfer which the government refused to put back in.
Without a doubt the bureaucrats are standing there knowing that
it may be good politics but it is awfully bad public policy. I
would just say that we see over and over again this pattern of
misplaced priorities leading to bad policy outcomes and then the
government trying to wiggle its way out. That is what it is
doing with the bill today.
Let me also say, lest the government try to paint itself as the
great dispensary of Liberal generosity to the provinces, that
this is a one time, one year deal. It does not intend to
continue lifting the ceiling in perpetuity. If I had an
opportunity to ask the finance minister's parliamentary
secretary, I am sure he would be opposed to lifting the ceiling
in perpetuity.
He would probably argue that it would contravene the rules set
out in the agreements and that if we lift the ceiling, we should
lift the floor and so on and so forth. I am sure he would make
that argument, but somehow he avoided that question. He avoided
mentioning why exactly this deal happened and why it applies to
one year and one year only.
Another point I would like to add is that the practice of
retroactive legislation in general is not a good one for
parliament to pursue. When we consider fiscal matters,
estimates, spending authorizations, ways and means motions,
authorizing tax measures or any form of legislation, a principle
of parliament ought to be that it ought not to try to
go back and change history, as it seeks to do in this bill. We
should make things right the first time.
1110
Later today we will be considering Bill C-17, another example of
the ham-fistedness with which the government administers its
legislative program. We will be making so-called housekeeping
amendments to correct mistakes that were made in the bill some
time ago.
An enormous amount of parliament's time is consumed with
correcting the mistakes the government makes in its legislation.
Today we are seeking to change an agreement with the provinces
from two fiscal years ago to help save the Prime Minister's hide.
It was a deal he made at the last minute before a federal
election to make up for his callous and irresponsible 33% cuts in
health care transfers.
On that point I express my disappointment with the government
for the manner in which it has handled its fiscal relationships
with the provinces over the past number of years. I express my
hope, although not my expectation, that it will begin to get
things right in terms of long term stable and predictable cash
transfers, tax points and equalization to the provinces so that
we do not have these last minute deals and we do not need this
kind of retroactive corrective remedy in legislation.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join the debate on behalf of our finance critic and on
behalf of the other members of the NDP caucus to share our views.
I am one of the many Canadians who believes that the
redistribution of wealth through the federal transfer payments
and through the federal equalization payments is probably the
single greatest achievement of the Canadian federal state. It is
a concept that finds its origins in a generosity of spirit and
what is a very real belief that most Canadians share.
They believe that even though all regions of the country are not
equal we should be striving for equal treatment in all areas. We
should be guaranteeing at least some constant minimum standards
in social programs throughout the country no matter what the
economic situation of the region.
I should make it abundantly clear that the NDP has always
supported the many incarnations of transfer payments and
equalization payments throughout history. It is interesting to
note that the change in the distribution programs indicates a
fundamental policy shift on behalf of government.
Many years ago we had the EPF, the established programs
financing. It was equal 50:50 funding for established programs
within the various provinces. My political party always believed
in a widely shared view that there was a far greater ability for
the federal government to control and to implement some national
standards when the funding formula was 50:50. It was simple. If
one of the provinces chose not to comply with the national
standards put in place they were jeopardized in that 50:50
funding formula.
The established programs financing worked very well. We then
saw the CAP, Canada assistance plan, come in, followed by the cap
on CAP. Then came the CHST. Now we are seeing a removal of the
cap of the new ceiling imposed in a temporary way. I will deal
with that in greater detail later.
Let me say at the outset for those whose interest I will
probably lose in the next few minutes that we are very critical
of the bill. Speaking on behalf of many of the provincial
finance ministers, even though the cap is to be lifted for one
year, when the cap is reinstated one year from now it will be at
a lower level than most of the finance ministers understood it to
be.
The provincial finance ministers thought that they had an
agreement on a certain set of circumstances. They are now
finding that what is being announced today, the newly imposed
ceiling, will be lower than what they thought they agreed to on
September 11, 2000. That is a problem.
It is certainly a problem in the province that I come from. I
have spoken about established programs financing and the history
of the CAP, the cap on CAP and the CHST.
1115
I am glad that previous speakers have pointed out the
devastating impact of the CHST on social programs in the country.
It should be stated clearly and abundantly by the opposition
members, so that the public hears it over and over again, that
the government stripped 33% of the funding out of the federal
social transfers with the CHST. I believe the total figure since
1995 has been $23 billion or $24 billion. The government went
from $19.1 billion to $11 billion in social transfers. Slowly it
has been inching it back up. It went to $12.5 billion to $14.5
billion.
In these figures, and from what sense I can make of them, we
will be at $15.5 billion. With some other features the amount
will be close to $18 billion. It is still below what it was in
1995, in spite of all that has occurred since then, including
greater revenues and a surplus for the government. We are not
getting any government largesse, we are getting the restoration
of some of the money it stripped away from the federal transfers
in recent years.
I hope the Canadian public is not buying this line that the
government had this fabulous meeting on September 11, 2000, that
the provincial finance ministers convinced it to be more
generous, so the government agreed and now it is more generous.
The government is still as miserly and as shortsighted as ever in
its commitment to try, what I believe to be the single greatest
achievement of Canadian federalism, to redistribute the wealth
through federal transfer payments.
It was pointed out that we have to look at some of the other
origins of the money the government is claiming to share through
its great largesse right now. Let us not forget the cuts in
programs worth $23 billion or $24 billion. The cuts to the EI
program accumulated a surplus of $35 billion to $37 billion,
depending on who we talk to. Much to the government's discredit
this money went into the consolidated revenue fund to be used for
whatever it saw fit. It did not go into any kind of an
insurance fund.
The other thing that has almost blown over, and I cannot believe
it does not get raised in the House of Commons more often, was
another great pool of dough or source of revenue that the
government stumbled upon which was the public service pension
plan surplus. It took $30 billion out of the of that surplus.
Rather than negotiating some deal so that some would go to
benefits and some would go to offset future premiums, every
single nick of it went into the consolidated revenue fund to be
used for whatever it sees fit.
Dribs and drabs of it are going back to actual Canadian citizens
in the regions in which we live. Little bits and pieces are
being sliced off scrap by scrap. Then with some great fanfare
the Liberals announced $23 billion or $24 billion in extra
spending. I think of the members of the House of Commons know it
is a myth, it is an illusion and it borders on a cruel joke being
perpetrated on the Canadian people.
The government can fool some of the people some of the time, et
cetera. This is not going to wash. The jig is up on this
particular funding formula because there is going to be a hue and
cry with the growing realization of where this money really is.
The government cannot take our money away from us, then give it
back slowly and try to pretend that it is some kind of great
largesse on behalf of a benevolent government. That is simply
not going to fly.
When the equalization program was renewed in 1999, the ceiling
was reduced by roughly $1 billion per year, in spite of the broad
objections from virtually every finance minister in the various
provinces, to an arbitrary level of $10 billion in 1999-2000. It
was then indexed by GDP growth in subsequent years.
The program ceiling is now lower as a proportion of GDP than the
entitlements have ever been under the current five province
standard. The program was at the lowest level ever at that point
in time. At the time the ceiling was reduced the federal finance
officials indicated that this level would provide ample room to
accommodate entitlements over the present renewal period. Recent
estimates have proved them wrong. This is the source of
frustration on behalf of the provincial finance counterparts.
1120
The current estimate of equalization entitlements for the
1999-2000 fiscal year, the very first year of these new
arrangements, exceeds the ceiling by close to $800 million. That
is the origin of the problem.
The impact on my home province of Manitoba is presently
estimated at about $76 million. This amount has been agreed to
now but as the ceiling gets lifted Manitoba will, in the coming
fiscal year, get about $76 million. This is very welcomed and
necessary money. Manitoba has places to spend that money because
God knows it has been coping with the shortage of funding over
all these years. Many of its programs have been cut, hacked and
slashed to the point where they are barely functional. It is
critical that my province get the restoration of some of that
equalization money to put back into the programs that it finds
necessary for our people.
The parliamentary secretary told us that we could not just look
at the CHST transfers. He told us that we had to look at the tax
points as well. It is not just the $18 billion or so total CHST
payments, but we have also transferred the ability to tax to the
provinces. Let us look at that as a fundamental policy shift too
and who that benefits.
The federal government only pays 13.5% of health care funding
which is below the 50:50 ratio in the good old days. It has
reduced it to the point where it is only paying 13.5%. It is now
letting the provinces do the taxing. How does the general public
like that? The general public does not like anybody who is
responsible for deducting money off their pay cheques. The
government has off-loaded the burden of the collection of taxes
to the provinces through a tax point transfer. It has withheld
money to the point where the funding relationship is 87% paid by
the provinces and 13% paid by the federal government.
This is a flawed concept now. It is a system that had its
origins in a very noble concept, which was the redistribution of
wealth through federal transfer payments to ensure some national
standard of quality social programs for all Canadians, no matter
where they live. This is the kind of thing that nations are
built on. This is the kind of thing that does more to hold
Canada together than any 10 constitutions. This one aspect of
the Canadian Constitution probably does more to keep the country
together, even more than Peter Gzowski and the CBC, which is a
very bold and dramatic statement.
We see a familiar pattern as we look at the details surrounding
what has been introduced today and what the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance outlined. We hear talk of
the equalization ceiling which is the maximum payment that the
federal government will make to the provinces under the
equalization program. That ceiling is set in the upper limits on
the growth rate of equalization entitlements.
We know that the goal should be to protect the federal
government from rapid and unaffordable year to year increases in
payments. That is all very well and good but that is also based
on the premise that there will be some stability and
predictability out there. Need does not always follow convenient
budget lines in a budgetary plan. I argue that the need is great
in many parts of Canada. We cannot have economic development and
independence and the type of economic growth in areas until all
come up to a base level starting point. We are then talking true
equality within the country.
There is nothing more unfair in the world than treating unequal
parties equally. This happens in all kinds of applications. I
hear that sometimes in the speeches made by Canadian Alliance
members who want all the provinces treated equally. That means
recognizing that not all provinces are equal. Some are quite
unequal in terms of their opportunity and the resources they
enjoy.
All the provinces and the territories called for the removal of
the ceiling on equalization payments as recently as August 2000.
They were demanding that this ceiling be lifted because they
believed that the ceiling acted as a barrier for them to get
their fair share of the wealth that should have been
redistributed, money that was taken from the provinces in cuts to
program funding over the years which amounted to 33% or $24
billion.
1125
There is inherent financial protection for the federal
government on the growth of equalization payments through
population adjustments and shared revenue fields. When it comes
to population adjustments, some provinces are going to do better
than others.
When we look at it on a per capita increase, if the dollar
figure is approximately $67 per head, the obvious impact on
provinces showing a net population growth, by ratio and
proportion, is they are going to enjoy more of the money being
shared.
The current distribution of the extra federal transfer payments
just took place. We saw the province of Manitoba getting only $3
million which really was not much to celebrate or write home
about. We saw the province of Quebec get $1.4 billion out of $2
billion. The rest of us divided up what little was left over.
This is the way these things happen. It is a formula we have
all agreed to. I do not think anyone resents that.
In dealing with shared revenue fields, the majority of the
equalization entitlements stem from tax revenues that are jointly
shared with the federal government. For example, during the
fiscal year of 1998-99, the federal government increased the
equalization entitlements by $368 million respecting personal
income taxes, and then by $259 million respecting corporate
income taxes.
In the same period the federal revenue was increased by $2.7
billion from personal income taxes and $1.5 billion from
corporate income taxes. This is quite a disparity. Certainly a
great deal of the revenue that we felt could have been
transferred to the provinces, or could have raised that ceiling,
failed to go into the hands of the provinces. We presume it was
put to other priorities.
Recent federal surpluses have exceeded the size of the entire
equalization program. That is something to remember. Again I
ask the House to look at where those surpluses came from. They
did not just sprout out of the ground. They did not grow on
trees. They were taken from cuts to program funding in the
amount of $23 billion or $24 billion. They came from surpluses
in the EI fund which meant denying benefits to workers so that no
one qualifies anymore. The House may be shocked to hear that the
surplus figure in the EI fund is $750 million a month. That is
where some of the extra revenue came from.
There is another pot of dough to which I alluded earlier in my
speech, something we do not hear enough about in the House of
Commons. It is the public sector pension plan. The public
sector pension plan had a surplus of $30 billion, partly because
of layoffs and wage freezes in the public sector. Actuarial
people had made the projections of what needed to be in the pot
based on 1985 and 1987 figures. Obviously when one-third of the
public service was cut and when wages were frozen for eight
years, the actuarial figures were no good to anyone anymore.
We wound up with a $30 billion surplus and the federal
government took every penny of it away from where it should have
been. We would argue it should have gone to benefits or at least
some combination of benefits to people in the program or possibly
reducing the premiums or a premium holiday for those who made
contributions to the program. Neither of those were
contemplated. The President of the Treasury Board simply seized
the entire amount and applied it to whatever was seen fit.
Those are the three sources of revenue. Now the government is
faced with a surplus which is larger per year than the entire
equalization transfer. That should be alarming to Canadians. It
is our money. People have to keep in mind that it is our money
to serve the needs of our communities.
The federal contention was that the 1999-2000 decision to rebase
the equalization ceiling to $10 billion was appropriate,
independent of the Prime Minister's commitment. The way we look
at it is that the federal government tries to defend the ceiling
in terms of making the equalization ceiling affordable. It
really makes us question the concept when the surplus is bigger
than the entire payout.
1130
The largest downward rebasing of the ceiling, to $10 billion in
1999-2000, occurred in the year of the highest ever recorded
federal surplus of $12 billion, so in the same year that the
Liberals had never made so much money in their lives, they cut
the ceiling to the lowest it had been since the history of the
program. These are inconsistencies that need to be pointed out.
These are things that need to be exposed.
As noted by the federal auditor general, the equalization
ceiling was rebased downward as a per cent of the GNP in the
program renewals of 1987 and 1992, but not in 1994. In those
program renewals the ceiling went from—and I will read this
out—in 1982, 1.34% of the GNP. In 1987 it went down to 1.24% of
the GNP. In 1992 it went down to 1.17% of the GNP and then in
1999 we were down to 1.08% of the GNP or 1.04% of the GDP.
Imagine what a trend we are showing there. If we could
illustrate that as a chart or a graph on a wall, it would show
this going down and down as a percentage of the gross domestic
product or the gross national product.
Can hon. members imagine the purchasing power and the progress
that communities could have made in the provinces had we remained
constant at 1.34% of the GNP, which is where we were in 1982?
Those were kinder, gentler times, I suppose, back in the times
when we had federal governments that had some vision and some
willingness to create strong national standards and strong
regional economic development in other parts of the country.
Had we maintained that, the total cumulative amount of money
that could have been transferred to the provinces would have been
in the order of $80 billion more during that period of time. Can
we imagine that? For the total transfer today the Liberals are
talking about a ceiling of $10 billion. We, by design, willingly
let successive federal governments reduce their commitment to the
provinces by that incredible amount of money.
The $10 billion ceiling figure we are dealing with now was based
on an early federal forecast of final entitlements for the
1999-2000 year, with an allowance for the transitional adoption
of new technical changes in 1999-2000. It was not adjusted when
equalization entitlements began to rise in 1999. This led to the
contradiction, to the gap that the government was forced to deal
with by lifting the ceiling.
Because the $10 billion ceiling was not adequate to allow for
the 1999-2000 entitlements, it will be additionally strained as
the technical adjustments of another $240 million incrementally
enter the formula. Imagine the strain on the system and the
strain on the relationship at that point.
Returning to the federal auditor general's direction regarding
the establishment of a ceiling, the federal government did not
establish criteria for the ceiling beyond it being an estimate of
the 1999-2000 entitlements, plus an allowance for the adoption of
the technical changes. It is as simple as that. As such, it
appears that the ceiling level of $10 billion would not satisfy
the federal government's internal rules established in 1997.
There is just a host of inconsistencies and problems inherent in
what we are being told.
These are some of the key points that have come to mind as the
provincial finance ministers are reeling with the growing
realization that in regard to what they agreed to on September
11, 2000, even though they called for and welcomed the lifting of
the ceiling, they will in fact wind up with a ceiling even lower
than they thought they were agreeing to when the cap is
reinstated one year from now.
This whole situation raises the issue of and really does
challenge and question the long term viability of the
constitutional fiscal relationship we have with the provinces.
There will come a time of growing unrest and growing discontent
in the regions of the provinces that rely on the federal transfer
payments. They will want to revisit the entire structural
relationship of the transfer of funds.
As I said from the beginning, I believe that is a tragic
mindset, a point of view that I find very threatening and
disturbing as we look at the long term viability of this tenuous
federation. The federal government has to bear some of the
burden of responsibility for adding that tension to the federal
state.
1135
Certainly the growing discontent and the growing distrust
between the feds and the provinces in terms of the fiscal
relationship is going to exacerbate the whole growing unrest with
the other general discontent. There was a time when the
provinces did feel that there was a commitment on behalf of the
federal government to regional economic development, to national
standards within the country and to some commitment that we
should all enjoy at least some basic level of health, education
and social welfare funding, no matter where we lived, frankly,
and no matter what the state of our provincial treasury was.
Those things should not be considered. Some things are too
important to be subject to those regional vagaries.
I am fond of using the story that Reverend Jesse Jackson of the
United States used when he was talking about our view of
equalization. He had a great way of trying to explain what I am
trying to get my mind around here. He said that if one has five
children and only three pork chops, the solution is not to kill
two of the children, but neither is it a solution to cut the
three pork chops into five equal pieces, because then all of the
kids go to bed hungry and nobody gets enough to eat.
An hon. member: And he had an extra child.
Mr. Pat Martin: The hon. member points out that he had an
extra child as well. I may have to alter the story.
The social democratic point of view, the way Jesse Jackson would
have recommended to deal with the problem, is to challenge the
whole concept that there are only three pork chops. In the
richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the
world, neither I nor he can be convinced that we cannot afford to
provide for the basic needs of Canadians to enjoy decent national
standards. It just simply is not on. It is a myth. It is an
illusion. It is a cruel hoax. It has been foisted upon the
Canadian people for far too many years now.
We know the wealth is there. We have just seen how the Liberal
government chose to deal with $100 billion worth of surplus. It
chose to squander the money on tax cuts, in my opinion. People
are always trying to accuse the NDP of seeking to squander things
on social programs, of squandering money on poor children, of
squandering money on better health care and education. I put it
to the House that the Liberal government has just squandered $100
billion of our surplus on tax cuts to people who probably need it
the least.
When we look at the 1% drop in corporate tax cuts, from 17% to
16%, what has corporate Canada really done lately to deserve a
reward like that? Just that one seemingly innocuous percentage
point amounts to $75 million to $100 million a year. Whether it
makes Canada more competitive, as our right wing colleagues would
have us believe, I do not really know, but I can tell the House
that the money could have been better spent.
When we are dealing with an era of record surpluses, it is
galling that we are dealing with an era of record low transfer
payments to the provinces. I come from a province that has
benefited from and still enjoys the relationship that we have in
terms of being able to use the money transferred to us in these
federal-provincial financial relationships. Coming from the
province of Manitoba, I can speak from personal experience as to
how worrisome it has been to witness what seems to be a
deliberate policy shift, a going away from any real commitment to
a strong central government, a strong national presence and a
strong influence in national standards across the country.
There is a graphic representation of what I believe is that
unwillingness or inability to get involved with national
standards, and that is watching the government's financial
commitment diminish from year to year. It is withdrawing,
pulling out, abrogating itself from any responsibility for what
happens in the regions now.
Perhaps a federal government without vision finds the problems
just far too tough in some of the regions. It just cannot cope
with the reality of Cape Breton or inner city Winnipeg. It is
simply turning its back on those areas and saying “You guys have
a real serious problem, and if you are ever in Ottawa, look us up
and we will buy you lunch”. That is certainly how a lot of
people out in the regions feel about what appears to be—and I do
not think it is paranoid to assume this—a lack of willingness to
really try to thread the country together and keep the country
together with a strong fiscal interprovincial relationship.
1140
There was a time when fiercely proud Canadian nationalists
occupied those benches over there. They were people who had a
real vision for their country. I can name some senior Liberals
in the old days who I think had a real commitment to keeping
Canada together and to using the constitutional relationship as
an instrument for building a strong Canada.
Now one would think they are trying to dismantle the country
piece by piece if what they are doing from a financial point of
view can be taken as an indication of what their true intentions
and wishes are. There are people over there who are dismantling
the country brick by brick and dismantling the faith, hope and
optimism that Canadians have in a strong central government.
Sometimes it worries me. Maybe they are just too busy, but I do
not think the people across the way give any thought to how
fragile the federation of Canada is as we speak and at this point
in our history.
If we love this country and care about keeping it together, one
would think we would be pulling out all the stops, more than ever
in our history, to make the federation work. It is a federation
that I feel strongly about. We in the provinces will work for
it. God knows we sacrifice and compromise on a day to day basis
to try to make the federation work. We are not seeing the same
commitment from the federal government, at least as it translates
into a fiscal strategy, in a period of time when it has record
surpluses, the largest ever, and also has the lowest ever ceiling
of transfer payments. What kind of commitment is that?
I am sure that the next speaker on the Liberal side will stand
up and say that the government does not give as much money any
more, but it gives all the tax points. It is off-loading the
burden of taxation onto the provinces and cutting, hacking and
slashing the flow of real dollars, the real hard cash that we
actually need for programs.
Speaking on behalf of the people of the riding of Winnipeg
Centre and the people of Manitoba, let me say that we have
serious reservations about the state of the current fiscal
relationship with the federal government. We draw the Canadian
people's attention to the fact that it is an era of record
surpluses and that those surpluses came from cuts to program
funding, by and large, and from surpluses in the EI system after
that. They also came from gouging the surplus out of the public
sector workers pension plan. That is where those surpluses came
from, so when tiny bits are incrementally released into the
provinces again I do not think the Canadian public should be
fooled into thinking that it is some grand largesse on behalf of
the ruling Liberal Party.
Canadians should be going into this with their eyes open and
should be very aware that we are not getting all we could from
the federal government. If the federal government had a stronger
vision of how to build Canada into a truly strong national state
again, it would pay more attention to the regional frustrations
that stem from the inadequate commitment to funding the CHST and
the fiscal relationship.
When the CHST first came along, the national council on welfare
called it the most devastating thing to happen since the 1930s.
It could predict the beginning of the end as we moved from
established program funding to CAP, to the cap on CAP and to the
CHST. It could sense in the wind what was happening there, which
was that the feds were pulling out of funding these types of
programs. Some would say it was so they could give tax cuts to
their friends. Others would say that the feds simply did not
want the burden of responsibility any more. That is when we
started to see this downward trend in terms of the overall
relationship.
I have read some of the figures. The most telling figure and
the best example to use is the fact that in funding our health
care the feds now pay for approximately 13.5% and the provinces
struggle to pay the other 87%. It is a growing challenge and has
gone beyond being a fiscal problem. It is now a problem for the
health and well-being of Canadians.
I could probably go on about this particular issue as it is a
topic close to my heart, but I will close with these remarks.
1145
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak on such an important
topic as equalization. I will be splitting my time with the hon.
member for St. John's West today.
The principle of equalization and the notion that we should have
approximately equal levels of taxation and equal levels of
services across the country is a sound one. If there is a policy
that Canadians are united around and support in principle, I
think the policy of equalization, as a cornerstone of Canadian
social and economic policy, is one where there is still a
considerable level of support across our very diverse country.
In fact, it is the only constitutionally enshrined spending
program.
That being the case, if we look to the beginning of
equalization, it has played a very important and, by and large,
positive role in ensuring equality of opportunity across Canada.
If we look at the basic principles of equalization, that is the
generally equal levels of taxation and equal levels of services
across the country, and look at the reality of what exists today
across Canada, we will see that there are significant problems in
equalization in the current context, particularly if we look at
the disparate levels of taxation across the country. Provinces
that are in a position to do so are aggressively pursuing tax
reduction policies that are positive from an economic growth
perspective within their own jurisdictions.
That being the case, we do have an increasingly ghettoized tax
environment across the country. Some provinces are having great
difficulties in addressing and reducing taxes and debt in their
own provinces, while other provinces are in a much stronger
fiscal position. As a result, if we recognize the important role
that tax policy plays in shaping economic growth and economic
development policies, we will see that there are some significant
disadvantages in some provinces that may not have been recognized
a few years ago based on higher tax levels and that sort of
thing.
Equalization, where it should put ladders in front of provinces
to enable them to succeed, move forward and bootstrap themselves
into success, in many ways puts barriers in front of provinces.
There has been a tectonic shift in economic theory over the last
10, 15, 20 years in terms of the recognition that tax policy
plays as a lever of economic growth. Even social democrat
parties in most parts of the world recognize that one of the
infrastructure requirements in any pro growth environment,
particularly in the new economy, is competitive tax breaks.
Equalization has not been reformed to reflect that evolution of
economic thought.
If we look over the last 10 to 12 years, Ireland represents a
tremendous example of a country that has effectively embraced
some of the evolution of economic thought in this area and did in
fact adapt successfully in that realization. Some people compare
Ireland to Canada and say that what has been done in Ireland
could be done in Canada.
Comparing Ireland to Canada is actually not a very good
comparison because Ireland did benefit from EU transfers in order
to facilitate the reductions in taxes and the increase in
education spending which were so pivotal in enabling Ireland to
achieve a 97% growth in GDP per capita over a 10 year period.
Canada achieved a paltry 5% growth in GDP per capita during the
same period. So Ireland outstripped our growth rate by almost 20
times during that period.
1150
However, if we compare the Ireland example to Atlantic Canada,
we see some striking comparisons. There is a beacon of
opportunity for Atlantic Canada and for any recipient provinces
of equalization. If we were to become more creative, we could
address equalization as a lever for economic growth and not as a
lever to perpetuate a cycle of dependency. In the same way that
Ireland used transfers from the EU to facilitate investment in
education and to reduce taxes, equalization could be used similarly.
One of the flaws we have in the current equalization system is
that as provinces diversify their economies and try to find ways
to increase revenues and achieve greater levels of growth,
whether it is through the development of offshore resources,
which is the case in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, my home
province, or in the case of a province like Quebec which is
pursuing a very aggressive biotech strategy, or whether it is
through revenues from IT, biotech or from offshore, the current
structure of equalization will eventually result in an
overwhelming clawback of almost all those revenues, which
actually perpetuates the cycle of dependency.
As a province finds itself in a position, because of economic
development decisions or economic growth in a particular area, to
pull ahead and actually reduce their level of dependency, the
federal government actually claws back the lion's share of
revenue. In some ways it is the same welfare trap that some of
our social programs put individuals on social assistance in and
when they actually get a job they make less money or do not see
any economic benefit for their initiatives or successes.
If we want to be serious about equalization, not as a tool to
create dependency, not as a political bargaining chip to be waved
around at election time by the Liberals in provinces like
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada, but as an actual
lever to create greater levels of economic growth and
opportunity, we have to recognize that the equalization reform
must occur in lockstep with economic development policy reform.
I will give an example of some of the economic development
issues that need to be addressed in lockstep with equalization
reform. The policies for regional economic development agencies,
ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, being one of
them, need to be reformed. In Nova Scotia. for example, I think
the ACOA budget is around $120 million per year. The total
federal corporate income tax paid in Nova Scotia is approximately
around the same amount. I think it is around $130 million or
maybe $140 million.
We could actually use the ACOA budget to eliminate federal
corporate taxes from Atlantic Canada. This is just one idea of
something we could do that might create even greater levels of
growth than perhaps ACOA has created. We recognize that ACOA has
had some successes in the past but it has also had significant
failures. In some ways, perhaps the ACOA model was a more
successful model in the old economy than it would be in the new
economy.
We need to have a very important debate about equalization
reform and economic development reform. The campaign for
fairness that Premier John Hamm of Nova Scotia has engaged in and
is travelling throughout the country speaking on with opinion
leaders and public policy makers, is a very important campaign.
He is pointing out the flaw in equalization that is taking the
clawback that is resulting in an 81% loss of offshore revenue.
1155
Every dollar that goes into Nova Scotia from new offshore
revenue is clawed back by the federal government. New Brunswick
may be in the same position in the future, not necessarily
through offshore revenues but perhaps through some other
revenues, such as IT development or some other means. This
speaks to a larger issue, which is the need for reform.
It is important to recognize that there is a precedent to
Premier Hamm's argument that the current equalization system is
flawed in that regard.
Equalization payments began in 1958. Alberta was receiving
revenues from petroleum at that time and continued to receive
those revenues until 1965, at which time it had achieved a level
of economic dependence, which, of course, brought it out of the
recipient province status and into a contributing province
status. During that period of time, between when equalization
started as a program and when Alberta was able to achieve
self-sufficiency through the growth in petroleum revenues,
Alberta continued to receive 100% of equalization revenue. I
think that was an important precedent. That is why Alberta
Premier Ralph Klein has been supportive of Nova Scotia Premier
John Hamm's initiative.
It is important that we recognize in the House that before
Albertans had the wisdom, foresight and vision to put oil in the
ground, it was a have not province. We and recipient provinces
are simply looking for the same opportunity to utilize our
revenues in order to end the cycle of dependency.
I believe that in 10 years provinces will be looking back at a
time when they were recipient provinces. I also believe there
will be a significant possibility, if we work collectively and
the provincial and federal governments share in the vision of
economic self-sufficiency and opportunity, that we will see many
of the provinces, which are currently recipient provinces,
achieve the economic self-sufficiency and opportunity.
Saskatchewan is another province that has that level of
potential. However, it will not happen unless we change
equalization and adapt the formula to reflect the realities of
modern economic theory, which is to lower taxes and debt and
create policies that enable provinces or other jurisdictions to
achieve those very important infrastructure items. Unless
provinces are in a position to do that, we will not see the light
at the end of the tunnel and economic dependency will be
something that we will continue to accept in Canada as opposed to
the notion of economic opportunity in every region.
In closing, I would hope that we would change our approach to
equalization to recognize that equalization should not just stand
for the notion of approximately equal levels of services and
taxes across the country, but that, in a more general sense, we
should recognize it as an opportunity for provinces and
individuals across Canada to achieve full equality of opportunity
and success in the 21st century.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments from the
member for Kings—Hants. I think he is trying to be creative by
putting out some ideas and propositions.
1200
The notion that money from ACOA or an equivalent amount could
result in the elimination of corporate income taxes in Nova
Scotia is interesting. I am not sure how that would work at the
federal level in the sense of uniform corporate tax rates. That
is the kind of thinking we need to get into.
Last year the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency allocated
$700 million to the maritime provinces to encourage innovation
and transition economies et cetera. Unfortunately the take-up on
it has not been significant, but it offers some big potential.
I will touch briefly on the question of offshore resources. In
1986 the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore accord was signed. The
accord shelters a percentage of Nova Scotia's offshore revenues
from equalization reductions for a transitional period of 10
years. Whenever the accord is triggered, Nova Scotia would be
able to effectively shelter 90% of offshore revenues against
equalization reductions in the first year. Thereafter,
protection decreases by 10% each year until it reaches zero, at
which time the tax rate would return to the normal 100%.
The accord was never meant to provide a permanent benefit to
Nova Scotia. It was triggered in 1993-94 as offshore productions
began in the Cohasset and Panuke gasfields. Since then Nova
Scotia has received a total of $32 million from the accord.
We need to be clear about this. Any suggestion that
equalization payments should remain intact while a province like
Nova Scotia grows richer must be rejected. If we followed
through on that proposition we would probably end up paying
equalization to Alberta.
I wonder if the member for Kings—Hants could elaborate on
those comments. I refer specifically to the analogy he drew in
redeploying, let us say, ACOA resources in Nova Scotia to a
reduction in corporate taxes. Does he see that at the provincial
level or the federal level? How exactly would that work?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the parliamentary secretary.
The notion was that ACOA, or funding for regional economic
development programs like ACOA, could be used to address issues
like corporate taxes which are an impediment to economic growth.
The idea deserves further debate and discussion. That is the
type of thing we should be doing at the finance committee,
frankly. We should be taking a hard look at our economic
development strategies.
That is not to say everything ACOA does is wrong. Some of
ACOA's involvement has been successful. However I believe
aggressive tax strategies could achieve more than direct
government investment in businesses.
The Atlantic innovation fund has not yet, to my knowledge, made
an investment in Atlantic Canada, although some of its $700
million has been announced three or four times in various forms.
The program was announced in a great flurry of media activity in
Halifax last summer in a pre-election move, after the Liberals
were once again able to find Atlantic Canada on a map. With
media and spin doctors present, they presented the oft-announced
plan from a Brink's truck in front of the World Trade and
Convention Centre in Halifax. The plan has yet to congeal.
In Atlantic Canada no one yet knows how the program will work or
how the funding will be delivered. The Canadian Foundation for
Innovation continues to invest in other parts of the country but
is holding off to a significant degree in Atlantic Canada until
the new growth or innovation fund is put together. It is not
achieving its goals.
In terms of the clawback, there is a precedent from which
Alberta benefited. The member said if that were the case Alberta
would still receive equalization. That is not true at all. His
argument is wrong because Alberta was able to achieve a level of
self-sufficiency which prevented it from being able to receive
equalization.
1205
That is what we want to achieve in Nova Scotia. However in the
interim we do not want to lose, in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New
Brunswick or any recipient province, 81% or 81 cents of every
dollar on clawbacks. That would prevent provinces like Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick from reducing their corporate tax burden
and debt burden and from effectively embracing the opportunities
of the new economy.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague on his thought provoking speech. This
is a topic where I am not sure whether the word we are using
fits. We are talking about equalization. There is absolutely
nothing equal about the issue we are discussing as it relates to
the Atlantic provinces. There is an old saying that everyone is
equal but some are more equal than others. Certainly in this
case we have found out that some across the country are more
equal than we are.
When I say I am not sure we are using the right word, I do not
know if anyone else is sure we are using the right word. I refer
particularly to government.
Some time ago I raised the topic, as I have done on several
occasions, with the Minister of Finance. I raised it because it
is perhaps the most important issue that could be addressed in
the House, since it relates to the economic well-being of the
country.
I am not talking just about Newfoundland or Nova Scotia or the
Atlantic provinces. I am talking about the country. We have now
what we could refer to as federal welfare. We have a Robin Hood
system that takes from the rich, particularly in Alberta and
Ontario, and helps those who need it. It helps those who, as we
say, are not equal.
Are we making them equal, however, with the pittance we give
them? No, we certainly are not. We are merely boosting their
economies slightly.
When we look at the freezes and cuts that have been made to CHST
transfers we realize, as someone already said today, that the
federal government now pays something like 13% or 14% of health
and post-secondary education costs. At one time it paid 50% of
those costs. The provinces, none of whom are being helped by the
federal government to bolster their own economies, are trying to
manage excessive social costs. Health care in the provinces,
because of an aging population and increasing costs, takes up
most of the money in the pot.
Post-secondary education is left to try to survive on its own.
The level of investment in education in the country is a shame,
and our students are the ones who are paying.
In the past few weeks a lot of attention has been paid by
provinces to equalization. Perhaps what government members
should do, instead of debating the issue and sitting back and
doing nothing as they has always done, is visit the areas Premier
Hamm visits. They could then listen to his basic, down to earth,
factual speeches about the benefit of letting provinces like
Newfoundland develop their own resources.
That would not only give provinces like mine a measure of
satisfaction, it would enable them to hold on to their revenues
until they reached the Canadian average. They could then start
contributing to the Canadian economy, and provinces like Alberta
and Ontario would not need to give them welfare.
Provinces like Newfoundland could then start contributing to
equalization. They could help bolster the economies of provinces
that did not have the same resources, encourage those provinces
to invest in their own economies and help them create the
infrastructure necessary to develop resources and profits that
would turn them into have provinces.
1210
It is a very simple process. It was done in Alberta, even
though the Minister of Finance told me it was not. When
equalization was instituted Alberta's revenue started to be
clawed back. The province was given, after a seven or eight year
hiatus, a chance to invest its royalties in its infrastructure.
It has since become not only self-sufficient but one of the major
contributing partners in the country.
That is what Confederation is supposed to be about. Surely we
can assist the process with a bit of common sense. That is all
Premier Hamm of Nova Scotia is asking. That is all Premier
Grimes of Newfoundland asked when he visited the Prime Minister
last week. When Premier Grimes returned to Newfoundland from his
visit to Ottawa he stated:
The prime minister is clearly committed to the notion
that—provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador could keep more
of their source revenues. My understanding and my impression
from my meeting with the prime minister is that he is of the view
that that's the right thing to do—as soon as they can do it,
and there's no reason to wait.
Within minutes of the premier saying that, the Prime Minister's
Office issued a terse release which said that the premier was
wrong and that no commitments had been made.
We have a premier saying the Prime Minister committed to give
Newfoundland a fair deal. We have the Prime Minister saying he
is wrong and that he did not say such a thing. The Minister of
Industry inserted himself, as he always does, and agreed with
both of them, as he always does.
Getting back to the Minister of Industry, who was the premier of
Newfoundland for years, we might ask if he took up the fight
Premier Hamm is now taking up? Absolutely not. Did he take it
up when he was a minister in the government opposite for a number
of years? Absolutely not.
When did he take it up? He took it up during the last federal
election in November, when he decided he was not going anywhere
in Newfoundland. He ran in the safest Liberal seat in
Newfoundland, the seat held by the former premier. After the
first election he did not even have the nerve to stay there. He
ran to what was the safest seat in the province, the only seat
that had never been represented by anybody except a Liberal.
We saw what happened there after he left. A Tory was elected
for the first time in history because of the impressions people
had of the person who now wants to be Prime Minister of Canada.
During the election campaign he and his minister of tourism, who
ran in my riding of St. John's West, campaigned on the slogan
“New Team, New Deal”.
What was the new team? It was not a new team. It was the same
old team. I took care of one half. I would have taken care of
the other if he had had the nerve to run in that riding, the
riding in which he lives. However he did not.
Mr. Scott Brison: But they know him.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: But they know him, absolutely. They
knew him there, and they will know him where he is now. They
have known him everywhere he has gone.
The new deal he talked about was a new deal for Newfoundland in
regard to equalization and clawback. What do we hear? We hear
the Prime Minister say no. We hear the finance minister say he
will not change it, even though he told me he will continue to
look at it.
We have been looking at it long enough. Let us give provinces
that have resources a chance to develop and invest in their own
infrastructure so they can create more revenues to help those who
cannot help themselves. That is what Confederation is all about,
and it is about time we start practising what we preach.
1215
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what seems to be forgotten in
the debate is that the development of offshore resources in Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland promises new jobs, higher incomes and
greater self-reliance for the people of both provinces. The
people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland will be the big winners,
and that is the way it should be. Provincial treasuries will
also benefit.
To suggest that equalization payments should remain entirely
intact was never the intent. I come back to the comment made
about the province of Alberta. While it is true that Alberta
received equalization payments when they were introduced in 1957,
only three tax bases were used at the time: personal income
taxes, corporate income taxes and succession duties. As the tax
bases were broadened Alberta failed to qualify. If we were to go
back today to the original program of personal income taxes,
corporate taxes and succession duties, Nova Scotia would receive
about $740 million less per year.
We have the right balance now. There is an incentive for
provinces to develop offshore resources. There is a transition
away from equalization payments. The bottom line is that it
provides a tremendous opportunity for these provinces to create
new confidence, new employment and new career opportunities.
Given that argument, we have a formula that recognizes incentive
and provides an equal footing for all provinces depending on
their resource and taxation bases. Would the member agree that
it is a fair and sound formula?
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong
if he thinks that I or anybody with a degree of common sense
would agree with a stand like that. We are the ones who would
make sure the country stays the way it is. He might want the
rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and for all of us
to be subservient to the party opposite.
Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or any other province has no intention
of asking to hold on to equalization payments while obtaining
revenue from its resources. These provinces are asking for a
phase in until they reach the Canadian average where they would
then become contributors. They will not require any equalization
payments after that because they will live on revenues that come
from royalties.
The member is saying that these provinces are benefiting greatly
and that the money is pouring in. If we listen to the Minister
of Industry talk about how well these provinces are doing with
their gross domestic product, everybody would think that
Newfoundland is benefiting royally. Most of the profits are
going outside the province. Oil is bypassing its shores and
being processed elsewhere, as is its shrimp. These make up the
two main components that create Newfoundland's GDP.
Newfoundland is not doing well because it is being treated like
people on welfare: if they make 50 cents, the government takes it
back. It is better for the people to stay home and do nothing
than it is for them to work. It is better for Newfoundland and
Nova Scotia to leave their resources in the ground or in the
sea because then they will always have them. They will not be
better off if they are under a government like this one which
wants to keep them down. It is time that changed.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-18, an act
to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. Earlier
the finance critic of the Canadian Alliance, the hon. member for
Calgary Southeast, highlighted very beautifully our position and
the weaknesses in the bill.
For the benefit of the folks at home I would like to tell them
that for fiscal year 1999-2000 the bill removes the ceiling that
would otherwise apply to equalization payments.
We recognize that different provinces and regions of Canada have
different levels of wealth. All wish to provide similar services
to their residents. We are committed to the constitutional
principle of making equalization payments to ensure that
provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide their
residents with reasonably comparable levels of basic services at
a reasonably comparable level of taxation. It will allow all
Canadians from coast to coast to enjoy a comparable quality of
important government services.
1220
The bill implements a commitment by the Prime Minister to the
first ministers to lift the cap on the first year of a five year
cycle of equalization payments. Bill C-18 would increase
equalization transfers by $792 million with over 50% going to
Quebec, a per capita increase of $67.
The increase results from growth beyond the $10 billion ceiling.
It was done to accommodate the demands of provinces made during
negotiations with the premiers over the $21.1 billion CHST
transfer package which was concluded in September 2000.
While the Canadian Alliance is open to exploring a new
equalization system, that does not penalize poorer provinces that
benefit from unexpected growth or new resource royalties, we
believe the equalization formula should be consistently applied.
The official opposition has consistently called for reform of
the equalization system to allow the poorer provinces to benefit
from their economic development. Nova Scotia's Conservative
Premier John Hamm is calling for equalization reform as part of
his campaign for fairness. When he was premier of Newfoundland
the industry minister also spoke in favour of equalization
reform. There is a need for equalization reform and everyone is
talking about it.
For every dollar a province gains in royalties, the federal
government reduces its equalization payments by about 75 cents.
The current equalization formula actually prevents the
equalization of economic opportunity among the provinces. The
bill merely touches on one aspect of the problem. There are many
other aspects that I will be talking about in detail a little
later.
Rather than address the issue of equalization payments on a
piecemeal basis, a full and thorough debate is needed in the
House. The equalization ceiling exists to protect federal
taxpayers from excess growth in payments.
The Canadian Alliance supported the $21.1 billion increase in
the 2000 CHST fiscal accord. We also supported reviewing the
application of the formula to stop penalizing provinces that
experience strong growth or increases in the non-renewable
resource revenues. We believe that maintaining the ceiling is
necessary for the overall integrity of the program.
We also believe that the equalization system should serve the
longer term purpose of equalizing economic opportunity and
autonomy in all regions and should not create incentives for
perverse economic policies on the part of provincial governments.
The lifting of the cap is a one time ad hoc reaction that fails
to address the bigger and longer term problems. It was promised
for purely political reasons. It may be good politics, but is it
a good policy? The fact that this one time band aid solution is
even being proposed indicates a need for open disclosure in
parliament, in the provinces and among levels of government to
come up with ways to prevent the necessity of applying such band
aid solutions time after time.
I will describe the equalization payment system that the
government operates. Every five years since 1957 the federal
government through the finance department reviewed the
equalization program. The purpose of the equalization program is
to equalize provincial revenue raising capacity. In theory, this
enables provinces to provide reasonably comparable levels of
public service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
1225
Without equalization payments Canada's wealthier provinces would
be able to provide more services to their residents than the poor
provinces could at the same level of taxation. The equalization
formula is important to the Canadian federation.
The program is only as good as the processes that allow it to
keep pace with the provincial tax system. The key element in the
equalization formula is the representative tax system called RTS.
The RTS is a hypothetical tax system that is supposed to be
representative of the actual systems of the separate provinces.
The key to success rests on how well the RTS reflects provincial
tax systems. The RTS should be comprehensive, representative,
accurate and appropriately categorized.
The RTS should include all revenue sources used to support
public services comprehensively. Partial coverage of the revenue
sources yields a biased picture of the relative fiscal capacity
of the provinces. The RTS should use definitions of tax bases
that reflect the tax structure actually used by the provinces to
reflect what governments actually do. It should not represent
imaginary, unfair and unrealistic measures. It should be
representative of the actual tax systems used in the provinces or
in the country. The data used to measure the various tax bases
must be as accurate as possible for it to be a reliable measure.
The items in the RTS that make up a category or revenue source
should have common characteristics, the ability to be taxed at a
similar rate and should be appropriately categorized. The
finance department currently uses such criteria for its
assessment of the RTS, but nowhere is it explicitly set out.
The finance department has not formalized the set of principles
to guide its review of the RTS. The need for a formalized set of
principles is necessary if we are to arrive at a common way of
estimating the tax base for the provinces. For many of the 33
revenue sources used by the department as measurements, the bases
are not straightforward and no consensus exists.
We on this side of the House have been trying to force this weak
Liberal government, that lacks vision, to do the work necessary
to fix the system.
I spoke to the bill in the last parliament when the five year
time period expired. As I mentioned earlier, the House debated
the details of the equalization program and how it would operate
for the next five years. At that time the government had given
the House only a matter of days to deal with a bill that it was
passing, the one that has to be passed every five years for the
purpose of the operation of the equalization plan.
It was really an outrage. The government did not want the
opposition parties in the House to have very much time to talk
about equalization payments. It held back the bill for three
days and then there were only a few days left before the calendar
year deadline approached. The Liberals said that they had to
rush the bill because the clock was ticking. That was because
they would not put the puck on the ice until five minutes was
left in the game.
Today we are debating a bill that is tinkering with the nation's
equalization program, a program that we all support and that we
all want to operate in the best possible manner. The Liberals do
not want to do that work. The bill touches only one aspect of
the problem, ceilings. How about the other related and more
serious and complicated problems that the bill does not address
at all? The Liberals are pretending that other problems do not
exist. Maybe the problem will go away by pretending that the
problems do not exist.
I will give six examples to prove what I am saying.
1230
First, some provinces calculate their payroll taxes on the total
payroll of business, while other provinces tax only a portion
above certain thresholds. Still other provinces charge no tax at
all. For the purpose of RTS, the base chosen across all
provinces must be common.
Second, for sales taxes, the base used in the RTS is no longer
representative of the tax structure used by all provinces. The
four provinces that account for a third of Canada's population
use a common sales tax base, the GST, which is different from the
one used in the RTS. We are comparing apples to oranges. They
are not equivalent. There is a need to review the way the sales
tax base is currently measured.
Third, there are user fees which are not part of the current
federal-provincial discussions for the 1999 renewal. it is very
important to mention that governments at every level are
resorting to alternative revenue sources such as user fees. It
is a tax with only a semantic distinction.
Provincial and local government receipts from user fees doubled
from $6 billion in 1984 to $12 billion in 1994. It doubled in 10
years.
How these revenues are treated in the equalization formula can
have a significant effect on overall equalization payments. User
fees imposed by the provinces have been part of the equalization
of the RTS since 1967.
Similar fees imposed by the municipalities were brought in with
the 1982 renewal. They are currently included under the
miscellaneous revenue category of the RTS. It is a category that
is altogether different and impacts on the calculations of the
complicated equalization formula.
Fourth, since 1977 lottery revenues have been treated as a
separate revenue source in the RTS, with gross revenues from the
sale of lottery tickets constituting the lottery base. It worked
well until the provincial gaming sector became significantly
transformed. Today, provinces are operating video games,
casinos, bingos, VLTs, break-open tickets and other games of
chance.
The RTS base does not cover these newer gaming activities. This
is unfair. The revenues are treated differently for equalization
purposes. Where a casino is operated by a provincial lottery
corporation, profits are equalized under the lottery revenue
source. If the casino is operated by a government department,
the gross revenues of the casino are equalized under the
miscellaneous revenue source in the RTS. Again, the weak Liberal
government allows mixing apples with oranges. Similar inequities
arise in the treatment of revenues from other games. That is
unfair.
The RTS has become less representative of the provincial taxing
policy. We will see if the government is addressing these gaming
inequities in the bill. It has its chance. It needs to look at
it.
Fifth, is resource taxation which is an area where the ground is
always shifting. The resource revenue type bases in the RTS are
measured on the basis of the value or volume of production.
Ideally they would be measured on the basis of economic rent or
the value of the resource over its cost of production. Rent is a
measure of taxable potential, not actual but potential. It
consists of a value that can be taxed without affecting
production because natural resources in different locations can
differ in quality and production costs. Rent associated with
them can also differ significantly. These differences are not
captured by the value or volume of production.
1235
There are many flaws in the present equalization program. It
should be completely reformed. We know the equalization
provision has limited the cumulative growth of total equalization
payments to the cumulative growth of GNP, gross national product,
from the base.
Sixth, the ceiling and floor levels were introduced. I will not
elaborate on that much but it does not work favourably. Rather
it would make it difficult for the provinces, particularly those
close to the floor level, to plan their budgets.
There is asymmetrical treatment of underpayments and
overpayments. The overpayments are treated as non-interest
bearing loans to the provinces. This is an important one. In
the last year or so, it cost the federal government $38 million.
Free use of federal funds is not necessarily shared equally by
all of the receiving provinces. The federal government does not
charge interest on the underpayment. So the government has
manipulated the program for political favours. The former
premier of Newfoundland, who is Minister of Industry, was given a
gift before the election. That is the kind of favours I am
talking about. That is how the government can manipulate because
the system is not fair.
Evolving over many decades, every five years the traditional
political parties have given us an extremely convoluted and
complex process. If the design is so archaic and cryptic that it
defies logic and reason. It is not fair that our system is such
a conundrum. Equalization as it is structured is divisive. It
pits one Canadian against another. That is not right. The
measurements should be accurate, reliable and sound. In this
case, they are not.
The Reform Party of Canada, now the Canadian Alliance, advanced
the new Canada act which sought to improve the Canadian political
and economic system. There is a need for a single social union
agreement on transfers from the federal government to the
provinces.
Since we are debating the bill, I ask the government members to
please look into the whole issue and make a serious attempt to
reform our equalization program.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to the hon.
member for Surrey Central for a very good speech on equalization
payments, and on this particular bill. He has given both a
political and a practical perspective to it.
Would he have any comments with respect to the overall picture,
which is the need to provide adequate funding for the social
services that are provided for our citizens across the country?
He made some allusion to the fact that we agree with this, but I
would like him to just reinforce that and to emphasize that the
Canadian Alliance members believe we have to exercise a social
conscience as we run the affairs of government.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, we are here, in the
highest chamber of the country, to serve Canadians. We should
treat them equally. They have the right to be treated equally,
irrespective of the province they live in. They should have
equal access to the important government services.
However, the way our system works, different provinces have
different sources of revenue. They have different volumes of
revenue. Their incomes, in layman's terms, are not equal. The
amount of money left for spending on the services, particularly
the social services, may not be equal. Rich provinces have more
money to spend on social services than the poorer provinces.
That will lead to unequal services being offered to the citizens
of the provinces. This is not right. Canada is a wonderful
country. It is our moral responsibility to see that all
Canadians, wherever they live, have equal access to important
government services.
1240
Therefore, one innovative or workable way, although it does not
work at the moment, is the equalization payment formula. However,
at the moment this formula is biased, unfair and unreasonable.
It does not measure the different elements which compose or
contribute to the equalization formula. That is why it is
important that we sincerely put all our efforts into working on
the equalization formula so that it provides a fair and equitable
means to all provinces and Canadians from coast to coast.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to speak on this important debate on Bill C-18.
This is a bill of a temporary measure, but it is good for us to
be able to see it in the larger context.
I would like to say something about the basic philosophy of
equalization payments. What it says is people in Canada who
cannot afford certain services because of their wealth or lack of
it are still entitled to basic services. I cannot emphasize
enough that I agree wholeheartedly with this premise.
The Prime Minister sometimes says, when he speaks of helping
those in need, that this is the Canadian way. Unfortunately, in
our political environment, it is all together too selective at
times. We see certain people who have their needs met almost
instantaneously and others have to work for years and years to
have their needs met.
I am thinking of the tainted blood scandal and the hepatitis C
victims. These are people who, because of a lack of proper
procedures by the federal government, were injured by that very
specific shortcoming of the federal government. Other provinces,
such as Ontario, said that these victims should all be
compensated for their loss, but not all of them were. In the
federal government scheme of things there was a very narrow
window defined. If they were outside of that window, it was too
bad.
It so happens that my uncle died from hepatitis. He left a
widow. He was in that exact category. He was diagnosed with a
brain tumour. The operation was successful and he bounced right
back. Before the operation he had problems with headaches and
disorientation. However, his recovery took very long. He was
always ill. Eventually they diagnosed that he was a victim of
tainted blood. He had received hepatitis via his blood
transfusions during the operation. He was outside the window for
compensation. Is there any compensation for that loss? It seems
not, so they fight and fight. Yet others receive aid very
quickly.
1245
In the larger scheme, when an election is coming and there is a
flood, the promises of compensation and aid to farmers suffering
from the disaster are immediate and are large. If it is not
during an election or if it is in an area where there does not
seem to be a great deal of political capital to be gained, it
appears to us, as objectively as we try to look at it, that there
is some bias on whether or not that helping hand is extended. I
personally believe that we need to give a helping hand to those
who cannot afford these things.
I grew up in Saskatchewan. I was born on the prairies, a first
generation Canadian, my parents having been youngsters when their
families escaped from Russia and came to Canada to make it their
home. I remember very well in the early years of my life, which
would have been in the 1940s, there was not a great deal of aid
for people who were in distress. I know it is hard to believe I
am that old, but I am getting there.
It was not an unusual occurrence for my family that the church
community I grew up in would reach out a hand to those who needed
it. Sometimes it was in the form of a loan. Sometimes it was in
the form of outright gifts. Sometimes there were food transfers.
That was the way things were done because we were people who were
compassionate for those in need.
Later on when my wife and I were married we became aware of a
couple who had come to Alberta from Ontario or even farther east.
I do not remember which province they were from. They had moved
to Alberta and they were in dire straits. They had no jobs and
no income. He claimed that the police had stolen his car. We
later found out that the police had confiscated it because they
could not get into the trunk and they suspected there were drugs
in it, but that is another story.
This couple was without food and without shelter. We did not go
to a welfare agency. We did not see what we could do to get
public funds for them. The way we thought was a natural thing.
We knew these were people in need and we looked for ways to help
them. I remember trundling groceries up to the second floor
apartment that we had arranged for them. We made the payments on
the rent for the first month or two so that they could get
settled. One of the men in our group gave this man a job. We
tried to help them.
Through the process of ever increasing taxation and with the
present Liberal government and past Liberal style governments we
have had over the last 40 or 50 years, we have had an increasing
shift of social responsibility away from families, away from
churches, and on to the government. Nowadays we end up with very
little fiscal capacity as individuals and as families to actually
accommodate the needs of people we encounter.
It is much more natural now to say we will see if we can help
people get to the social services centre where there is a
government program. This seems to be a general trend that our
governments have taken over the last 30 or 40 years. In a way it
is good, but it also has a tremendous downside, which is that
while it trades on the fact that we as Canadians are
compassionate to people in need, it takes away from us the
capacity to actually exercise that compassion.
We are taxed to death. I was talking to an individual just
yesterday and said that as a young family the decision was made
that my wife would be a full time mom, so I was the sole wage
earner. Even then our marginal tax rates were 40% to 45%.
I taught a night class instead of having my wife take a job. I
taught full time in the daytime and I taught a couple of night
courses to supplement our income. I used to say I worked Tuesday
nights for Trudeau and Thursday nights for my family. Basically
people live on half of their incomes.
1250
One of the reasons I became a member of parliament was to try to
address the question of the huge overtaxation. My family and
thousands of families like us have lived on something between 30%
and 50% of our income. I believe in personal charity. Over the
years, besides having 50% of my earnings taken away from me for
taxation, I have usually given between 10% and 20% of my income
to charities.
In addition, since we were looking at retiring on only my
pension which was not that great I put a little into RRSPs.
Another 8% to 10% went into that. I had 30% of my salary left.
We struggled month after month to pay the bills.
The situation has not changed a great deal. I can say it is
great that we live in a country where everyone has free health
care. I concur with that, but it has to be done efficiently. The
federal, provincial and municipal governments took their taxes
from money I had worked very hard for. I really needed a greater
income for my family. I am speaking now of before I was a member
of parliament. I do not want anyone to conclude that I am crying
because I do not earn enough here. We struggled and said that if
they were to take that money they had better use it very wisely.
One reason the Conservatives fell out of grace with many people
in the west was that they were not perceived to be handling the
money properly. They were not addressing the question of the
debt. They were not addressing the question of huge interest
payments.
I resented the fact that half of my income went to taxes and of
that 30% was being used for interest payments on a debt which had
burgeoned out of control because of lack of fiscal control by the
government. That is why I came here.
Today we are talking about equalization payments. While I am in
favour philosophically of helping people who need help, I am not
in favour of doing that in an inefficient, wasteful or unfair
way.
In passing, I should like to make a statement about equalization
payments. Since they are done based on provincial numbers, there
is no recognition of the fact that poor people are living in all
provinces. Over the years I have thought of this often. Here is
a specific example.
I was a young teacher with a young family, trying to make ends
meet, making $6,000 a year. Through my unemployment insurance,
it was called UI in those days, I was subsidizing a fisherman who
made $18,000 a year. It somehow seemed to me unfair because I
had no eligibility to ever make a claim. This was especially the
case in those years when I was a student and my part time job
required that I make UI contributions. I would quit in fall to
go back to classes and I was not eligible to receive any
benefits. That money was going to subsidize people who were
making 20, 3 or 40 times as much as I was.
That is one thing the equalization program does not address. If
we have poor people living in the so-called have provinces, they
are proportionately disadvantaged compared to in some cases rich
people who are living in the have not provinces. The well off
people in the have provinces are paying huge amounts of money. I
guess the Liberal way is to tax them to death.
When we proposed to level off the tax burden for those who make
an adequate amount of money, we were told all we wanted to do was
give tax breaks to the rich. The fact of the matter is that the
equalization program gives transfers to provinces where some very
rich people live, and those people benefit from those transfers.
1255
I will put this in perspective. Most people here know the
history of transfer payments. I picked up a book which had a
chapter on them and found out a few things that were rather
interesting. For fiscal year 2001 it is estimated that the total
cash payments from the federal government to the provincial,
territorial and local governments will total almost $25 billion.
That is a lot of money.
I play with mathematics as some people play on the golf course.
Whenever I have an opportunity to do some simple math I do it for
recreation. Some time back I built a spreadsheet showing the
major federal transfers to the provinces. From 1980 until 1999 I
have a breakdown of the total major federal transfers from the
federal government to the individual provinces.
It is fascinating to see that in that 20 year period
Newfoundland received a total of some $22.5 billion in transfers;
Prince Edward Island, $4.9 billion; Nova Scotia, $28.7 billion.
New Brunswick, $24.9 billion; Quebec, $178.3 billion; Ontario,
$154 billion; Manitoba, some $30 billion; Saskatchewan, almost
$20 billion; Alberta, close to $40 billion; and British Columbia,
almost $53 billion.
From 1980 to 1999 the total major federal transfers to the 10
provinces was $556 billion. That does not include Yukon and the
Northwest Territories. At that time Nunavut did not exist. That
amount essentially is equal to our national debt. If we add in
the Northwest Territories and Yukon, the total major federal
transfers to the provinces and territories for the 20 year period
was $573 billion. By a strange coincidence that is almost equal
to the present value of our national debt.
We agree with transfer payments, but they must be made wisely.
It looks to us as if we could have had zero debt if they would
have been managed better. I am not in any way suggesting that
transfer payments should not have been made, but meanwhile with
the growing rate of the debt there are interest payments due
every year. The federal Liberal, then Conservative and then
again Liberal governments did not address this issue until we
came along and pretty well pushed them into it. The debt is out
of hand. We are now spending $30 billion a year on interest
payments. That should not be the case.
It is also interesting to find out that the whole idea of
transfer payments is almost as old as history. It is included in
our constitution. As a matter of fact most of us know that the
repatriated constitution of 1982 has a clause in it which
supports the concept of equalization payments. The formal system
of equalization payments as we have come to know it today
actually came into being in the mid-1950s when I graduated from
high school. Now a very complicated formula is used which I wish
I had time to explain to people.
I have been on the finance committee now for several years.
Several years ago we had experts explain to us how the federal
system of equalization works.
1300
I remember with some amusement that during those hearings I
asked one of these officials, after he had gone through a number
of convoluted explanations of how these different things work, if
there really was anyone who understood this totally. He looked
at me and said probably not. He sort of admitted that even he,
being one of the officials, did not know everything about it. He
specialized in one area.
It is indeed very complicated. The federal government, in
computing the amount of transfer payment, does not to compute how
much income each province earns. Rather, it has a formula which,
in 34 categories, looks at how much income the provinces could
earn. There are different categories for the building of a
national average. From that national average, the federal
government computes, province by province in each category,
whether each province in each category is in a surplus or deficit
situation.
I remember when the government added the lottery category about
five or six years ago. It was not a question of how much money a
province earned through lotteries but how much it could earn. At
that time, the equalization payments to Manitoba dropped by about
$50 million. Why? Because even though there were literally
thousands of people in Manitoba who on principle did not support
the lotteries, it was deemed that it could have raised this money
if those people would have bought those lottery tickets.
The fact that they did not buy the tickets meant that the
provincial government did not have the income. If the people of
Manitoba could be persuaded to buy lottery tickets, that would
give their government more money. The fact that they were not
persuaded took the money away from the provincial government and
the formula took the federal transfer payments from Manitoba as
well, because the federal government deemed that this was an
amount that the province could have earned.
We have documented in the public accounts and other sources the
formulas that are used to compute these payments. If I look at
the lottery ticket revenue, according to this formula
Newfoundland is $31 million short on lottery revenue. P.E.I. is
$2.4 million over. Quebec is $63 million under. This qualifies
the different provinces for transfers based on whether they are
in a positive or negative situation. Alberta is in the plus
category by $159 million. Consequently its equalization revenue
is actually increased because of the amount of revenue that it
presumably could earn using lotteries.
That is just one category. There are many others. They include
the sale of licence plates for vehicles. They include many other
categories. All 34 categories are listed in this documentation.
It is interesting to see how, by using this formula, the
government is able to arrange for different amounts of money,
sometimes motivated for or by political reasons, for transfers to
the provinces.
In conclusion I will simply say that we support in principle
utilizing the wealth that we have in order to
provide a comparable level of services to all of our citizens
across the country.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of
privilege. Yesterday was international day for the elimination
of racial discrimination and recognition of the current existence
of hate and racism throughout the world.
Yesterday I mistakenly linked the city of Prince George with a
specific hate activity. I regret that and I apologize to the
people of Prince George.
1305
I am very proud of what communities have accomplished in this
country to counter racism and hate and to promote cultural
diversity, especially the city of Prince George's city council
task force on hate activities.
As Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, racism and hate
activities are very important and serious issues to me, as I know
they are to Canadians by the prompt and immediate actions taken
by municipalities and communities throughout the country to
counteract such activities.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the secretary of state mentioned a letter
that she had from the mayor of Prince George. I wonder if she
would table that letter in the House if she had it.
The Speaker: The Minister of State—
An hon. member: Where is she going?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the minister made her statement she left the House before
the government—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The minister has made a
statement. The hon. opposition House leader has asked a
question. Obviously no response is forthcoming. There is
nothing the Chair can do in the circumstances.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday
I stood in the House on a point of order in response to her
malicious and false accusations against the people of Prince
George. Today, yesterday as she spoke, and last night, we had
absolute confirmation that she was indeed absolutely wrong in her
statements.
She did not come to the House today because she voluntarily
wanted to. She came because she was caught in a falsehood.
The Speaker: The fact is the statement has been made. The
hon. member is not seeming to make a point of order. He is
perhaps disagreeing with the statement or something. I do not
know, but I wish he would come to his point. There is no point
in protracting the matter. The withdrawal has been made.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked in the
House for an apology. There was no apology from the minister
today. We would like her to table the letter she received that
she used in her statement yesterday.
The Speaker: Hon. members can review the statement when
the blues are available and see what the minister said. My
understanding is that there was an apology and withdrawal. I
believe the matter is closed.
If members wish to ask about other documents, there is an
opportunity for that to happen at a subsequent time and I would
invite hon. members to take advantage of those opportunities when
they arise.
* * *
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an
act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would have been tempted to ask a question of the member for Elk
Island but I was not sure whether or not I had the floor. As I
do, perhaps I will respond briefly to some of what the member had
to say, because it seems to me there was a thread throughout some
of what he had to say which was critical of the equalization
payment scheme we have in this country.
I would remind the member of two things. Equalization is part
of the Constitution of Canada. This was constitutionalized in
1982. It is a critical element of Canadian social and economic
policy that all citizens, no matter where they live, be served by
provincial governments that, because of equalization payments,
are able to provide comparable levels of services to all
citizens.
1310
The fact that Canadian citizens who live in so-called have
provinces have to contribute to that through the federal transfer
payments is not something that I think the member would want to
be seen criticizing, because I know that his party has been in
trouble in the past for sounding like it would like to do away
with equalization.
I would caution the hon. member that unless he wants to revive
that debate he should be careful as to what he says, because it
sure sounded to me as though there was an undercurrent of
opposition to equalization payments.
It always strikes me as odd when we hear that coming from a
province that is doing as well as the province of Alberta is
doing. We do not want to have a situation in the country where
the gap between rich and poor provinces grows any greater than it
already is. That is the situation that we find ourselves on the
edge of now, given some of the economic circumstances that
prevail.
We in the NDP rise to speak against this particular bill because
of the fact that even though it lifts the ceiling or the cap on
equalization payments for one year, it then goes on to restore
that ceiling or that cap in a way that we find objectionable. It
seems to me that equalization is not just a constitutional
principle. It is a moral principle that there should be this
kind of comparable equality among all Canadians. However, if it
is a constitutional principle, this is something that should not
be capped. There should not be a ceiling put on this particular
constitutional principle.
I wonder if the members of the Alliance Party could have their
meeting outside the House. That is what the curtains are here
for. Mr. Speaker, I am talking to you. I wonder whether those
members could have their meeting outside the House so that—
The Speaker: I am having no trouble hearing the hon.
member. That is why I had not intervened. The hon. member does
have a strong voice. Although he is a long way away, I was still
hearing him quite well. The meeting was not as disturbing to me
as it apparently was to him, in the sense that I guess the sound
was going that way.
I am certainly happy to intervene on behalf of the hon. member
and urge hon. members to show proper restraint in controlling
their conversations in the House.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that if this
is a constitutional principle and one grounded as a certain
normative or moral view of what constitutes Canadian society and
the relationship that all Canadians have with each other through
their federal government so that Canadians, no matter where they
live, can have a comparable level of public services, then this
is not something that there should be a cap on.
What we have seen too often in this last decade or so is the
federal government moving to cap, to limit, its commitment to
certain social programs. It is not just equalization. I think
of a former program called the Canada assistance program, which
was sometimes called CAP for short, which itself was capped by a
Conservative government. It was sometimes called the cap on CAP.
To compound matters, the Liberal government did away with CAP
altogether and brought in the Canada health and social transfer,
sometimes called the CHST.
The federal government wonders why there is not the strong sense
of country that it would sometimes like to see. No wonder, when
we have federal governments that have been progressively
withdrawing from its commitments to social and economic equality
in the country, starting with the Conservatives with the cap on
CAP, or actually starting with the Liberals back in the early
1980s when they were responsible for the first unilateral
reduction in federal transfer payments to the provinces.
Over the course of a long time, the federal government has been
withdrawing from fiscal commitments it made to the provinces in
the course of designing specific national social programs and in
the course of living up to specific national arrangements like
equalization. We in the NDP say here today that a cap on
equalization is wrong and that it should be lifted entirely.
However, if it cannot be lifted entirely, then at the very least,
when the ceiling is put back, as this bill also does, it should
be put back at a base that is higher than where the ceiling was
before it was lifted for this one particular year.
1315
My understanding is that that was the understanding the
provinces had. They understood that when the ceiling was lifted
and the equalization payments rose as a result, that new level
would become the new base. Instead, what this bill does is
return the base to a lower figure and put many provinces,
particularly my home province of Manitoba, in a position in which
they are not as well off as a result of the CHST increases as the
federal government would like to make out. They lose, through
equalization and the restoration of the ceiling next year at this
lower base, what they gained through the increase in the Canada
health and social transfer.
What happens is, despite all the smoke and mirrors and despite
the Liberal campaign promises and the Liberal spin around the
great increase in federal funding to the provinces for health
care that came with the increase in the CHST with the so-called
health accord, provinces like Manitoba are in effect no better
off because they are losing on equalization through the
equalization cap what they gained on CHST. The only provinces
that actually come out of this better are the have provinces
because they do not lose through equalization. They just gain
through CHST.
Where in the heck is the logic of that? Is this what the
government intended, that after all was said and done it would be
the have provinces that have more and the have not provinces that
have less, because that is the result? I do not know if that was
the intended result. I do not know if the government is just
stupid or vicious when it comes to this sort of thing. We can
take our pick. In any event, this is the result of what the
government has done, and what it is doing through this particular
bill.
We say two things. First, lift the cap on equalization. Get
rid of that ceiling that will cost some of the have not provinces
more and more as the years go by, depending on economic
circumstances. Certainly current projections would indicate that
the cap will cost Manitoba for instance something like $100
million. That is a lot of money in Manitoba. It may not seem
like much to a federal government that is projecting a surplus of
$15 billion or whatever. However, $100 million can buy a lot of
public services, health care and post-secondary education in a
province like Manitoba.
What we are seeing is a further downloading on the part of the
federal government. The federal government is building up its
surplus and fighting its deficit on the backs of the provinces,
which in many cases have to deliver those very important services
that Canadians really care about in terms of health care and
education, for instance. The provinces have to take the heat for
the lack of MRIs, or the lack of other diagnostic services, or
crowded classrooms or whatever the case may be.
What we see is a very disturbing trend. The federal government
over the course of many years now, accelerated in a remarkable
way by the Liberals since they came to power in 1993, has been
withdrawing from all these commitments. I think it is part of
the national unity crisis to the extent that there is one.
Liberals spend their time scratching their heads and wondering
why Canadians do not have a stronger attachment to their country,
and how they can get more federal visibility?
Who has done more to destroy federal visibility and
participation than the Liberal Party since it came to power in
1993. It did this through the systematic sell off and
privatization of many of our national institutions and
infrastructure, eliminating post offices, getting rid of our
publicly owned national railway and privatizing Air Canada. The
list goes on of ways in which the federal government has taken
the federal presence, both symbolically and practically, out of
the lives of Canadians. Then the Liberals wonder why Canadians
do not have a strong sense of being Canadian.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. On
top of that it withdraws its fiscal commitment from so many of
these programs and leaves the provinces to pick up the slack.
There is a lot of slack because most of the areas that the
federal government is withdrawing from are growing areas of
expenditure, not diminishing areas of expenditure.
1320
We see the Minister of Finance piling up his surplus, taking
credit for his fiscal management of the country, and yet in many
respects this has been done on the backs of the provinces or the
unemployed through the use of the EI surplus.
What is going to happen if worse comes to worse, we do have a
recession and we have all these ceilings? Is it not nice for the
federal government? It does not have to worry. Recession can
come. All the ways in which it will deal with the social
consequences of a recession are all capped. It does not matter
how bad it gets, the government's commitment is capped: capped
on equalization, capped on CHST at a level that is still lower
than what it was in 1993 when the Liberals became the government,
capped here, capped there, capped everywhere.
It is the provinces that will have to fight the recession, if
there is one, all by themselves. They will have to pick up the
people who do not qualify for EI anymore and go on provincial
welfare. They will have to pick up the increased use of the
health care system as people are stressed out by economic
conditions et cetera. They will have to do that with declining
revenues because the recession itself will affect their revenues.
Meanwhile the federal government will sit back and say, “Oh, we
signed a health accord in August 2000 which solved everything,
even though it didn't put back what we took out in 1995. We've
got an equalization scheme. It's even in our constitution. It's
a great Canadian principle”. However it only goes so far. It
does not go far enough to address the needs of the have not
provinces. It only goes as far as we like it to go without
endangering the federal government's fiscal health.
There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about the bill. I
know most people I think probably regarded this as a bit of care
taking legislation and probably in the end it will not receive
the kind of debate in the House that it deserves. However I
would implore other members of parliament and opposition parties
to take a good look at the bill and take a good look at the
principles and the values that underline it and the way in which
the bill is a repudiation of our constitution. It is a
repudiation of the principle of equalization which is enshrined
in our constitution. It is a danger to the long term health of
have not provinces which are continually and increasingly being
put at a disadvantage in respect of wealthier provinces.
Again I use my own province as an example. However, I certainly
know members from the maritimes have similar concerns about
equalization and have asked for special arrangements whereby some
of the revenues that accrue to those provinces through oil and
gas revenues might not receive such a serious clawback as they do
now in the equalization formula. This is one of the ways in
which this might be addressed, although I do not think there is
unanimity among the provinces with respect to that because not
all provinces that have all oil and gas revenues are asking for
that.
Clearly we need to do something either by way of increasing
equalization for all provinces that require it or coming to some
special arrangements with certain provinces with respect to
certain kinds of revenue. Whatever the case may be, the system
that is put in place by this particular bill is inadequate and
creates a situation in which more and more have not provinces
have their treasuries and ministers of finance put in a position
where they do not know really what to do.
In order to maintain services, in the face of the lack of the
kind of money they feel they should be getting from the federal
government, they have to maintain a certain tax base. If there
is a province next door, or two or three over, that does not have
to maintain that kind of tax base because it is a have province
and it has the revenues, then we have a growing gap between the
so-called tax competitiveness of various provinces.
1325
We get a situation in which provincial governments have no
policy room to manoeuvre. They basically have to imitate some of
the richest provinces. When they do that, they not only lose
their ability to make their own decisions, they are sometimes
forced into making bad or regrettable decisions. That is not
what people had in mind when they came up with the idea of
equalization. That is not what we had in mind in this chamber. I
was here when we constitutionalized the equalization principle.
I would ask the government members to consider whether they want
this to be their legacy. When they had an opportunity to do
something about equalization, when they had a surplus, when they
could have done something to strengthen this constitutional
principle, they did not. Do they want that to be their legacy or
do they want it to be said of them that the Liberals were the
party who finally brought equalization back up to where it should
have been and created the kind of equality in the country that
they like to talk about, but which this bill in its details and
in its principles betrays?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona has been in this place for a long time and I
can only conclude that he has just not kept up to date with some
of the current facts. I would like to clarify for the House and
for Canadians a few facts. I find it strangely ironic that they
came from a member from Manitoba.
In 2000 and 2001, transfers to Manitoba will be $2.3 billion.
It will account for about 35% of Manitoba's revenues and is about
45% above the national average. It is the highest of all four
western provinces.
What exactly did the first ministers agree to at their meeting?
Perhaps the member for Winnipeg—Transcona has not read the
communiqué, so I will remind him. It said:
First Ministers raised the issues of Equalization. The Minister
of Finance will examine this issue further after consultation
with provincial Ministers of Finance. While final revisions for
Equalization purposes for fiscal year 1999-2000 likely will not
be known until October 2002, the Prime Minister agreed to take
the necessary steps to ensure that no ceiling will apply to the
1999-2000 fiscal year. Thereafter, the established Equalization
formula will apply, which allows the program to grow up to the
rate of growth of GDP.
It said in 1999-2000 and all premiers signed this.
The member for Winnipeg—Transcona said because of the removing
of the ceiling, Manitoba or some of the have not provinces will
not benefit and the others will. That is simply misinformation.
He knows full well that Manitoba will receive an additional $76
million as a result of lifting the ceiling.
I have one final note. Equalization has actually increased
faster than anticipated. It has grown by 33% or $2.7 billion
since our government took office. It was the only area of
government programming that was not affected by program reviews.
Did the member for Winnipeg—Transcona have an opportunity to
read the information that was available to him in the communiqué
that was widely published and signed by the premiers?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have a copy of that
communiqué in front of me. In fact, the very quote that I have
in front of me is the same quote that the member read into the
record in the House.
The member said that I have been here for a long time. That is
true. I have seen these kinds of federal-provincial fiscal
arguments go back and forth over the years. The standard line
from the federal government, when we make an argument that a
province is getting less than it would be getting if a certain
formula were preserved, is that less is more than it got the year
before. All we ever get from the government, is how much more the
province is getting. We never get any acknowledgement of the gap
between the more that the provinces are getting and the even more
that they would be getting if the federal government were to
respect the formula, or the constitutional principle, or some
previous agreement or whatever the case may be.
This is the standard form of avoiding the truth that we get from
the federal government when it gets into this kind of pickle. In
the very paragraph that the member read, it said:
There is nothing in the bill which indicates that commitment will
be kept. My understanding from a minister of finance is that the
bill does not keep that commitment and also is not in keeping
with the understanding that the ministers of finance had, that
the base would not return to where it was before.
1330
I think it is kind of typical that the member would stand up and
say that because it is sort of standard federal government fare.
Those members always talk about this or that going up but they
are never prepared to at least be honest and say that it would
have been higher had they kept their commitment. At least they
could explain why they did not keep their commitment and why
there is a gap between the more and the even more. No. All we
get is talk about the more. It is easily done but it does not
convince me.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to
carefully reflect on what he is saying and explain the underlying
principle of what he is talking about.
Is there a perverse incentive to equalization? What is the long
term goal? Should it not be to eventually get off such supports?
Is he talking about more transfers rather than
self-sufficiency? Should equalization not be gradually reduced,
as, for example, offshore revenues greatly increase? If in
future years a province like Newfoundland receives tremendous
more revenue benefits, should its reliance on the formula of
transfers be gradually reduced? What would be his formula to
achieve that self-reliance? Does the member also still believe
that it is always just the rights of the receiver and not
necessarily the rights and benefits of the payer?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we can always count on
certain members of the Alliance Party to reveal their true
colours. Some of them have grown adept at chameleon politics.
They keep trying to look like part of the mainstream by saying
that they are not really against equalization, bilingualism or
this or that, all the things they were against when they came
together to form the against party.
However, with some of them, the truth still comes oozing out.
That member is a good example of one of those members. Here he
is talking about have not provinces that are in receipt of
equalization payments in the same way that I am sure he likes to
stereotype people on welfare. The language was identical.
What the member did not acknowledge is that there is a formula
now. When provinces get to a certain state of economic revenues
they do not receive equalization. That is already built in. Does
the member not know that or was he just trying to make some
perverse point that we are not all like B.C. and Alberta?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member just mentioned have not provinces. That truly tugs at my
heart. It paints a picture of us back in New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland, Quebec and P.E.I.
Does the hon. member, who just got up to ask a question, not
know the role we played in building this country? Does he not
know the history of this country? It started back in P.E.I., in
New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia and in Quebec, and those
equalization payments should be increased so that no one refers
to us as have nots.
I do not know how my Liberal colleagues from the maritime
provinces and Newfoundland can handle their colleagues from
Ontario and out west when they refer to us as have not provinces.
We are proud to be Canadians back in the maritime provinces,
Newfoundland and Quebec.
Does the hon. member agree that the equalization program should
be changed so that no one refers to us now and in the future as
have not provinces? Does the hon. member agree that we will
contribute and continue to contribute to build this country? We
never refer to our people from out west, in Ontario or other
provinces in a negative way. That is not our way of doing things
back east.
1335
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that
question was directed to me or to the member who asked me a
question a little while ago.
To the declaratory part of the statement from the member who
just spoke, all I can say is, amen.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, since the member talked about me at the beginning of his
speech, I want to make a clarification. I guess for there to be
good communication, there has to be a certain amount of synergy
between the speaker and the listener. I wish he had heard what I
said.
In my introduction, I said that I agree with the principle of
equalization. I said that several times in the body of my speech
and it was the closing sentence of my speech.
I used some of my time to talk about a very serious anomaly,
which is that poor people in the have provinces are subsidizing
rich people in the have not provinces. That is a fact. I have a
technical document on that. It is absolutely—
Some hon. members: That is nonsense.
Mr. Ken Epp: It is not nonsense.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. A very fundamental
principle in the Chamber is being able to express oneself freely
in a question or an answer.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think if I use a quick
example I can perhaps put this into perspective. I will use the
technology that is in the legislation. A person in one of the
three contributing provinces who is making $20,000 a year is, by
lack of subsidization of the program in that province,
subsidizing the person in one of the seven receiving provinces
who makes $100,000 a year.
I do not know why the socialists are upset about the fact that I
am saying it is an anomaly to have a person earning $20,000
subsidizing one who is making $100,000.
Mr. Dennis Mills: It does not work that way.
Mr. Ken Epp: That is exactly how it works.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The time has lapsed,
but I want to give the hon. member from Winnipeg—Transcona equal
time to respond to the last comment and question.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: As you said, Mr. Speaker, I am glad
that people have an opportunity to express themselves freely
because I think the more the member for Elk Island expresses
himself freely the more we come to understand the Alliance
position on equalization.
I think most Canadians would find what the member just offered,
a very odd critique of equalization. I am glad he had the
opportunity to clarify because it reinforced the point that I
made. I do not understand how someone can construe equalization
as poor people in rich provinces subsidizing rich people in have
not provinces. I also do not think a lot of other Canadians
understand it.
I do not think one has to be a socialist to object to what the
hon. member is saying. There are people here who probably would
not call themselves socialists but who find the logic of the hon.
member to be somewhat odd.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
be sharing my time with the very nearly right hon. member
for New Brunswick Southwest, who will continue with the second
part of the discussion on this bill.
I must admit that when I was preparing my speech on this bill,
when I saw that the minister was introducing a bill, and when I
saw that the title on the first page was “an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act”, I was pleased.
I said to myself that the people of Quebec, the maritimes and
elsewhere do have some influence, because they have managed to
convince the Minister of Finance.
1340
Perhaps finally the Minister of Finance has listened, perhaps he
has travelled around the country without anyone knowing.
Perhaps he went to ask the provinces what they thought of the
equalization payment system. Perhaps he did this without anyone
knowing about it.
I asked my assistant “Did you just bring me the first page of
the bill?” She told me “No, that's it”. The title of the bill
is an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Act.
I said “There is a problem with the photocopiers at the House of
Commons, something is going on. That is it”.
I must say that the Minister of Finance has not travelled in the
country, he has not met the ministers of finance of the various
provinces and he has not listened to what is going on in the
maritimes or Quebec. So, there is a bill with fewer clauses
than the clarity bill, but we will not get into that. That is
to say that it is not very impressive.
I just want to add one small thing before I go on. Yesterday,
it was announced that the former head of the Reform Party would
be leaving in the course of the year. It was said that a page
of history had been turned, that it was the end of the name
Reform and its approach. It is a new century, a new approach.
Not really. There he is today.
The government is trying to cover up the fact that, to please
people in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, there must be no
opposition to equalization. Out west, it has to say that it is
against equalization, but elsewhere, it has to say it is not.
Today, however, we realize that it is opposed to equalization.
But there is more to it than that. It is the examples it gives
in order to justify it being more or less opposed.
Basically, it is saying “If you get a welfare or an
unemployment cheque from a government, if it involves an
individual, or equalization payments, if it involves a province, then
you are not worth much”. I remind members that they get cheques
from the government themselves, and I am not sure what they are
worth.
That said, for us, equalization payments are vital, but they
need to be modernized.
However, we realize that the Minister of Finance is under a lot
of pressure. We say to him “You must change your system. It is
not right. You are penalizing the provinces, and offending
others. So, let us sit down and see what we can do together”.
The minister's only reply, so that we will leave him alone, is
“I introduced a great bill. I am removing a ceiling”.
Yes, but where are the walls, where are the foundations of the
equalization program? These are the things that must be rebuilt,
with the provinces, with our partners in Confederation. But the
government does not listen.
I heard the parliamentary secretary to the minister say “Listen,
we are giving you a cheque”. He told the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona “You will get an additional $22 million”. This
is a paternalistic system. One must practically get down on
one's knees.
Come on. This is a system that is in effect from coast to coast,
not from minister's office to minister's office.
The government should listen to what is being said in all the
provinces. I am not saying it should agree with everything. No.
The Premier of Newfoundland is going around saying that changes
are necessary. We want to make it and we will succeed. Give us a
chance. But, no, that is no good, according to the government.
I should point out that the Premier of Nova Scotia is a
Conservative. So are the premiers of New Brunswick and Prince
Edward Island. And the Premier of Newfoundland will also be a
Conservative. The current Premier of Newfoundland, as the hon.
member from Newfoundland rightly pointed out in his speech, was
recently elected leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland. He
has contacts in Ottawa and he told his people “They listen to me
in Ottawa.
I will get a commitment from the federal government to renew the
equalization system. You will see. The Minister of Industry and
the Prime Minister are good buddies of mine”.
1345
Off he goes to Ottawa. He tells his people back in Newfoundland
“It's settled. The Prime Minister agrees with us, and so does
the Minister of Industry”. A few minutes later, the PMO says
“Not true”.
I know comparisons are odious, but I still cannot help but think
of the English Prime Minister who went to Germany, and came back
with a piece of paper. He announced “I have settled things with
the German boss” but war was declared just a few days later.
All that to say that this system does not work. The only thing
Bill C-18 does is to try to silence those who want to see major
changes.
We are told that more provinces should be added to the five
currently used as the basis for calculating the equalization
payments. There are arguments on both sides, but our immediate
answer is no.
The Maritimes have sufficient resources to return to what they
once were, but are told that this is not good, that it will not
work. A balance must be struck. There is much talk of
openness. As I have said on many occasions, the ruling party's
conception of this country differs from ours in a number of
ways, and of course from the other opposition parties as well.
For us, the country is comprised of regions and provinces, which
decided to join together. As we know, first there was Quebec,
Ontario, the Maritimes and later the west and the north. They
have joined together and have a central government for shared
services. This is a principle we defend.
The Liberals' principle is a different one.
Canada is Ottawa, which in its great goodness, its vast
generosity, will give little handouts to the regions and the
provinces. This is ignoring history.
These two conceptions mean that Ottawa's management style varies
from one party to another. When it is them, it means we have to
beg the whole time. When it is another conception, it means
simply getting together, discussing and agreeing. That is the
difference. True, it is not always easy, but it is an approach
that must be changed.
On the question of equalization, I remind the House that Bill
C-18 is simply a bandaid, what we call a plaster. Do you know
where they stick the bandaid? It does not go on a leg.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary say “Stick your
bandaid, Bill C-18, here, provinces. Stick it on your lips.
That is the end of that. Until 2004, there will be no talk of
equalization. It is finished”. Will the Minister of Finance
still be here in a few months' time? We will see. We will see
who is going to be the next leader of the Liberal Party. That
is going to change, we know. We know the individuals are going
to change.
Mr. Speaker, between you and me, I hope that the approach will
change as well, that the government will connect again with what
is going on in the provinces and regions. They will never
listen to the argument that the poor in one province pay for the
rich in another. If our tax arguments, our economic and
political arguments are based on such demagoguery, this is not
the country I know. Thank God that people will fight that.
That said, we are very disappointed by the first page of the
bill, which could have had the government reconnect with the
regions and with the economic challenges facing the various
provinces. We do not have a bill, we have a first page, that is
all. Together with our partners in the provinces, we will push
to have the bill complete.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate
the member who just spoke for hitting it on the head, because
what he just described is something we have been pointing out
for some time now in Quebec.
1350
It is for this and for all the reasons he gave, and others as
well, that our dream is to see Quebec independent as soon as
possible.
I have a question for him. Should the member not help us to get
Quebec out of this system for all the good reasons he gave?
There is only one thing I would disagree with, and that is that
whichever government is sitting opposite—I agree it is worse with
the Liberals—the system is exactly as he described for Quebec.
It is no longer any good for Quebec and Quebec wants to run its
own show. Has he understood what I am getting at?
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I have heard and
understood. That said, it is certain that I am not a
sovereignist, on that we agree. We have a different way of
doing things. What we are saying is that we are not closing the
door because there is a problem.
Certainly there are two different ways of doing things, but I
would remind the hon. member that in Quebec, before a certain
referendum was held, there was a commission on the future of
Quebec. The premier of the day, Mr. Parizeau, asked me to sit on
that commission in the Eastern Townships. I was sort of the
token federalist on the commission. We asked questions and the
Parti Quebecois came up with proposals on a sovereign Quebec.
I must tell hon. members that I raised questions about
equalization.
The documents available at the time, when we were discussing
preparations for the referendum, were an accurate reflection of
this country's old equalization system.
The frustrations, which are in many ways understandable, about
the Canadian system for a province within Canada would be the
same for a region within a sovereign Quebec, if the equalization
system retained were the same, but even more centralized, even
more severe and involving fewer elements than the present
Canadian system.
There is one thing that must be said. We all know the old
saying that the grass is always greener on the other side of the
fence. In this case, I believe the members of the Bloc
Quebecois would have everything to gain by again becoming
partners in improving the system instead of slamming the door on
a system that has, overall, been extremely positive from sea to
sea.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with the announcement that the
former leader of the Reform Party was departing, it is too bad
that he did not also announce that he was departing with some of
the attitudes that still permeate throughout the Alliance.
How quickly the members from the great province of Alberta
forget the dirty thirties and how Atlantic Canada sent food,
money, people and help to assist those people during that time.
Does the hon. member not believe that all Canadians deserve
equal levels of education, health, infrastructure and standards
so that we can all be proud to live here and share in the natural
resources that Canada provides for all of us? Would he not agree
in that equality?
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, it is certain that we should
agree with the fact that people are equal in this country. But
equality is one thing. We do not all have the same resources.
Two individuals are different from one another just as two
provinces may differ. The needs of one individual may differ
from those of another, as the needs of provinces may differ.
Demands and support may be different.
What we want to do in our party and in the other, the Canadian
Alliance, is tell those who contend that everybody is the same,
individuals and provinces, that it does not work. Across this
country, things differ. That is the beauty of our country. At
this point, we have to act, react and interact according to the
needs of the community and the individual. However, it is clear
that we must be there to help people, the regions and the
provinces needing it.
1355
Those who can help are those, in short, able to do so according
to a formula.
We are proposing to improve the system, to bring it up to date,
to modernize it and, finally, to take into account the current
realities of certain provinces and the future reality these same
provinces want to attain, but are having a little more trouble
today doing so. The equalization system should be a development
tool rather than a paternalistic tool of a central government.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-18 is certainly an interesting debate. I guess
it brings out the best and the worst in us. Some members in some
parts of the country forget that Canada is a very generous
country. Canada, as we well know regardless of our politics, has
been defined by the United Nations as the best country in the
world.
One of the reasons for that is equalization. It is an accepted
reality in the country that not all the provinces are equal in
terms of resources and richness. The government and the
governments that preceded it, going back to the early sixties,
recognized that and have been very generous over the years.
We can argue on points of generosity and whether or not the
present formula works. However, if we were living in a perfect
world and Canada was absolutely perfect, we would not need
equalization. Unfortunately Atlantic Canada and some of the
western provinces are not blessed with oil in the ground at $40 a
barrel. That is a reality. Who do we blame for that, the Prime
Minister or the Almighty? It is beyond the Prime Minister's
capacity to put oil in the ground in every province, although I
guess if we want to be entirely political we could attack him on
that as well.
I wish to point out, and I hope that my colleagues from Alberta
are listening, that from 1957 to 1965 Alberta received
equalization from Ottawa. What does that tell us?
It tells us that it was not always rich and that it was not
always prosperous. The energy there in its early years was just
as Nova Scotia's is now, in its infancy. The major difference
was that at the time Alberta received 100 cents of every royalty
dollar that came in. For every dollar that it took out of the
ground in oil, it kept it.
What we are arguing in Atlantic Canada, and especially our
friends from Nova Scotia who are now blessed with natural gas, is
that it should have the same formula applied to it as was the
case in Alberta.
If logic prevails, and it does in this argument, and if we want
to raise ourselves to a level of sustainability in terms of the
economy and diversifying the economy, we need the tools to do
that. The biggest tool of all is a financial tool, the financial
resources to build a strong economy as Ralph Klein has done in
Alberta and Premier Lougheed before him. It is building on the
principle that what is ours is ours and we will use it to benefit
the people of our province. That is what we are talking about in
New Brunswick. The formula has to be revisited. Mr. Speaker,
with your permission I will revisit—
The Speaker: The hon. member will have permission and
have about six and a half minutes to revisit the issue after
question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
WORLD WATER DAY
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, March 22, 2001, many Canadians are celebrating World Water
Day. Started by the UN in 1993, World Water Day is meant to
raise the world's awareness of the importance of water and to
bring attention to the 40% of our population that has no adequate
drinking water.
I congratulate the efforts of one of my constituents, Pauline de
Gonzague, who has garnered support for this year's celebration by
converging interest groups including the Toronto Environment
Alliance and the Festive Earth Society.
Water and health are linked in many ways and it is important to
address the increasing need for adequate and safe water to
protect both people and the planet.
Concrete efforts are necessary to provide clean drinking water
and improved health, as well as to increase worldwide awareness
of the problems and the solutions.
1400
[Translation]
World Water Day is a good opportunity to remember the importance
of this resource.
* * *
[English]
MEMBER FOR CALGARY SOUTHWEST
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I want to share with the House and the nation my
thoughts on an outstanding Canadian who changed my life.
Years ago I heard the hon. member for Calgary Southwest talk
about how we are all Canadians. No matter where we came from or
how long we had been here, to him we were all Canadians. It was
then that I became a member of the Reform Party of Canada. Later
I won the nomination as a candidate for the party, and finally in
the 1997 general election I was elected to this House.
Many of my colleagues here today and I still carry on the work
of this courageous and highly principled Canadian. I only wish
that House protocol would permit me to name Preston Manning as
the man of whom I speak in the Chamber today—
The Speaker: I know the hon. member is referring to the
hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
* * *
[Translation]
FIGURE SKATING
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a great day in the world of figure skating in Canada.
[English]
Jamie Salé of Red Deer, Alberta, and David Pelletier of Sayabec,
Quebec, teamed up to win gold in the pairs event, Canada's first
medal of the 2001 world championships.
Their memorable performance yesterday caps a successful season,
all the more impressive when we consider that these young
athletes have been skating together for only three years.
[Translation]
After some suspense-filled moments, they were declared the
winners, leaving the silver and bronze medals for the Russians
and the Chinese.
Canadians have a highly respectable record at the world
championships. Every year, we bring home at least one medal,
but this the first time in seven years that a Canadian pair has
placed first.
This is a momentous occasion for Jamie and David, and it is
equally momentous for Canada. On behalf of all members of the
House, I offer the pair our warmest congratulations.
Jamie Salé and David Pelletier, the people of Canada are proud
to share in your success. Bravo.
* * *
[English]
MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA CENTRE
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today in recognition of one of my colleagues on this side
of the House. Yesterday the hon. member for Mississauga Centre
was elected chair of the Parliamentary NATO Association, a
culmination of five years of involvement. It is with pleasure
that I note that she is the first woman to be elected to this
important position.
I know how much effort the hon. member for Mississauga Centre
has made on a number of issues relevant to NATO. In particular,
her diligent efforts on behalf of the Ottawa convention on
landmines have garnered an excellent response within NATO and its
allies.
I know all hon. members are confident that the hon. member for
Mississauga Centre will continue to demonstrate leadership in her
new role as chair of this association, both for parliament and
for all of Canada. I congratulate the member and wish her good
luck.
* * *
[Translation]
GREECE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
Canadians of Greek origin and especially for those of my
constituents who are of Greek origin, Sunday, March 25
commemorates a key event in the history of Greece—the day it
attained independence.
[English]
March 25, 1821, marked the end of 400 years of occupation of
Greece by the Ottoman Empire and at the same time the creation of
the modern Greek state.
[Translation]
The celebrations marking this day will culminate in a parade in
Montreal on Sunday, March 25.
I urge all members of the House to take part in the
commemorative events this Sunday, and I wish all Greek
Canadians: Zito i Ellas. Zito o Kanadas. Long live Greece. Long
live Canada.
* * *
[English]
RUSSEL GOODMAN
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of my constituents it gives me great pleasure
to bring to the attention of the House the achievements of Mr.
Russel Goodman of Kelowna, who was honoured yesterday by the
Governor General and became a recipient of the Governor General's
Award in Visual and Media Arts.
Russel Goodman is responsible for the stained glass panels that
grace the House of Commons. Amidst the daily mayhem of
parliamentary business, these works of art enable us to
momentarily pause and contemplate the beauty of the country.
Within these panes of glass, I believe, the heart of the Canadian
spirit resides.
This award deservedly makes Russel Goodman one of a very
prestigious group of Canadians honoured for their life's work in
the arts. I am sure members of parliament will join me in
thanking him for his generous contribution to the House, to
parliament and to Canada.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S AWARDS
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Governor General's Awards in Visual and Media Arts were struck
to honour the creative power of Canada's artists.
Given out annually since their creation in 1999 by the Canada
Council for the Arts, the awards recognize the exceptional
careers of six Canadians in the visual and media arts.
[English]
The winners of the Governor General's awards are: architect
Douglas Cardinal; Tom Dean, Jamelie Hassan and Liz Magor,
internationally renowned artists; Russel C. Goodman, whose
stained glass creations grace the House of Commons; Alanis
Obomsawin, whose work has led to a better understanding of the
history and culture of Canada's aboriginal peoples; and Joan
Chalmers, a tireless arts advocate and generous philanthropist.
[Translation]
I hope this House will take advantage of this opportunity to
thank each of the award recipients for their remarkable
contributions to the arts in Canada and the pride they inspire
in us.
* * *
WORLD WATER DAY
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
this World Water Day we need to remind ourselves that water
constitutes an inestimable resource for humankind and is,
contrary to long-standing belief, one that can be exhausted.
Quebec is a land of water, with a million water courses,
including 700,000 lakes and numerous underground basins.
Although our population represents less than 1% of the total
population of the globe, we have 16% of the world's soft water
reserves. Economically, it is essential, and biologically, it
is vital. We have a duty to protect it.
Water is under attack from all sides, whether as the next target
of private interests, under direct threat from the federal
government, or the object of contamination of all kinds. Just
ask the people of Shannon, of Lake Saint-Pierre, of the North
Shore, of Walkerton. Water is vital to us and we must act
accordingly.
World Water Day reminds us of how indispensable water is and of
our obligation to protect it.
* * *
MAPLE SYRUP INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you already
know, Canada is the world's largest producer of maple syrup,
with 80% of its production.
The maple syrup industry in Canada is no holdover from the past.
It is a veritable industry comprising over 12,000 producers and
having an economic activity of some $150 million annually.
Some 80% of our maple syrup is exported, and we have customers
in 25 countries around the world.
I am very proud to represent the region of Beauce, a major
player in this area. Indeed, the region, with its 8 million
taps produces over 20 million pounds of maple syrup, about 25%
of Quebec's entire production of maple syrup.
Maple syrup proudly represents our country the world over.
I take this opportunity to invite the public to the Festival
beauceron de l'érable, the maple festival now being held in
Saint-Georges de Beauce until March 25. This event heralds the
opening of the sugaring season.
Come give your sweet tooth a treat in Beauce.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in this era of rapid globalization,
Canada's cultural institutions bind us together as a nation. As
Canada's public broadcaster, the CBC has an obligation to be
accessible to all Canadians.
The decision of the CBC to cut off service to the more than one
million Canadians living primarily in rural and remote
communities by discontinuing English language transmission of
large dish C-band satellite signals is wrong.
At a time when the CBC is being watched by smaller and smaller
audiences, it demonstrates just how out of touch CBC management
is when it looks for ways to shrink its number of viewers.
Canadian taxpayers have a right to service from their public
broadcaster regardless of where they live.
It is time for the CBC to admit its mistake and restore service
to the large C-band dish owners of this country.
* * *
CAMILLE THÉRIAULT
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to pay tribute to Camille Thériault, who
has announced his intention to leave active politics in New
Brunswick.
First elected in 1987, Camille served as the MLA for Kent South,
as minister of fisheries and aquaculture, advanced education and
labour, economic development and tourism, and as our premier. He
brought to the job a unique blend of genuine passion for justice
and equity, a belief that government is an instrument for good,
and a realization that wealth not generated is wealth not shared.
The pride of his own remarkable family, Camille glows in the
company of his wife and children. Although Camille and I are
contemporaries, I have always considered his father, Norbert, a
hero.
I could pay my friend no greater compliment than to recognize his
contribution to New Brunswick to be equal to that of his father.
To Camille, Gisele, Sophie and Sebastien—
1410
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
multinational courier companies are attempting to impose postal
policy reforms rejected by parliament and the Canadian public
through the back of door of WTO trade negotiations and
litigation.
The recent $230 million NAFTA lawsuit against Canada by UPS, the
world's largest courier company, should be a wake up call, yet
unfortunately Canada's WTO negotiators have exposed us to similar
attacks under the GATS. U.S. based multinational courier
companies are using the GATS negotiations to try to force Canada
Post out of parcel delivery and other competitive services.
Restricting Canada Post to core letter mail services will doom
the public postal system to gradual erosion. It is clear that
foreign multinationals are seeking GATS enforceable rights to
Canada Post's advantages without wanting to be encumbered by its
public service obligations.
By covering courier services under the GATS, negotiators have
exposed Canada Post to challenges under the GATS anti-monopoly—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Châteauguay.
* * *
[Translation]
FIGURE SKATING
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last evening,
Jamie Salé and David Pelletier, who is from Sayabec in the
riding of Matapédia—Matane, won the pairs gold medal at the world
figure skating championships in Vancouver.
It was a stunning victory, which held us spellbound right to the
end. After so many years of training and sacrifice, our two
champions may now reap the glory they so deserve.
Well done, you two. You have proven that amateur sport is
exciting, heart stopping and high calibre.
On behalf of all of us in the Bloc Quebecois, and more
specifically, my colleague from Matapédia—Matane, I wish you the
best of luck in your upcoming challenges, the ultimate being the
Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.
Your dreams have become reality. Well done, and keep on
dazzling us.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNOR GENERAL
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, most
Canadians are shut out of a job competition in the Governor
General's office. The Governor General has a job opening for a
program and policy officer, but most Canadians who may be
qualified for this job will never be given an opportunity to
apply for it because the competition is restricted to those who
live in certain postal codes in eastern Ontario and western
Quebec.
This is blatant job discrimination. Here is a well paying job
for a Canadian with the proper academic work and language skills
in the office of the Governor General, of all Canadians, yet the
competition, with the exception of those in a small geographical
area around the national capital, shuts out every qualified
person from B.C. to Newfoundland.
The Prime Minister's government must stop its discriminatory
hiring rules. The federal government, which is facing a massive
job skills shortage in the public service as baby boomers retire,
must search for the best and the brightest across the entire
country, not just around the national capital.
* * *
[Translation]
TOURISME AMIANTE
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Saturday at the Gala des Grands Prix du tourisme, a tourism
awards gala held at l'Islet-sur-Mer, the first prize in the
tourist services category for the Chaudière-Appalaches region
went to Tourisme Amiante.
I congratulate them on their dynamic efforts to find winning
formulas for showcasing this region which is located in the
heart of the Appalachian region at Thetford Mines.
This is but the latest in a number of accomplishments over the
years to fully exploit the potential of this most beautiful
region with its wide variety of tourist attractions.
Congratulations, Tourisme Amiante.
* * *
FIGURE SKATING
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in Vancouver, Jamie Salé and David Pelletier were
crowned world pairs figure skating champions.
This inspiring example of perseverance and determination shows
what a fellow from Quebec and a girl from Red Deer, Alberta, can
accomplish when they decide to work together.
I have but one comment: Congratulations.
[English]
Indeed last night the figure skating duo of Salé and Pelletier
beat the Russian and Chinese teams to become the world figure
skating champions.
They showed Canada and the world what great things can be
accomplished when people from Quebec and people from Red Deer,
Alberta, get together and work hard toward their goals.
I congratulate them in the name of all Canadians and tell them
that they have done well and we are proud of them.
* * *
1415
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, established
in 1988, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change provides objective, scientific, technical and economic
assessments about climate change.
The IPCC's working groups have released three reports that must
not be ignored. These groups have concluded that the planet is
moving faster than scientists first imagined toward a troubling
new climate era and that the impact which climate change will
have on everything from crop yields to rising sea levels will
result in dire consequences for the global population.
The IPCC's reports are not all doom and gloom. In fact they
report that the world possesses effective and affordable means to
combat the threat of global warming but that we lack the
political will to implement these measures.
I have confidence that during the government's mandate we will
prove that Canada has the political will to implement the
necessary changes.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for two years the Prime Minister has
been saying that he sold his shares in the Grand-Mère Golf Club
long before he started pressuring a crown corporation to give
money to the hotel next door.
Just two days ago the golf club's lawyers wrote that the
transfer of shares was only approved but not that it actually
ever took place. Just yesterday golf club spokesmen said that
they never knew who owned the shares. I will quote. They said
“From 1993 on we did not know exactly who it was”. My question
is for the Prime Minister. Who owned those shares?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor looked into this issue. He saw
all the documents and confirmed clearly that I had sold my shares
on the November 1, 1993. It was very clear.
I sold my shares to a company that was owned by Mr. Prince. All
the documents have been seen by the ethics counsellor. For me it
is clear. I have always said the same thing and repeated it.
Eventually Mr. Prince's company paid me and my company.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, they can weakly applaud that weak
response but section 50 of the Canada Business Corporations Act
requires the golf club to maintain a record of the names of each
shareholder and the date and details of every transaction.
Now the golf club's lawyer and spokesperson have said that Mr.
Prince's name was never entered on the corporate records. He can
talk all he wants about Mr. Prince or the records. This is new
information. He cannot refer to what the ethics counsellor said
earlier.
Based on this new information not previously known to the ethics
counsellor, will the Minister of Industry do the right thing
and—
The Speaker: I urge hon. members to bear in mind the time
constraints.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I assure my hon. friend and the House that industry
officials are working with the company to ensure that it has
complied with all registration requirements.
It is clear from every inquiry made into this matter that what
the Prime Minister has said just now and earlier is absolutely
correct. He did not own those shares after he became Prime
Minister.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to say but it will be
another thing to prove. We will watch that.
For two years the Prime Minister has also been saying that his
holding company which owned the golf club shares was held in a
blind trust, but we know the Prime Minister called the ethics
counsellor in January 1996 about the shares. Yesterday, after
two years, the Prime Minister finally admitted that he was aware
of and involved in the negotiations to resell those shares.
How could the Prime Minister say his investments were in a blind
trust when he now admits that he knew the details of the shares
and the deals?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained in the House of Commons yesterday very
clearly from my seat that after 1993 I had only one interest. It
was to be paid the debt that was owed to myself. Eventually the
debt was paid.
I never had anything to do with these shares since November 1,
1993.
1420
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Industry Canada officials were supposed to go to the
Grand-Mère to inspect the golf club's books.
Would the Minister of Industry tell the House if they did so and
if the company was in compliance with all laws, including section
50 of the Canada Business Corporations Act?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have a report yet from the industry officials.
I will endeavour to get one as soon as possible and inform my
hon. friend.
However it gives me the opportunity to say again that the House
and the country should note what the Prime Minister just said,
that after he became Prime Minister he did not own the shares in
question.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think we are all looking forward to that report from
Industry Canada to see what it finds out. With regard to what
the Deputy Prime Minister just said, the golf club spokesmen said
that the Prime Minister's name was taken off its records,
however, Mr. Prince's name was never added.
The lawyer for the golf club said that Mr. Prince never signed
the unanimous shareholder agreement, even though the company
continued to report it had one in place. These are clear
violations of the law.
Would the Minister of Industry or somebody in the government
stand and investigate the actions of the Prime Minister and his
business partners to ensure that nobody in the country is above
the law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear that from November 1, I did not have any
shares in that company. They can make insinuations. They are
the ones who have a leader who because of his foot in mouth
disease the taxpayers of Alberta had to pay $700,000.
They are the ones who promised a member of parliament $50,000 to
quit his seat, and he never received the money. They cannot talk
about ethics.
* * *
[Translation]
L`AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
serious appearance of conflict of interest is hanging over the
Prime Minister in the golf course and Auberge Grand-Mère affair.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister admitted that he was determined to
be paid for his shares in the golf course, and we know that he
intervened personally so that the hotel would receive grants.
Will the Prime Minister admit that it is much easier for him to
get paid for his shares in the golf course if the neighbouring
hotel is not bankrupt, but in good financial health, thanks to
the grants he himself went after?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
were owed money, and we were entitled to it. It was money owing
us.
The company sold the hotel in the spring of 1993. On November
1, 1993, I sold my shares to Mr. Prince, who eventually paid me.
My only objective was to be paid the money owing me, and this
was later done.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
money owing was paid because the hotel received grants. That is
the fact of the matter.
The annual reports of company 161341 Inc. do not list Jonas
Prince, the individual to whom the Prime Minister says he sold
his shares, among the shareholders in 1993 or in 1996, when the
Prime Minister intervened in the negotiations.
Since Jonas Prince was not a shareholder, not having bought the
shares, will the Prime Minister admit that his entire defence
has just fallen apart and that there is indeed an appearance of
conflict of interest between the money owing him and his effort
to arrange matters so that the situation would allow him—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
how many times must I repeat myself? I am pleased to say, he
claims there was an appearance of conflict of interest. There
was not any appearance, not even anything remotely one. And the
reason is that, after November 1, I no longer owned the shares.
All that I could expect to receive was the money Mr. Prince owed
my company.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on March 23, 1999, the Prime Minister said in the House,
“I sold the shares of that company in 1993. After that I had
nothing to do with — the hotel”.
1425
Not only did the Prime Minister meet the promoter of the
Auberge, but he personally intervened to have a loan and grants
given to the Auberge Grand-Mère after 1993.
Do these facts not totally contradict the remarks he made in the
House in March 1999?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
absolutely not. The Auberge was sold in April 1993, six months
before the election.
At one point, the Auberge wanted to expand and add another 20
positions to the company. The government helped it, the firm
got a loan in 1997. Four years later, it is still in business.
There are an additional 20 positions, and they are making their
payments to the bank every month, I imagine.
So, from 1993 to 2001, there is quite a gap and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
again on March 23, 1999, the Prime Minister indicated that he
had had nothing to do after 1993 with the operators of the golf
club.
How could the Prime Minister have intervened directly in the
negotiations, as his own ethics counsellor said, without having
had something to do with those involved in the negotiations?
Is this not another flagrant contradiction with what he said in
this House on March 23, 1999?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat with pleasure that I spoke to only two people in 1996. I
spoke to my trustee and to my ethics counsellor.
These are the only two people I had contact with. I spoke to
neither the former owners nor the stockholders of the company in
1996, or before or after.
* * *
[English]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It is not
about the Grand-Mère. It is about the Prime Minister's concept
of citizenship.
Yesterday in the House, in defending the corporate sponsorship
program for the FTAA, he said that they were just inviting
Canadian business people who have major interests in all these
countries to show them that they are good Canadian citizens.
Why does the Prime Minister think these people are particularly
good Canadian citizens? Why are citizens from across Canada
coming to Quebec to show their disagreement with government
policy and exercising their citizenship being treated as
dangerous citizens rather than good citizens?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when large enterprises sell products in the Americas
made by Canadian workers, I feel these people who are creating
jobs in Canada and selling Canadian products and Canadian
technology abroad are good Canadian citizens because they take
care of people who need jobs in Canada.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer my question about why
people coming to Quebec City to disagree are being treated as
dangerous citizens.
Perhaps while he is answering that question he could explain
why, if the government is so proud of the corporate sponsorship
issue, the message we referred to yesterday on the government
website is gone when we try to pull it up today.
Is the government ashamed of this corporate sponsorship? Does
the Prime Minister not see that this amounts to the
commercialization of everything? Pretty soon we will not be able
to do anything without a corporate logo staring us in the face.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is important for the hon. member to
understand, first, that our practice with respect to sponsorship
at Quebec City is consistent with international practice. It is
consistent with previous summits of the Americas held in Miami
and in Santiago.
Second, the sponsors do not obtain any particular access to
heads of state or heads of government who are there. The truth
is that the New Democratic Party is not in favour of the summit
taking place at all. It is not in favour of developing countries
in the hemisphere obtaining access to markets and is not in
favour of supporting Canadian firms in their efforts to sell
Canadian goods and products throughout the hemisphere.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The ethics
counsellor cannot say who owned the missing shares in the
Grand-Mère Golf Club between 1993 and 1999. The golf club itself
does not know.
Could the minister tell the House if the Shawinigan tax centre
just down the street from the auberge golf club has a record of
who owned the shares during this period?
1430
I am not asking the minister to breach any taxpayer's privacy.
The question is simple. Was the disposition of these mysterious
shares declared on income tax records, or was no tax paid, or—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Revenue.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member
should know the Income Tax Act much better than that.
The cornerstone of the act is the question of confidentiality.
Each and every time we refer to a specific question on a specific
taxpayer, a corporation or an individual, section 241 applies.
He should know much better than that.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister could obviously waive that. Here
is another pebble for the Prime Minister's princely feet.
In the much celebrated Paquette letter, the mother of all
letters, the Prime Minister's pardon contains false information.
It refers to a date on the calendar that does not even exist.
The devil is in the detail. If there is to be any credibility
or closure on this issue, will the Prime Minister tell the House
if any of his associates, his lawyer Debbie Weinstein or a member
of her firm, ever owned or controlled the shares in the
Grand-Mère prior to 1999?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they never owned the shares. When I hear the fifth
party talking about it I would like to say to the leader that
despite the leader's pension of $85,000 a year and a $10 million
party debt, he demanded another $200,000 from his party on
becoming the leader.
He got the lowest popular vote in the party's history and
decreased its seats from 20 to 12 but still demanded a $160,000
top-up to his $130,000 House of Commons salary. I guess the
reason he does not want to be the prime minister is because of
the pay cut.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party did not have to pay Mulroney's lawyers $2
million.
The conflict of interest code is clear. A public office holder
cannot even participate in a discussion about his blind trust
until after the ethics counsellor has been consulted. Yet in
January 1996 it was the Prime Minister who phoned the ethics
counsellor to inform him that the sale had fallen through.
How was it possible for the Prime Minister to know that the sale
of the shares had fallen through without being in violation of
the conflict of interest code?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because at that time according to the rules that existed
a debt did not have to be reported. The ethics counsellor said
that very clearly.
Since that time we have changed the rules and a debt in the
future will have to be reported. The ethics counsellor explained
it very clearly when he testified in front of the committee.
The debt was owed to me. I guess I needed the money because I
am not making as much as the leader of the fifth party and I
wanted to be paid.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of
Industry told me that consent of the golf club partners to
release their letter was given only at 4.30 p.m., after Mr.
Wilson had finished testifying on the golf club.
The law firm has confirmed to us that it sent the letter to
Industry Canada earlier in the morning and were only called back
for permission to release the letter at three o'clock. That
permission was granted no later than 3.40 p.m., before the
questioning on the Grand-Mère had begun.
Why was this evidence withheld by the Minister of Industry and
the ethics counsellor in the committee?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the conclusion on which the hon. member bases her
question is totally wrong. There was no withholding of evidence.
The ethics commissioner disclosed the letter before the
committee as soon as he received in his own hands confirmation
that the person who had written the letter was willing to have it
disclosed.
To the hon. member, if she wants to be fair, it is about time
for her to withdraw her unfounded allegations.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a statement
here in the House on March 23, the Prime Minister stated that
his interest in the Grand-Mère golf course had been placed in a
blind trust.
The ethics counsellor has told us “Yes, the Prime Minister was
involved in negotiations to obtain payment”. This is my question
for the Prime Minister.
1435
Will the Prime Minister admit that his intervention, his
personal intervention in negotiations to sell his shares, is
contrary to the very nature of a blind trust, and thus gives a
serious appearance of conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
spoke to the ethics counsellor. If he had told me I was in
conflict of interest, he would have told me “I cannot talk to
you”.
There was money owing to me, and I needed that money. As I have
already said, as Prime Minister, I probably earn $150,000 less
than the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. So I
needed the money.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister will not justify his actions in connection with the
Auberge Grand-Mère by telling us he does not earn enough money.
We do not want to hear about his salary now, we can deal with
that another time.
My question is this: why has the ethics counsellor obliged the
Minister of Finance to put his assets into a blind trust and
forbid him from even taking part in discussions on shipbuilding,
when the Prime Minister himself does not comply with the same
standards?
He intervenes, and then he gets his money. He does everything
possible in his own case.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I have said before—and now repeat—the ethics counsellor did not,
according to the rules put in place by the Conservative
government, require the debt to be put into a trust, because it
had been contracted before I became Prime Minister.
At a certain point, I needed money. I wanted to find out
whether the debt had been paid. It had not, so I called the
ethics counsellor. He told me that this was not something I had
to declare and that I had declared.
* * *
[English]
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Secretary
of State for Multiculturalism recklessly and mercilessly compared
my hometown of Prince George to apartheid in South Africa and
Kosovo. She claimed racism was rampant in British Columbia and
that indeed crosses were being burned on lawns in Prince George.
This we knew was false yesterday and we know it is false today.
Her half-hearted attempt at an apology this morning, hidden
selectively in some well rehearsed, feel good phrases, is not
enough. I ask for an unequivocal apology to the people of Prince
George and for her resignation.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister made a very clear apology in the House of
Commons.
Only a few days ago we had a member from the other side who had
done something that was completely unacceptable. He apologized
to the House. On this side of the House, when members offer an
apology in the tradition of parliament, we accept the apology of
ministers and of members of parliament.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, her apology was not an apology. She
still indicated that perhaps racism and hate activities were
going on in Prince George, even though not the specific ones she
mentioned the day before.
This is yet another smear on the people of Prince George. The
minister has to do the right thing. If she will not resign
herself, will the Prime Minister fire her today?
Some hon. members: Go, go.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Prime Minister has the
floor.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps I should read in the House of Commons what she
said:
I am very proud of what communities have accomplished in this
country to counter racism and hate and to promote cultural
diversity, especially the city of Prince George's city council
task force on hate activities.
She paid tribute to the people of Prince George who are working
on the ground to fight hate activities. I think that I would
like to compliment the city of Prince George which has these
activities in that city. It is a good way to be good Canadians.
I am proud of Prince George and I am proud of the Canadians who
are fighting racism in our land.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one of the
headline in this morning's edition of La Presse was to the
effect that francophones were still vastly under-represented in
the upper echelons of the federal public service.
How can the Prime Minister justify such a poor showing by his
government, when the recent appointments he made only served to
exacerbate the situation?
1440
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government takes very seriously the equitable participation of
francophones in this government, in proportion to Canada's
population.
Furthermore, when we look at the public service as a whole,
francophones are strongly represented. Clearly, if some
francophones leave the smaller group of deputy ministers, this
reduces the percentage, but we are doing everything possible to
achieve equitable participation in our government.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what she
says in the House and what she actually does are two different
things.
Is it not completely abnormal for the government's francophone
ministers, such as herself, to be forced to work in English in
their department in order to be understood by their own deputy
ministers?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unlike the Bloc Quebecois, I have the pleasure of working in
both official languages of this country in my own department.
* * *
[English]
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the multiculturalism minister made no mistake when
she delivered a rehearsed answer to a rehearsed question. She
claimed that the mayor of Prince George himself told her that
there were cross burnings. She told the reporters “I have a
letter from the mayor”.
That is not true. The mayor said no such thing. If the Prime
Minister will not fire her for her intolerance, will he fire her
for lying?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we can see how desperate they are. They do not respect
any tradition of the House of Commons. I will quote again what
she said.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I cannot hear the Prime
Minister's answer. I hear language that is inappropriate for use
in the House and I ask members to calm down. We will not have
such words bandied about in the House. Hon. members know that is
out of order.
The Prime Minister is giving an answer. Members are entitled to
be heard in the House and the Prime Minister will be heard too.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the minister could
not be more clear. Yesterday she said:
I linked the city of Prince George with a specific hate activity.
I regret that and I apologize to the people of Prince George.
Nothing could be more clear than that.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has lost the confidence of millions of
Canadians who want to fight racism. She has no credibility to
fight racism. She has shown herself to be intolerant.
Will the Prime Minister ask the multiculturalism minister to
resign immediately?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism has been
travelling the land for years talking about the diversity of
Canada, the tolerance, and the participation of people from all
races who have joined us.
She has travelled abroad talking very eloquently about the
quality of our society in Canada, where we can live in unity with
diversity. She is a good example of a person who came as an
immigrant and made a great contribution to the people who have
become new Canadians with different colours, different languages
and different religions.
* * *
[Translation]
POTATO PRODUCERS
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Prince
Edward Island's potato producers are going to receive
$14.1 million to help them dispose of the surpluses they have
built up following the unfair restrictions imposed by the United
States.
Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House
whether he has obtained any assurances that Prince Edward
Island's producers will not flood other Canadian markets,
including Quebec's, to dispose of their production?
1445
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the announcement that was made last week
was precisely to take those potatoes off the market so that they
would not flood into another province and affect the market.
The $12.6 million will be used to dispose of potatoes in an
environmentally friendly way, and $1.5 million will be used to
send table potatoes from Prince Edward Island to food banks
across Canada to help those who need that food.
* * *
TAXATION
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Tomorrow will be the second anniversary of the House passing my
motion on the Tobin tax, the tax on international financial
transactions. Canada was the first parliament in the world to
endorse the idea. This has sparked a global movement of
parliamentarians in support of the idea.
The time has come to put Canada's leadership once again in the
forefront. Since the minister voted for the motion in the House,
would he be willing to put this idea on the agenda at the United
Nations conference on financing development? The deadline for
such a move is April 15 and the conference takes place next year.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are a great number of global public goods, such as
the protection of the environment, prevention of the spread of
disease and debt relief, all of which require extensive
international public financing. The Tobin tax certainly is one
vehicle, and it is for that reason that members on both sides of
the House voted for it.
I have, on numerous occasions, at the G-7, the G-20 and the IMF
raised the issue. The problem is that of course it requires the
co-operation of all the major financial centres. That
co-operation is not yet coming, but we continue—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Churchill.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday when I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Transport about toll roads, he said that toll roads “could be
included as part of the improvement to the national highway
system”.
Toll roads are an outrage to the people of Canada.
Canadians pay GST, income tax and gas taxes expecting this money
to pay for the roads. Canadians expect the federal government to
adequately fund highways.
Is it the Minister of Transport's position that toll roads are
an acceptable way to improve Canada's crumbling highways or will
he, as the municipalities and provinces have asked, increase
federal highway funding beyond what little was given in the last
budget so—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, $600 million was allocated in an earlier budget for
highways. I have said publicly and I will say it in the House
that we would hope that more money could flow into that account
in the near future, but government resources are indeed limited
and the call on those resources is vast.
On the specific issues of tolls, obviously public-private
partnerships and the use of tolls have a place in Canadian
society. They have been used successfully. However, the
government will not tolerate the use of tolls if it impedes one
part of the country from communicating or transporting with the
other.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Public Service Commission is advertising a program and policy
job opening in the office of the Governor General of Canada.
Even though the Governor General of Canada serves all Canada,
most Canadians cannot even apply for this job. Only people from
Ontario and Quebec can apply.
Was this restriction applied by government policy or did the
Governor General of Canada request that people from eight
provinces and three territories be screened out of this
opportunity just because of where they live?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
section 13 of the Public Service Employment Act provides for the
establishment of geographic criteria.
[English]
Does the House know which government revised that legislation in
parliament in 1992? It was the Conservative government. I am
very surprised by the question that I have been asked today.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I just asked her if the Governor General requested that
a restriction be applied. However, I will go on.
There is another job on the website that shows the reason for
this concept of western alienation. The website is advertising
50 government policy and planning jobs in Ottawa, which pay up to
$81,000, but only applicants from Ontario and Quebec can apply
for these 50 jobs. People cannot apply if they are from the west
or from the east.
Would the Prime Minister change this policy and allow everyone
in Canada to apply for jobs in Ottawa?
1450
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is not a policy. This is legislation that was passed by the
Conservative government in 1992. We respect the legislation and
I think the Governor General respects the legislation and is
following the criteria of the legislation as directly as
possible. I believe each department has to decide how it applies
the legislation.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism and the Status of Women made divisive, malicious
and false comments in the House.
First, the comments were rehearsed. The Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism and the Status of Women maligned the people of
Prince George. She maligned thinking Canadians. She maligned
tolerant Canadians with her comments and by her conduct.
Today she offered a halfhearted statement that did not undo in
any way the damage and hurt she caused yesterday. An intolerant
minister's divided—
The Speaker: I do not know whether there is an answer to
the comment. If not the hon. member may want to proceed with his
supplementary immediately.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think that party will ever learn the tradition
in this House. When a member of parliament gets up and
apologizes, in the way the minister apologized and in the way the
member for Edmonton—Strathcona apologized, we have a tradition
that when a mistake is made and recognized we accept the word of
an hon. member of this House.
I know that the Alliance Party is desperate. We will miss the
gentlemanly approach of the hon. member for Calgary Southwest
when he leaves. He is a good example to those members but they
do not want to follow it.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's comments continue what seems to be a
growing trend among Liberal ministers.
When the heritage minister makes hurtful comments, the Prime
Minister says nothing. When the immigration minister sneers and
makes intolerant comments toward Canadians, nothing is said and
nothing is done. The Prime Minister remains silent and, in his
silence, he condones the conduct of these ministers and
encourages it to continue.
It is time to put an end to this dangerous trend by members of
that party and that front bench. The member is totally unfit for
her duties. I ask the Prime Minister to demand her resignation
immediately.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that the leader of the fifth party is very
happy that he does not have the member with him anymore.
Perhaps I should inform the House that today the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation had their third annual Teddy Award. The
winners of the federal Teddy goes to, hands down, no contest, to
the majority of Canadian Alliance MPs from the class of '93 for
abandoning their principled stand against the gold-plated MP
pension plan and opting back in quicker than an Olympic sprinter.
* * *
[Translation]
LUMBER
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we just learned
that an official from the BC Lumber Trade Council travelled to
the United States to discuss the implementation of an export tax
on BC's lumber. This morning, New Brunswick lumber producers
asked to be exempted from any future agreement on lumber.
Could the Minister for International Trade tell us whether we
are witnessing a complete collapse of the Canadian common front
he wants so much, since New Brunswick is now jumping ship, while
British Columbia is playing its cards without regard for the
others?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, I hope that I am not the only one who wants
this consensus and that the Bloc Quebecois will also be part of
it, because it is extremely important. I am not just pushing for
a consensus.
That being said, if an official from the BC lumber industry is
negotiating taxes in Washington, I can assure the House that
this individual has no mandate from our government to do so.
This is not how things work.
I met the people from British Columbia on Tuesday morning.
Earlier today, I met officials from the Atlantic council. Later
this afternoon, I will meet Quebec's lumber producers. I can
assure the House that we all want free trade.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
for International Trade came to see me personally to stress the
importance of Canadian unity in the lumber issue.
Yet, his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, seems open
to the idea of imposing a tax on exports.
1455
In light of the crumbling Canadian position, who will protect
Quebec's interests? Will we again have a Canada-wide agreement at
the expense of Quebec, as was the case the last time?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our government is firmly determined to protect the
interests of every region of the country, whether it is Atlantic
Canada, Quebec, Ontario or western Canada.
We are quite capable of protecting all the regions without
pitting them against each other. I will be very pleased to meet
Quebec producers later this afternoon to continue to represent
their best interests, as they have confirmed to us that we have
been doing in recent years.
* * *
[English]
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, following question period,
my colleague from Prince George rose on a point of order to point
out that the hon. Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the
Status of Women was wrong when she said that crosses were being
burned on lawns in Prince George. When the secretary of state
returned to the House of Commons she said that the mayor of
Prince George had sent her a letter saying that. She has not
tabled that letter and has not provided any proof of these false
accusations against the citizens of Prince George. I call upon
her here and now to resign.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the secretary of state got up and offered an apology to
the city of Prince George. She made a mistake. She was in
error. We never heard the Leader of the Opposition apologizing
for the mistake he made which cost the taxpayers of Alberta
$700,000.
She said that she had made a mistake and she apologized. We did
that for the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. He made a mistake
and he apologized. We accepted that. These were the rules when
we had an opposition that was more civilized than the one we have
today.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, whatever happened to accountability
from the government?
It has been revealed that the secretary of state misled the
House when she returned to the House yesterday. Whatever
happened to accountability? The secretary of state needs to be
disciplined.
Why will the Prime Minister not hold her accountable for what
she has said in the House when she slandered an entire community?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I agree that we have rules that have been around for a
long time in the House of Commons. Some stay too long perhaps.
However, the people of Canada want me to be here. That is the
problem that the Alliance has.
When there are 301 persons in one House, mistakes will happen.
We are not perfect. However, our good tradition is that when
somebody stands in his or her place and offers to apologize to a
member and to the Canadian public, we accept that. It is a
tradition that I want to be respected.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health.
I am sure we were all equally dismayed at the powerful
television images we saw of children in Labrador sniffing gas.
In December the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health
committed to do all they could to help these Inuit children from
Davis Inlet and Sheshatsui.
Would the parliamentary secretary please inform the House how
Health Canada is fulfilling these commitments?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the House
that the Minister of Health wants to honour his commitments to
the children of these communities and that he is working hard on
the matter.
I had the pleasure of announcing yesterday that a very
productive meeting had been held between Health Canada and the
community concerned, during which plans for treatment were
discussed. Chief Tshakapesh has expressed his satisfaction with
the outcome of the meeting.
The children of this community remain our priority. This is why
all the participants—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond.
* * *
1500
[English]
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, nearly a month ago I sent a letter to the Minister of
Finance and the Minister of National Revenue asking them to
commission the auditor general to do a cost benefit analysis of
the foreign asset disclosure rule.
To this date I have only received a form-like acknowledgement of
my request. Will the Minister of National Revenue ask the
auditor general to do a cost benefit analysis of this rule?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have received the
letter and we will reply in due course.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, with an economic downturn on the way, the government
should be encouraging, not discouraging investments. The foreign
asset disclosure rule was designed to boost tax compliance and
increase revenue, yet it has done just the opposite.
If this rule works as well as the Liberals claim it does, why is
the Minister of National Revenue afraid of a cost benefit
analysis?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will
reply in due course.
With respect to the hon. member stating that we should be
encouraging investments, I ask him to look at what we have done
over the past six or seven years: the budgets, the zero deficit,
the investments we have made in order to help science and
technology, and the investments in all regions across Canada.
We will keep working with businesses in order to create jobs,
even though that party does not want us to do that.
* * *
[Translation]
CONTAMINATED WATER
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
manager of the Sept-Îles airport said on television that the
people of the beaches area, which have been without drinking
water for over three years, simply have to wait another seven
years and the products contaminating the water will just
disappear.
How can the Minister of Transport allow his representatives to
treat the people of my riding this way, when he has always
intimated that he wanted to resolve the problem his department
created in our region?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been told that most of the residents of the
region affected by the problem are satisfied with the solutions
Transport Canada has offered.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the seven recipients of the 2001
Governor General's Awards in Visual and Media Arts. I would ask
hon. members to withhold their applause until I have named all
seven.
They are: Douglas Cardinal, Joan Chalmers, Tom Dean, Russel
Goodman, Jamelie Hassan, Liz Magor and Alanis Obomsawin.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I invite all members to join them at the reception
that will follow in Room 216 at 3.30 p.m.
* * *
1505
[English]
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I must admit it is with heavy heart that I have to bring
this question of privilege today to the attention of the House.
As the hon. Prime Minister has said, it should not be necessary
in this place to remind the Prime Minister and the House about
our traditions in this place, not only about telling the truth
but about ministerial accountability and with knowledge
aforethought misleading the House, which is what we have seen
over the last two days from the minister for multiculturalism.
In response to a Liberal question from a backbencher, in other
words a question that she knew well ahead of time what the
contents of it would be, the minister for multiculturalism
yesterday rose in the House and accused the people of Prince
George and British Columbians of hate crimes and specifically
about burning crosses on lawns as we speak. That is what she
said in this place. She knew the question. She said that
anyway.
That was bad enough, but then with two hours to think it over
she came back to the House and she said the following, and every
one of these things is not true. I refer to page 2010 of the
Commons Debates from yesterday where she said:
In British Columbia there have been incidents of hate crime,
including cross burnings. I know of this because I was contacted
immediately that these incidents occurred by the mayor of Prince
George.
That is not true. That is not true. She had two hours to think
it over, two hours to check her facts, two hours to check her
correspondence, and she came back in the House and said that. In
the second incident she said:
In my position as Secretary of State for Multiculturalism I
funded the mayor to set up a task force right away.
That is not true. There was no letter. There was no request.
There were no cross burnings. With two hours to check her facts,
she came back and said that following the cross burnings in
British Columbia, which were false and never happened, and in
consultation with the mayor, which never happened, they set up a
task force. That is not true. Yet she said that in the House
with two hours to think it over. She then said:
They are not appalled at anything. They are the proud members
of Prince George, good, decent people who deserve better than
what they got from this minister for multiculturalism over the
last couple of days.
She went on to say that the people of the community demanded
that they take immediate action:
Again, not only did they not demand immediate action on that
because it never happened, not only was the community not
involved, they were not outraged. How could they be outraged? It
never happened. Then she went on to say:
That was about cross burnings that never ever happened in Prince
George. Yet she had two hours to check her facts, two hours to
come back to the House and give us the facts. She went on to
say:
We sometimes wonder if even this is true now, but perhaps she
was. Then she said:
She came back to the House today and after all of that she went
out to a scrum, talked to the media and said that she had a
letter from the mayor of Prince George in her hand to back all
this up. The letter does not exist. It never happened. This
whole thing is a figment of her imagination. It is a complete
fabrication.
That is not the worst of it. The worst of it is, not only is it
all fabricated, not only after the two hours to check the facts,
but she slandered an entire community, my province and the good
people who are working to make the communities better, with two
hours' notice and telling at least five untruths in this place.
There were five after she had time to check her facts.
Today she went on to say that she regretted the original
statement and would like to apologize to the people of Prince
George. I will tell the House what she needs to apologize for.
She could start with an apology to the people of Prince George,
and that will be a long time being accepted because we do not
consider this at all sincere.
1510
On top of that what she has not yet done, and she has to do
before she can take a position of responsibility in the House
again, is to apologize for misleading the House of Commons with
five, at least five, direct lies in the House of Commons.
It is one thing to misspeak. We all know how that can happen in
the heat of the moment where something will come out and the
Speaker will come forward and say that it was inappropriate and
ask the member to withdraw it. The member says “I am sorry,
that was a mistake” and withdraws it. That is not what we are
dealing with at all.
We are dealing with malice from the multiculturalism minister.
We are dealing with someone who knew what she was doing, not only
before the question was asked, but with two hours notice and on
into the media interviews. She not only did not tell the truth
here, she did not tell the truth out there to the media. She did
not tell the truth to the people of Canada. She made stuff up
out of her complete imagination about whether or not a letter
even existed. It did not exist.
She came in with an idea that she can just say sorry about that,
so what about the record now that says Prince George is a haven
for racists and cross burners; so what if she maligned an entire
province and the people who live there; so what if she came into
the House with two hours notice and told everyone, by the way,
that was true. She went on to say that it was true and that
there were racists in Prince George who burned crosses. “It is
true”, she said, “I have checked it out. I have a letter from
the mayor”.
All of it was untrue. She should have known it, she did know it
and she repeated it anyway. I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that you
have no other course of action but to find the minister in
contempt for what she has taken the House through over the last
two days.
The crass attempt at being mistaken and thinking it is all over
is completely unacceptable. She is in contempt of the House and
in contempt of parliament. She should be tossed from this place.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to make that decision.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I could quote the entire
statement of the secretary of state today, but I will briefly
highlight the portion which refers to the point just raised which
says:
Yesterday I mistakenly linked the city of Prince George with a
specific hate activity. I regret that and I apologize to the
people of Prince George.
I am very proud of what communities have accomplished in this
country to counter racism and hate and to promote cultural
diversity, especially the city of Prince George's city council
task force on hate activities.
The statement was withdrawn. Therefore, if it was withdrawn and
the letter attached to something that was withdrawn is equally
withdrawn.
Second, it was said that the minister had two hours to think it
through. I would think most members in the House know that the
hon. minister yesterday, immediately after question period, was
participating in a number of activities with dozens of Canadians
wishing like her to fight racism in Canada. To suggest that she
had “two hours” to do nothing and so on is inaccurate.
Third, it was said that the member had a long time to apologize.
No, that is not stated correctly. The minister has apologized
some time ago would be the more appropriate reference. In fact
it was two hours and fifteen minutes.
Fourth, it was said in the House that the minister was not
sincere when she apologized. That is impugning motives to
someone else.
Mr. Jason Kenney: You bet it is.
Hon. Don Boudria: An hon. member has just now said “you
bet it is”, confirming the fact that was exactly the intent of
what was said.
Mr. Jay Hill: Do you want me to say it on the record?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we now have a second
member just corroborating that accusation and therefore refusing
to accept the apology of an hon. minister.
1515
Fifth, it has been said in words to the effect that the
community in question, and I disagree with that, was “a haven
for cross burners”.
This statement was never made by the minister. In fact she
withdrew what she said. Regardless, the particular statement was
never made. How could one allege that someone made a statement
when the statement was not that and was withdrawn anyway? If it
was withdrawn, it was assumed under the rules of the House not to
have been made.
I did not invent those rules. They were around here long before
I came along, and possibly will be around far longer than I will
be here. Be that as it may, other members and I will accept when
a member apologizes to the House because that is the appropriate
thing to do.
An hon. member: She is a minister.
Hon. Don Boudria: A member across just said “She is a
minister”. In other words, we should believe some members and
disbelieve others because they are public officeholders.
I refute that. All hon. members are accountable to the House.
We all are. I am a senior cabinet minister and I am accountable.
I am here now. My colleague, the secretary of state, was in the
House and apologized very clearly to the people of Prince George,
British Columbia. That was clearly done.
All of us know that was done. Let this be clear, the Secretary
of State for Multiculturalism was serious about her apology. I
believe that we on this side of the House have taken her apology
as being very serious. I would recommend to you, Mr. Speaker,
that you accept that apology with the seriousness and the
sincerity in which it was intended. This issue should be closed
as a result of this clear and unequivocal apology made earlier
this day, over two hours ago in the House of Commons.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on the same point of order. I wonder whether or not I
could help shed some light on this darkening situation by
suggesting that there may be some middle ground here between what
I would say was a hyperbole and an evasion: hyperbole, justified
in many respects by the justified indignation of the people of
Prince George and their representatives about what was said
yesterday, and evasion on the part of the government in the sense
that what is at issue here is not whether the minister apologized
for the statement about there being cross burnings in Prince
George but whether or not she was withdrawing her claims about
the letter and the communication from the mayor, et cetera.
She has not indicated anything in that respect. I was here when
she made her statement earlier. Unfortunately she chose to rush
out of the Chamber immediately after she made her point of order.
There were people that wanted to question her on her statement
about having received a communication from the mayor. If she
made some reference to a letter in a scrum, that is a further
reference to a communication from the mayor of Prince George.
People wanted to know if she is now saying that she received no
communication, either a letter or any other kind, from the mayor
of Prince George. That would go a long way to correcting what
members of the Alliance are claiming is untrue. I take them at
their word. They know more about Prince George and the situation
there than I do.
The point of the matter is that it is incumbent upon the
minister, or perhaps on you, Mr. Speaker, to advise the House as
to how we can create a situation where the minister can come in
and account, not just for what she said about burning crosses in
Prince George but for what she said about how she came to believe
that there were burning crosses in Prince George. She led the
House to believe this was a communication she received from the
mayor of Prince George.
Members want to know whether or not the apology includes a
withdrawal of that claim and an apology for making that claim,
particularly if it is not true and if the mayor of Prince George
is denying it.
All would be settled if the minister would be prepared to come
in here and defend herself. Instead of having the Prime Minister
and the government House leader defend her, she could walk in
here and give an account of what she said, what she still stands
by, and what she now withdraws and further apologizes for.
1520
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, much of what has been said clearly indicates that
there are now more facts to be examined because of what has taken
place here.
The government House leader has characterized the apology that
was given as clear and unequivocal. I was in the House and I
would characterize it quite differently. I would characterize it
as quite qualified and carefully crafted.
Subsequent to that the minister then literally sprinted out of
the House while there was an attempt made by the opposition House
leader to have her table documents to which she had referred.
The minister herself has opened a whole new facet of the
particular issue.
I took her qualified apology to in fact bring in new evidence
that suggested she was relying on a letter that came from the
mayor of Prince George. That now appears to be totally and
utterly false. She did not address that issue in her apology.
I suggest there is a need in an unemotional and straightforward
way to examine all of the facts that have transpired. It is very
simple and easy to do that. We can check Hansard to see
what was said.
The minister should in fairness be given an opportunity to speak
to the issue and have an opportunity perhaps to set the record
straight again, if necessary. There are a number of very
specious, false and very damaging statements when it comes to the
people of Prince George that are now out there for them to try to
contend with. The minister herself has to be part of this
equation.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take the matter seriously, review
the record and give the minister an opportunity to reply.
The Speaker: The Chair has heard enough on this
point. We have heard from each party that has offered to
participate in the discussion.
An hon. member: Not the member for Prince George—Peace
River.
The Speaker: I am very well aware that the hon. member
for Prince George—Peace River wants to rise, but there has to be
a limit on how long we discuss these matters.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, he is the representative of
that riding.
The Speaker: I am well aware that he is the
representative of that riding. Maybe he should have led off but
he did not.
An hon. member: There are two members of parliament.
The Speaker: I am well aware of that, and one of them did
not lead off. The fact is we have had an incident that has
caused severe distress to the members of parliament from Prince
George. I am as well aware of that as I think all hon. members.
I know that others have been offended by these remarks as well.
The fact is that sometimes members say things in the House that
are incorrect or wrong. Subsequently, when this is drawn to
their attention, they make some kind of apology or statement.
In this case that is what has happened. I have in my hand a
copy of the minister's remarks, which I was in the House for
earlier today, in which as she said:
Apparently she went on to say that she regretted that and she
apologized to the people of that community. Many hon. members,
for whatever reason, may feel that this apology was insufficient,
given the seriousness of the statements that were made, but the
fact is that there was an apology.
For the Chair to continue the matter by some means, and I am not
sure what, perhaps by finding a breach of privilege, I would have
to have heard something that convinces me that the privileges of
the House of Commons have been breached by a minister or any
member making a statement that is incorrect and then making some
kind of apology. I do not believe the privileges of the House
have been breached by this. Accordingly I do not see a place
where the Chair can intervene further.
Hon. members have made their point forcefully that the
minister's retraction, apology or whatever it is called, was
insufficient for their purposes. I am sure that the matter will
come up again in committee when the minister is making an
appearance on estimates or something of that kind. I am sure
questions will be asked.
I do not think it is for the Chair at this point to rule that
there has been any breach of the privileges of the House that
would justify me in referring the matter further.
I know it is perhaps an unsatisfactory resolution of the issue
at this time for some hon. members. I also know that, as we saw
today in question period, questions may get asked. There will be
opportunities, as I say, when the minister will be asked and she
may choose to answer further questions or make a further
statement, but that is not for the Chair to compel or demand at
this point.
1525
Hon. members have made their points and I am very respectful of
the fact that many hon. members have been deeply offended by the
remarks that were made. However, I think in the circumstances
the minister has made an apology. The House has to accept the
apology such as it is, although there may be disagreement about
it. I think we need to move on to the other items of business
before us this afternoon, with great respect to all hon. members.
I mean no disrespect to the hon. member for Prince George—Peace
River or his colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley in not
hearing them. I feel that we have heard from each party. It is
a matter that continual discussion of is not going to assist us
because I do not believe there is a question of privilege in this
discussion.
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to questions
on the order paper. It is a new approach to the same old problem
of the government not responding within the allotted time period.
The Speaker: I heard the hon. member on this point
yesterday on a point of order during the time questions were
called. I believe he raised the matter again this morning when
questions were called. I cannot see how there is a question of
privilege arising out of this matter.
He has tabled his questions and he has answers as to why they
are late one way or another from the parliamentary secretary. I
will hear him for one minute, but he has to convince me very
quickly that this is a question of privilege because I do not see
it.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I will convince you if I
am given a minute. I will go back to 1992 and quote from
Hansard on the very same issue regarding breaches of
privilege with regard to questions on the order paper. This is
effectively shutting down a member of parliament.
On March 10, 1992, the then member for
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who by the way is now the
government House leader in charge of this file, rose on this very
issue. The Speaker at the time heard the member out, which I am
hoping you will do. The member at the time quoted from pages 70
and 71 of Erskine May's 20th edition which I will do regarding
privilege. It is defined as:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are “absolutely
necessary for the due execution of its powers”. They are
enjoyed by individual Members—
He went on to point out that Standing Order 39(4) of the House
says that members can place up to four questions on the order
paper at one time. Quoting from Hansard, March 10, 1992,
the member said:
The point I want to make to you is that the government is
systematically not answering questions that I place on the Order
Paper. By not answering the questions that are there, I am
unable to ask new questions.
That restricts the role of members of parliament to ask
legitimate questions of the government. He continued:
In other words, once the Order Paper is plugged up with four
questions, new questions cannot be asked.
He went on in detail—
The Speaker: I am quite familiar with the argument
the hon. member is making. I recall making a similar one myself
at one time or another. I am very sympathetic to the plight he
describes, but might I suggest that he go to the procedure and
House affairs committee at the earliest opportunity, or the new
committee that has been struck to deal with changing the rules of
the House, and seek changes to allow him to put even more
questions on the order paper or seek changes that might have some
penalty for non-answer to the questions.
It is not for the Chair on questions of privilege to deal with
the fact that answers are not being given. What power does the
Chair have to enforce this rule now? None.
We can say that these questions should be answered. I can stand
here and say it until I am blue in the face, but if they are not
answered, they are not answered. I know the problem. It is an
old problem.
Mr. Greg Thompson: That is why we are here, to be heard.
The Speaker: That is why I am suggesting the hon. member
go to the committee and raise it there because the committee is
charged with this responsibility.
1530
I am not in a position to do something to solve the problem. The
parliamentary secretary may be able to help by giving further
solace to the hon. member in respect of the answers, and perhaps
that is what he will do now.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, none
of us here have any doubt that the member's questions are
important and that they raise important issues. I indicated to
him last week and in fact shared a draft answer to one of the
questions. I indicated it was my intention and the government's
intention to improve on the answer in the draft. He seemed to
have acquiesced.
I point out procedurally, and for the benefit of the hon. member
if he is interested, that in the event a question of that nature
is not answered within 45 days he is at liberty, and this is what
procedure requires, to ask that it be transferred for debate. If
he wishes to have it transferred for debate, that is his remedy
and members of the House will acquiesce in that.
However he does not appear to want to transfer the question for
debate. He appears to want an answer. I have indicated to the
House that I am working with the hon. member to get an answer,
and he has acknowledged that. It does not seem to be that
pressing that we should have to take up more House time trying to
convince the hon. member that his answers will be good answers on
these important issues and that they will be forthcoming shortly.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
if you check the record, I was quoted the same time in 1992 as
the current government House leader. The point I made then,
which I will make here very briefly because I know you are anxious
for this to be over, was that the four question rule of only
being able to put only four questions on the order paper, the
limit of four questions, was new when instituted in the 1980s. It
was supposed to benefit the government so that it would not have
a whole bunch of questions.
In return for only having four questions, the government would
answer the questions within 45 days. Now what we have is that if
the government does not answer the questions, we cannot put down
any more questions. The government is frustrating the will of
that reform.
Does the government want to go back to the days when there were
100 questions on the order paper? Is that what it wants? The
reform was brought in to meet the needs of the government that
was complaining it had far too many questions on the order paper.
It asked to limit them to four and it would answer within 45
days. Now what does it have? It has the best of all possible
worlds. It does not answer the questions and members can only ask
four. It is ridiculous.
The Speaker: I sympathize with the hon. member. I
remember making the same arguments. However, the rules are the
rules and the Speaker, as a servant of the House, must enforce
those rules.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly address this
question of privilege. If we look at the questions on the order
paper we will discover that there are probably fewer questions
than there have ever been.
Why is that? There is a very simple reason. Members of
parliament have given up on using the order paper as an
instrument to do their jobs because the process has been abused
by the government. It does not matter whether the limit is one
question or 100 questions. When we do not get answers, people
stop using it.
Not long ago I checked the order paper questions at the clerk's
table and there were only 18 questions from the entire House. I
think the Speaker has an obligation to address the issue.
The Speaker: Let me address the issue by citing to
the House the decision of Mr. Speaker Fraser on a similar matter,
not the one referred to by the hon. member for New Brunswick
Southwest in his argument. The decision was delivered by Mr.
Speaker Fraser on May 18, 1989, and appears on page 1890 of
Debates for that day. The Speaker said:
As far as I am concerned, I do not think that it is appropriate
that the time of this House has to be taken up by Members having
to get up and ask why somebody has not given them the answer.
The Hon. Member for Churchill—made it quite clear. If there is
a case where something is so complicated that it is impossible
for the Government to give the answer within 45 days, I think
Hon. Members would be patient and understanding if the
Parliamentary Secretary or Minister got up and said that that was
the dilemma they found themselves in.
For the most part, there is no real reason in the world why these
answers cannot be given. As I say, I cannot order them to be
given because I do not have the power. But I do ask that those
who are asked to prepare these answers take a look at this rule
and realize that when they do not get the answer back to their
Minister in time, they are putting all of us through a lot of
difficulty and taking up the time of the House, because
undoubtedly there will be more points of order raised on exactly
this issue.
1535
Short of the authority to order somebody to do something, I
cannot make my own feelings on the matter any more clear than I
have just done. I agree with what Mr. Speaker Fraser said. I
made arguments on occasion to Mr. Speaker Fraser on this point
when I was not in the chair of the House. I sympathize, but I
respectfully suggest to hon. members that I cannot do anything. I
agree with what Mr. Speaker Fraser said. We must consider the
matter closed.
When questions come up and the parliamentary secretary asks that
all questions stand, I have no doubt that we will hear from the
hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest and others on points of
order as to why their questions have not been answered in a
timely way. As Speaker I am prepared to entertain those points
of order, but I do not think it is appropriate to treat this as a
question of privilege. As indicated by Mr. Speaker Fraser, there
is nothing I can do.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, fundamentally it comes
down to the fact that the government has the capacity to answer
those numerous questions within 24 hours. What is it trying to
hide? Why will it not answer the questions?
The Speaker: I think it shows we have completed the point
of order. We will move on to the Thursday question.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we may not be able to get answers to pretty
straightforward questions on the order paper, but perhaps we
could get an answer to the question of what the business will be
in the House for this week and the following week.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make the weekly
business statement and to indicate to the House that I intend to
do my utmost to have order paper questions answered as rapidly as
possible.
This afternoon we will resume debate on Bill C-12 respecting
compensation for judges. We will then continue with Bill C-18,
the equalization bill, which we started this morning. That will
be followed, if there is time, with Bill C-17 respecting the
innovation foundation.
On Friday we will consider report stage of Bill C-4 respecting
the sustainable development foundation, and any time left will be
used on second reading of Bill C-7, the youth justice bill.
In an effort to complete consideration of the youth justice
bill, we will continue discussing that bill on Monday next.
Next Tuesday we will commence report stage of Bill C-8
respecting the financial institutions legislation. Should that
be completed, we would then continue with Bill C-22, the income
tax amendment. As previously announced and as adopted by the
House, in the evening there will be a special take note debate on
the summit of the Americas.
Next Wednesday, March 28, we will debate Bill C-2, the
employment insurance amendments, at report stage and hopefully
have third reading on next Thursday, March 29.
That is the agenda of the House for next week.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed from March 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another
act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in debate to speak to Bill
C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in
consequence.
I first must state how disappointed I am that once again the
government is going to great lengths to look after what some
refer to as the elite of our society. At the same time, what it
is doing for the ordinary citizens, other than taxing them into
the ground, is unclear.
Those who occupy the upper echelons of our public service are
well looked after.
Meanwhile those in the trenches, the clerks and receptionists who
comprise the first line of contact between the government and
citizens, are again expected to do without.
1540
Everything I have just said is almost word for word what I said
in March 1998 when I rose to debate Bill C-37. It appears the
more things change around here, the more they stay the same.
Judges, for some reason, attract an inordinate level of
attention from the Liberal government. It seems that with every
new parliament we debate and pass legislation to look after the
interests of judges. It is unfortunate that the government is
not as keen to address the problems of our young offender
legislation or the creation of a national sex offender registry.
I note that farmers were once again demonstrating here on
Parliament Hill this week. Thousands of family farms are lost
each year as debts rise, but the government does little to
address the problem.
I also note, once again, the vast number of RCMP officers who
will be seconded to provide security at the Quebec City summit of
the Americas in late April. Entire crime fighting units will be
stripped of their top investigators. Since most of the personnel
will come from Quebec and Ontario, I foresee organized crime
having a field day with its drug operations, commercial frauds,
stock market manipulations and smuggling operations. I mention
only federal areas of police jurisdiction because, as we all
know, when the cat is away the mice will play.
When the RCMP is required to take on additional responsibility
of the nature of this summit for VIPs, the force gets further and
further behind in its battle against crime. However the
government will look good because it is hosting such an important
event. It will be our citizens and victims of crime who pay for
enabling the Prime Minister to play on the world stage. The
government looks after the elite but often conveniently forgets
the ordinary citizen.
With respect to Bill C-12, I note that the Constitution Act of
1867, formerly the BNA Act, is part of our formal constitution.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as we know, includes
the Constitution Act of 1867. It was, after all, the document
that set the stage for the country. Section 100 of that document
states:
The Salaries, Allowances, and Pensions of the Judges of the
Superior, District, and County courts (except the Courts of
Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), and of the Admiralty
Courts in Cases where the Judges thereof for the Time being paid
by Salary, shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of
Canada.
Some of the names of our courts have changed over the years.
Some have even been replaced. This section of our constitution
requires salaries of superior court judges to be decided by
parliament. That is partly why we have had the Judges Act for
the past many years. By constitutional law, parliamentarians
have the power to fix the salaries and pensions of superior court
level judges.
On the inside cover of Bill C-12, in the summary of the
legislation, it states:
This enactment implements the federal government's response to
the report of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits
Commission regarding compensation and benefits for judges. It
amends the Judges Act to increase judicial salaries and
allowances, improve the current judicial annuities scheme and put
into place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed
judges.
What I am seeing is the derogation of power, at least to some
extent, in that the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission
is making a report to which the government must respond. I fully
appreciate that the commission has been set up because of Supreme
Court of Canada decisions concerning the independence and
impartiality of the judiciary.
However what has not often been stated is that Supreme Court of
Canada judges are in a conflict of interest when they try to
change the law regarding the pay and benefits of the judiciary,
which of course includes them.
Having slammed the supreme court judges for causing changes to
our laws while they are in direct conflict with those changes, I
fully understand that this is the fix the government has put us
in. We have acceded to the use of the Judicial Compensation and
Benefits Commission, but it merely makes recommendations, with
all due respect. We parliamentarians must retain full control
over what is to be provided to the valuable portion of the
administration of justice within the country.
I note that Chief Justice Dickson, as he then was, stated in the
Supreme Court of Canada case of Regina v Beauregard:
Nothing would be more damaging to the reputation of the judiciary
and the administration of justice than a perception that judges
were not shouldering their fair share of the burden in difficult
economic times.
Following his works, I point out that for a number of years the
country faced severe economic times. I recall the Prime Minister
stating time and time again that Canadians must be patient and
essentially bite the bullet a little longer until the economy has
recovered and Canada has returned to a better financial state.
I urge members of the Chamber to carefully consider the 11.2%
increase in salary for these judges, especially in light of the
far less significant salary increases the government has been
providing to our civil service, our federal police force and all
other employees of the federal government.
1545
I fully understand the government being hesitant to open the
vaults to reimburse all of its employees to the fair and
equitable level in comparison to the public sector, especially
when this country has had such a debt hanging over us from years
of Liberal mismanagement.
In any case, 11.2% as a raise in salary, plus a very generous
pension plan, is obviously creating just the situation
anticipated by Chief Justice Dickson. It damages the reputation
of the judiciary because it creates at least a perception that
judges are not doing their fair share in getting this country
back into financial balance. I am paraphrasing the words of the
chief justice here.
I may not be the first person to recognize the value of our
judiciary, but I will certainly not be the last. I have spent
much time in our courts witnessing day to day administration of
justice.
A government argument for such excessive salary increases for
judges has been that we must pay well in order to attract capable
and experienced people. Surely this is just another argument for
having the judicial appointment process more open and
accountable. As far as I can determine, it has not been that
difficult to attract capable individuals to apply and sit on the
benches of our superior courts. I often wonder whether this is
just not a case of some individuals wanting everything: the
prestige, the opportunity to channel legal cases down particular
paths, or more regular working hours. Then, after getting the
position, they are now politicking for extraordinary salaries.
If members of parliament had the opportunity to become involved
in reviewing these appointments, perhaps they would have a better
chance to see just what is required to ensure that capable and
experienced individuals are encouraged to continue to apply for
judicial appointment.
It is difficult to accept pay raises beyond the norm when we are
dealing with salaries in the $200,000 range, when we are dealing
with, in some cases, sheer patronage, and when the whole process
is deliberately kept from parliamentary scrutiny.
As I have stated, it is the responsibility of parliament to
decide on the salaries and benefits of our federally appointed
judges. Without sufficient information to determine whether such
a significant jump in pay is necessary to maintain and/or enhance
the judicial personnel, it is difficult for me to accept the
proposals of this legislation.
In light of the meagre percentage raises given by the government
to so many other needy and deserving employees of the federal
government, 11.2% is particularly hard to swallow. I keep
hearing about our military personnel using food banks to survive
between paycheques. I become concerned about our RCMP members
working two or three jobs when their families have trouble paying
the bills, especially when we see how rich and powerful organized
crime is becoming in this country. When I see these things and
others I cannot have quite the same concern for federal judges
who are not nearly so badly off financially.
I will be opposing this legislation. I urge other members to
have a serious look at what the government is proposing here.
Something is seriously wrong when the government continues to
look after the top officers within the Department of National
Defence and gives peanuts to the lower ranks. Something is
seriously wrong when we have thousands of farmers losing their
farms because we are reluctant to provide sufficient help in
their time of need. Something is seriously wrong when we have
hospital shortages right across this country because the
government cut back to balance the budget. Something is wrong
when the government continuously brings forth legislation in a
timely fashion to look after the financial interests of judges.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): May I ask the hon.
member whether he will be sharing his time?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time
with my colleague from Surrey Central.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central
to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-12, an act
to amend the Judges Act.
I would like to talk about the purpose of the bill, which is to
implement the federal government's response to the 1999 report of
the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding
compensation and benefits for judges.
The bill amends the Judges Act to: increase judicial salaries
and allowances; modify the current judicial annuities scheme; and
put into place a separate life insurance plan for federally
appointed judges.
1550
Let me speak about the details of the bill. The government
accepted the commission's recommendation of a salary increase of
11.2% for over 1,000 federally appointed judges, retroactive to
April 1, 2000. The salary increase will cost Canadian taxpayers
approximately $19 million.
The judiciary had initially proposed a salary increase of 26.3%.
It had maintained that the federal government must compete with
high paying law firms in order to attract superior candidates to
the bench. However, federal representatives told a hearing into
judges' pay earlier this year that there was no shortage of
candidates for the bench, with about eight applicants for each
federal job over the last decade.
The last pay raise for federal judges was in 1998, when they
received 4.1%. In 1997 they also received an increase of 4.1%.
In other words, judges received an 8.2% increase in two years.
Additionally, judges' salaries are indexed so they receive an
annual cost of living increase as well.
In the 35th parliament, the government introduced two bills
amending the Judges Act. In the 36th parliament, one bill was
introduced. All of these bills, including Bill C-12, have been
administrative in nature.
Or have they been merely administrative in nature? We do not
know.
Canadians can be assured that the official opposition will
closely scrutinize Bill C-12. In particular, we will review the
provisions of the bill that change the annuities scheme.
The Liberal government has made amendments four times to the
Judges Act. The big question is why. We have seen time and time
again where the government has tailor made legislation to fit
certain individuals and certain situations.
We will also assure the House and Canadians in general that Bill
C-12 will not be tailor made to any individual. That is the job
of the official opposition: to hold the government accountable.
If it were tailor made, it would definitely compromise the
impartiality of our judiciary, so we will be investigating that.
For example, the changes being made to the Judges Act allow a
judge who is married for the second time to another judge to
collect, after the death of his or her spouse who also happened
to be a judge, two survivor benefits upon the death of the
spouse. One can only guess why the government is contemplating
such a rare and highly unlikely situation.
It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges
Act, Bill C-37 from the 36th parliament, created the Judicial
Compensation and Benefits Commission, which provided the federal
government with yet another opportunity to make patronage
appointments.
The commission consists of three members appointed by the
governor in council. It should be noted who nominates these
three individuals. One is nominated by the judiciary. One is
nominated by the Minister of Justice. The third one, who acts as
the chair, is nominated by the first two people nominated.
The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the
appointment process means that important and high paying
positions in our court system will remain essentially part of the
patronage system. The Canadian Alliance would like to see the
patronage appointment process overhauled to make it more
transparent and publicly accountable.
1555
One option would be to strike a committee that would review and
interview candidates whose names would be put forward to the
Prime Minister. The input of the provinces, which are affected
directly by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, is required
in these matters.
Another concern I have with the bill is that the increase in pay
for federally appointed judges is higher than the federal
government is prepared to grant to the lower paid civil service
employees. Lately it has been the practice of the government to
grant raises to senior officers in the military, to senior
bureaucrats and now to judges, while dragging its feet on a
general salary increase for staff.
The question here is about fairness. All the hard working
employees of the public service and the armed forces need raises
in comparison to the cost of living. Why is the government only
focusing on top executives or top officials and not on the other
employees? While we do not dispute that salaries for appointed
judges and others should generally be in line with the private
sector, it is apparent that the staff on the lower echelons of
our justice system are being ignored.
What we propose is an independent and publicly accountable
judiciary that would act as a safeguard to protect Canadians from
the arbitrary power of the state. However, it must remain the
responsibility of parliament, not the courts, to debate and
assess the conflicting objectives inherent in public policy
development.
The bill does not address the multitude of concerns that many
Canadians have with the judicial system, therefore my colleagues
and I strongly oppose the bill. We will see what adjustments or
amendments the government is willing to accept at the committee
stage.
While we have no position on the exact level of judges' salaries
and pensions, we generally favour salaries that are comparable to
those in the private sector. However, we would like to see an
overhaul of the process of patronage appointments in the
judiciary to make it more transparent and publicly accountable.
The Canadian Alliance declaration of policy, section 69, states:
We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent
judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards
and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore
ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open
and accountable process based on qualification and merit.
Public servants should only be given salaries in keeping with
the average Canadian wage earner. The government has awarded
judges and senior bureaucrats with large pay raises and bonuses,
while frontline police officers and lower level public servants
receive little or nothing.
It should be noted that on March 27, 1998, RCMP officers secured
a pay raise of 2% retroactive to January 1, 1998. They received
a second increment of just 1% on April 1, 1998, and an additional
.75% on October 1, 1998. RCMP officers have had their wages
frozen for five years.
Since my time is almost up I have just a few more comments.
Both of the Liberal justice ministers since 1993 have failed to
introduce a victims bill of rights or to address important issues
pertaining to drinking and driving or even to pass a new Young
Offenders Act. Instead they occupy the justice committee with
administrative matters at the expense of more important issues.
For example, the country is experiencing a high degree of backlog
in the courts and many criminal trials must be put on hold in the
meantime, yet the government tinkers with salaries of judges.
In conclusion, I hope the government will entertain amendments
during the committee hearings. I regret that the judges
themselves are somehow caught up in the legislation. I would
like to acknowledge that there are judges who are very hard
working and very much want to contribute to making our judicial
system fairer and faster and to making Canada a better country.
1600
We are talking about mismanagement by this weak Liberal
government. The unfair treatment handed out by the Liberal
government to Canadians working or otherwise involved in the
criminal justice system knows no boundaries. The inequitable
treatment of Canadian workers extends all the way to our federal
court benches.
We know the government does not treat the victims of crime
fairly and today we are debating a bill that does not even treat
judges fairly.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today to Bill C-12. It
is discouraging when we see another amendment pertaining to the
Judges Act. I have been here since 1993, and I believe it is the
fourth time the Judges Act has been amended. It is the fourth
time I have risen to speak to the legislation.
It is legislation asking for raises for judges across the
country, which I believe will amount to $19 million. I do not
know the salaries of judges. I would almost bet that if I were
in a bank depositing my cheque as a member of parliament and a
judge was in front of me and we compared cheques, he or she would
probably make me look like I was on welfare. I would suspect
that they get paid very well.
I found it surprising that the judges would ask for a 26% raise
in pay. I see that the government accepted a recommendation from
the commission of 11.2% and that is after already receiving 8.2%
in the last three years.
I would much rather be rising in the House of Commons to address
legislation other than the Judges Act. I would rather debate
legislation that would have some real teeth in it to deal with
serious problems such as crime or the need for judges to continue
working hard. I know they work hard and I will be as kind as I
can to judges, although I question their judgment at times. I am
sure all of us do.
Not too many years ago, perhaps three or four, we had a motion
put forward creating a victims rights bill. It passed in the
House of Commons. The majority supported it from both sides of
the House. I cannot say how delighted I would be, after four
years, if I could stand to speak about legislation that would
create the victims rights bill that we approved some four years
ago. What a pleasure it would be, but no, here I am again rising
on the fourth occasion because we are making another amendment to
the Judges Act.
We have difficult problems. We understand, through the media
and through other sources, the seriousness of organized crime and
of a number of other issues. There is a cry from the public to
do something with the Young Offenders Act, and yet here I am
again speaking about judges.
When will this place become a place that really takes its job
seriously enough to get busy and create the kind of legislation
that we all agree on? I can see where it might be difficult when
there is disagreement, but we agree on victims rights.
1605
We all agreed that we should have a sex offender registry. It
was unanimous. Not one member of the House of Commons did not
agree that we must develop this registry. It was legislation
that I was glad to vote on and see passed. It is a tool we need
that will hopefully provide a lot of safety for individuals.
If you were a betting lady, Madam Speaker, I would bet you a
dime to a donut that four years from now I will be standing here
and we still will not have a sex offender registry. Are we so
dysfunctional in this organization that we cannot even carry
through with the things that we all agree on? What is wrong that
we constantly need amendments to the Judges Act? Is it because
these fellows and ladies who make pretty good money are
underpaid?
I was the solicitor general critic during the last session of
parliament. I visited many penitentiaries across the country.
Prison guards had been on a pay freeze for nine years, if not
longer. For the last six years, before they finally got a pay
raise, I raised the issue in the House many times. However, the
fact that these lower paid public servants were in a pay freeze
did not seem to attract any interest from the government.
It had ample opportunity over those years to do something, to
help those guys who were at the lower end of the stick. Prison
guards were fairly equal in salary to the RCMP. RCMP members
moved ahead at no great speed, but the salaries of prison guards
did not.
Some people would argue that a policeman's job is more dangerous
than that of a prison guard. I would question that. I believe
they are both very dangerous jobs. Most police officers that I
have talked to have said they would not be a prison guard for all
the tea in China because of the circumstances.
We do not talk about lower level people who work for the public
providing the safety we require and whom we need so desperately.
Negotiations were held and, lo and behold, the RCMP got a 2%
increase in one year. It was followed up the next year with 1%.
Prison guard salaries are at a lower level and now a group of
people who make a lot more money are asking for 26%.
We will talk about this issue again for the fourth time. Maybe
we ought to take the $19 million that this will cost, put it on
the table in the middle of the House, and have a serious debate
on how to spend the money on behalf of those in poverty across
Canada. Maybe we should take the $19 million and give it to
farmers who were denied extra money just the other day. Maybe
that money could go toward helping out a few.
Mr. Roy Cullen: You voted against it.
Mr. Myron Thompson: I beg your pardon. The hon. member
says I voted against it. It was our motion and I voted in favour
of it. The Liberals voted against it. They turned down the
extra $400 million. I wanted it to happen.
It is a miracle how we can come in here and in a flash go
through committee of the whole and spend $19 billion. There are
probably not two people who can tell us where the money is going
and why. There was no real debate on that issue.
We know there is a chunk of money going here and a chunk going
there, but we do not know for sure what the chunk will entail.
There was no debate on it. It was done in a flash, but we can
sure debate the Judges Act for the fourth time.
1610
What about the million and a half children who live in poverty?
What are we doing about them? We do not know. We do not have
any debates in the House in that regard. We get lots of claims
and lots of rhetoric and things of that nature.
When will we start doing things that are of real benefit to the
country? If we paid as much attention to the problems with real
crime as we have to the Judges Act, we probably would have
accomplished a great deal more. Instead, we create a commission.
A commission is patronage at its best, the thing the Liberals
know best. They provide patronage for their good old Liberal
buddies.
I am getting really sick of this institution constantly dealing
with these kind of issues and ignoring major problems. It has
become totally dysfunctional and it needs to be addressed.
I would point out for the last time that both the present health
minister, and I wish him well in his recovery from his operation,
and the present justice minister failed to accomplish any
legislation of any real benefit for the difficulties in the
country involving crime.
I would mention once more the idea of creating a commission. The
government is good at setting up commissions. I do not know if
any member over there could even begin to tell me how many people
work for the government in some sort of committee, some sort of
board or some sort of whatever.
How many people does the Prime Minister have to appoint each and
every year to keep these positions filled? I am surprised he has
time to be Prime Minister. I am sure he has to spend a great
deal of it just appointing people to these plush jobs. It must
be nice. I forgot to mention the Senate. The Prime Minister
must take a lot of time to determine who should go in there.
I was listening to a radio program this morning. It did a
takeoff on government called “The monkeys running the zoo”. I
thought it was rather hilarious, especially when it was applied
to the government. It talked about the Prime Minister being able
to measure lies, that there are big ones and little ones. I do
not know how anybody could do that unless he or she were an
expert in the field.
It related to that issue a lot of times. It talked about a
judge making a decision. I do not blame the judge. It is
because of legislation that it happens.
Apparently there were 29 postal workers who were fired from the
Canada Post for theft. Under surveillance they were caught
red-handed stealing cash, cassette tapes and credit cards from
the mail. They were convicted. I understand that this morning
the court has ordered that the post office rehire these
individuals. I am having a real tough time understanding that
one. Is that law and order in Canada? These 29 individuals
broke the law, were charged, convicted, and fired.
1615
Now their time is up. Evidently they are on parole, or they got
parole or whatever. The union took this situation to a court and
the judge said they had to hire them back.
I do not know how many entrepreneurs we have on that side of the
House, but how would members like to have somebody steal from
them all the time, have him arrested, convicted and then after he
was freed have to hire him back? No wonder they call that show
the monkey running the zoo.
This is one example of all the things that are going on around
here which do not make much sense. We are forever dealing with
situations where somebody says something they should not have and
then had to take it back. As usual, like in the case of the
member for Waterloo—Wellington, his first step was that he did
not say it. Then we had to take time the next day because
somebody woke him up to the fact that he had said it. Then he
had to apologize and take it back, and we took time for that. We
go through these kinds of monkey running the zoo type of
episodes.
I am on duty today so I rushed over because there was an
important piece of legislation on the table that they wanted me
to speak to. Guess what, I got here, picked it up and it was the
Judges Act; again the Judges Act. Good grief, folks, I am
getting tired of talking about the Judges Act.
When are we going to get serious and talk about what we need to
do with the young people who are breaking the law; youth and
crime? When are we going to start talking seriously about all
kinds of preventive measures that we need to engage in to keep
our youth out of trouble? When are we going to start addressing
the fact that our aboriginal people are filling our jails at a
ridiculous proportion to the rest of society?
When are we going to start talking about the mother who has two
little children who were seriously sexually assaulted by their
father? The courts and the judges, because of our legislation,
ordered this woman to take these two children to visit their
father in prison, and the children did not want to see him. The
mother did not want anything to do with him for what he did to
their children, yet the courts ordered mom to take these two
children to the prison because they had to visit their father.
The courts have upheld our laws.
If members want to amend some kind of a law, think about a law
that has been created by this government that forces a mother to
take two little kids to visit their dad who maliciously sexually
assaulted them. Think about a law that forces them to sit with
him and phone him because it is the law.
I would like to see a piece of legislation come out of the
government of the day. It is the government. It knows about
these situations. Do members think that we will ever see a piece
of legislation hit the table that would deal with mom who has to
take these two little children to visit dad in jail, even though
he maliciously sexually assaulted them for days and days? No,
it will not even be talked about.
The Liberals will say that the member for Wild Rose is
fearmongering again or that he is taking the sensationalism into
this, as if it only happens occasionally. It is not
occasionally, it is far too often. The government says Canadians
are happy with our system. I guess that is why we have somewhere
around 10,000 people that hold a membership in some victims
society. They are calling for help day in and day out. We
cannot deal with all the serious problems out there, but we can
talk about the Judges Act.
We can talk about these poor, underpaid individuals who need a
raise of 26%. Maybe we should talk about all Canadians and give
them about a 26% decrease in income tax. Then we would all get a
raise. Would that not be different?
1620
Good grief if we did that, we would not have this revenue coming
in. If we did not have this revenue coming in, how could be
possibly pay our judges another $19 million? I do not understand
the government's thinking. It makes no sense to me.
Of course we know from the things in the estimates we approved
the other night, a matter of $16 billion, $18 billion or whatever
it was there are going to be lots of committees struck. There is
going to be lots of active work going on out there. I bet the
government has another committee that is going to work for the
health department to study us seniors and sexuality again as it
did before. It only cost $165,000. Now that I am nearly 65
years old, boy, does that make me feel good that our government
is going to spend tax dollars doing something like that.
Maybe there is a group of people in Toronto being trained how to
riot properly in Quebec City when we hold a session there. Are
they being trained with tax dollars maybe? I do not know. It is
probably worth talking about. But let us not talk about that.
Let us talk about the Judges Act.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I want to bring forward a few issues that were referred
to earlier today. The member mentioned equality between
Correctional Service Canada and RCMP wages. Certainly
equalization is very much a part of this great debate. I believe
equalization is more than just money. I think it is equal
opportunity. It was raised earlier today that the government has
a policy that it does not hire people for jobs in Ottawa from
anywhere else in many cases except from Ontario and Quebec.
I referred to one example in question period. The Public
Service Commission is advertising for 50 permanent jobs in Ottawa
which pay up to $81,000 but they are open only to people in
Ontario and Quebec. People from the hon. member's riding cannot
apply. People from my riding cannot apply even though there are
50 permanent jobs. The government could spread these out a bit
but it is if not doing that. It wants the total focus to be from
Ontario and Quebec.
Could the hon. member comment on that from an equal opportunity
point of view and from a national perspective? These 50 jobs are
for planners, advisers and policy people. The government says it
has 50 job openings and it wants all the people to come from
Ontario and Quebec. How does that make the western Canadian
members feel?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, one thing that has
been talked about quite a bit lately is western alienation. Is it
real? Are there people out there who are so disgusted with the
government that they are considering alienation? I hope it is
not a great number. Canada is the greatest country and we want
to hold it together. It will not stay the greatest country much
longer if we do not clean up our act.
The hon. member is perfectly right. If we want to spur on
western alienation some more, bring out stuff like this member
mentioned. Inform all the people in the western provinces that
we have these jobs but they need not apply if they live west of
the Ontario border or if they live beyond the Quebec border. He
is absolutely right.
The government says that it is so fair. It is compassionate. It
is so kind. It is the party in the middle that has a heart. It
is not going to talk about the many people living in poverty and
the children who are starving.
It is not going to talk about our reserves where there is a sad
state of affairs and third world conditions. It is going to
create some jobs and make sure that they are for Ontario and
Quebec.
1625
In the meantime when the government comes to the House of
Commons with all these problems, it is not going to worry about
what the hon. member talked about. It is going to talk about the
Judges Act because it is really important.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Wild Rose was quite upset and
quite rightly pointed out the important issues that the Chamber
should be addressing. I know he has spent enormous time
travelling to reserves. He has reserves in his riding that
require attention.
Since we are talking about judges today, I would like to ask my
hon. friend, from his experience in visiting the reserves, would
he not think it more appropriate in the Chamber to address the
issues that he has seen firsthand? Perhaps he could tell us as
well of the judicial systems on the reserves that he thinks
require reform.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, most people in the
House are aware that the United Nations has declared Canada as
the best country in the world in which to live. If we really are
paying attention, it has also factored in the reserves across the
country and has said we would be 38th.
I would encourage all members in the House who have reserves in
their ridings to make absolutely certain when visiting them to go
to the grassroots level and see the conditions that some of these
people are living in. I want to make it perfectly clear. Not
all reserves are that way. There are some excellent things going
on in a few, but far too many are living in absolute poverty with
the most disgusting things we could ever imagine.
I saw a sump hole in a basement where they dumped the sewage
gathered in buckets because they had no sewage system. Then I
learned from one family that they had just buried a two and a
half year old child who had fallen into that ugly sump hole. The
children were not allowed down there, but as children will do,
they found a way to get there. They had been playing when the
child fell into the hole and drowned.
There was no running water or electricity. Stumps were used for
chairs. They had skimpy amounts of food. Yet they were the most
hospitable people I have ever visited. I shared with them what
they offered in their most hospitable way.
It is that serious. Should we be spending some time in the
House of Commons talking about that and how we could quickly
resolve it so we could be number one in the world, including the
reserves? We certainly should be. Instead what are we talking
about? We are talking about the Judges Act.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I find my hon. colleague's comments very refreshing.
I know he is very well respected in the community he comes from.
He was the principal of a high school. I know how high school
principals are selected where I come from and where he comes
from. People from the community sit on committees. There is a
hiring procedure. We spend a lot of time making sure we get the
right people as our principals. They must be leaders in our
schools and must convey the right kinds of values and beliefs.
1630
Yesterday we talked about reforming and modernizing our system
of government. In my view most of the power cards are held by
somebody sitting in the front row over there. Even backbenchers
do not have any power cards. When they are told to march, they
march. When they are told to stand up they stand up.
If we really wanted to modernize this institution we could do it
in one symbolic step. We could turn over the selection of
supreme court judges to an all party committee. We could then
sit down and review these individuals and pick people who we
think have high standards of integrity and high levels of
competency. As everyone has pointed out, there is no shortage of
qualified applicants for these jobs.
However the way it is now all the power cards are in one
person's hands and that person makes those decisions behind
closed doors and without any consultation with any of us.
I would like to put a question to my colleague from Wild Rose on
the possibility of having an all party committee look at the
appointment of judges to our Supreme Court of Canada. Would he
be of the view that this committee would be beneficial to this
institution and change the public's attitude toward the way this
House operates?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, yes, an all party
committee is a good idea. We should spend some time talking
about how we can form a committee that would select the judges in
a process that makes sense, instead of patronage. Let us not
talk any more about the Judges Act.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents of
Calgary East to talk to Bill C-12, the Judges Act.
I share my colleague's view. This is the second time that I
have risen in the House to talk about the Judges Act, an act that
only talks about raising the salaries and benefits of judges. We
have heard over a period of time, both in Alberta and here, that
independent commissions have been set up. We have also heard the
judges say that they need more compensation so they can be
independent and not fall under pressure.
An hon. member: So do we.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I disagree with the hon. Liberal
member when he says “so do we”.
However, the judges have used the reasoning that they will be
subject to undue influence if they do not receive higher
compensation. That was the reasoning for the 23%. In both
cases, as the holders of the public purse, the government of
Alberta and the Government of Canada at one time had tremendous
difficulty agreeing to that level.
What this bill states is that one segment of our society feels
that judges need to elevated to a level where there is no undue
influence.
I believe almost all judges, especially the ones I know and have
met, are people of high calibre and have high moral values, and
people look to them to make fair judgments. However, when they
say that their compensation should be at such a level that they
will not be under undue influence, I think that is a
contradiction. We put them there because of their high values.
I hope we never have a situation in this country where a judge
falls under undue influence just because there was no
compensation. The compensation seems to be fairly adequate here.
1635
The Alliance agrees that the compensation should be in line with
the private sector. Even judges should get fair compensation,
and nobody is saying they should not, but it should be done by an
independent body, and this is not by an independent body.
That raises questions in the minds of Canadians. They look to
the judges for respect, but when those kinds of arguments come
forward, there is a slight loss of respect. Canadians are the
ones who will end up in the courts to hear judgments. This issue
is not the general trend in the economy nor is it the general
trend in the community.
This raises the other questions of what is happening and what we
should be debating here. Having said that, I think there are
more important issues that need to be debated in the House than
this bill.
I had a town hall meeting about a month ago in my riding. Close
to 40 grandparents came to the town hall meeting to discuss an
issue that was hurting them the most, the issue of grandparents'
rights. As our society has moved forward, and tugs and pulls
take place, marriages break down. At the end of the day, who
pays? It is the grandparents who pay. They need attention. We
need to address those kinds of issues, not this issue of judges'
salaries.
For over six and a half years the government could not produce a
Young Offenders Act. It keeps going on and on despite the hue
and cry from the public. Every member over here has put forward
petitions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sure all hon.
members would like to hear what the hon. member for Calgary East
has to say, and, if not, there are other options available to
members.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I am sure the people in
the gallery, who have taken the time to come here, and those who
are listening, would like to hear what I have to say. If those
members on that side of the House do not want to listen, they are
welcome to go out and do something productive.
Backbenchers and serious members of parliament are here to
discuss issues that are important, issues that our constituents
want to discuss. If all hon. members had town hall meetings they
would find out what the people want, what is important to them
and what issues they want brought before the House of Commons. We
were elected to do that, not to heckle and create all this
nonsense.
Let us talk for a second about the Young Offenders Act which has
again not been brought into the House of Commons. It has been
discussed and discussed, petition after petition has been
presented to the House and Canadians have been talking about it,
but the government has not brought it in because it has not had
the courage to do so.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Yesterday we had a debate in this place about the
modernization of parliament. Members throughout the House
commented and concurred that relevance was an important principle
for the House to follow if we were to be efficient. With all due
respect, the member is not addressing the provisions of the bill,
but rather talking about why we should be doing other things
other than the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member
raised a point of debate, I believe. I think that in most
debates in the House the Chair has always shown a lot of
latitude. We will now continue with debate from the member for
Calgary East.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I think that was just a
ploy so that I could lose a couple of minutes. I hope you will
allow me to add the couple of minutes that were wasted so I can
tell the member that we are discussing serious issues in this
place which are absolutely relevant to what we are talking about.
What we are saying is that we need to discuss important issues.
Yes, yesterday's debate was an attempt to bring forward important
issues because, under this government, important issues seem to
have gone out of the window.
1640
The government does not listen to members in committee. This
bill does not even deal with the issue of bringing judges before
a committee. It is all patronage and it starts from the PMO's
office, which appoints the judges, the senators, the heads of
corporations and many board members. This then creates a
concentration of power in one place. We just have to look at the
situation this afternoon in the House of Commons with respect to
the Prime Minister's role in the golf club. This concentration
of power can give rise to abuse of power.
I would like to talk for a moment on another subject. My name
was selected to present a private member's bill that would
address a very important issue that the government has totally
neglected. It is the issue of break and enter or home invasion,
a crime that has been rising across the country, according to
statistics, and a violation of personal privacy.
If anyone wants to know what is happening with break and enter
offenders, they need only ask any law enforcement officer or look
at the records. Repeat break and enter offenders are receiving
conditional or suspended sentences, which creates a cycle of
break and enter offences. Why? The simple reason is that they
know that if they are caught they will be brought up in front of
a court and will probably be on the streets within three weeks to
a month committing the same crime. Those who do not believe that
should ask any law enforcement officer in their ridings. I
request that all 301 members of parliament here talk to their law
enforcement officers.
The Canadian Police Association and the Calgary Police
Association have endorsed my private member's bill which calls
for a minimum sentence of two years for repeat break and enter
offenders. The idea is to take these people off the street and
put them into a system where they can be rehabilitated. With my
break and enter bill, we would be looking at assisting people
and, at the same time, removing these habitual offenders off the
streets.
Does anyone know what the current sentence is for break and
enter? It is life imprisonment. However, we can forget about a
life sentence because that is too far out. Most of these
offenders get off with suspended or light sentences. That is the
reason for the rise in crime. It also raises the concern that
there will be more violence.
It leads to home invasions, which have the potential of getting
violent.
1645
We need to address this issue. We cannot brush it under the
carpet. We cannot say that our current legislation is going to
meet this rising threat. I do not see the government addressing
this issue in any way; hence, I brought in my private member's
bill.
One issue that comes out of this bill is the appointment of
judges, which I alluded to when I was making my remarks. I have
mentioned the concentration of powers in the Prime Minister's
Office. One of my colleagues asked this question as well. There
is a need for serious consideration in regard to the appointment
of judges. The question is whether the appointment of judges
should be under one individual's hand, as it is now, or whether
it should be under a committee, a committee made up of members of
parliament. We can discuss the issues. We can discuss who can
be on the committee. We can discuss who can look at the judges
who are appointed and make recommendations for appointments and
so on.
This brings transparency to the judiciary system and leads to
more respect for the judiciary. It is extremely important that
we have an independent judiciary system. There is no question
about it. We have seen what happens around the world to the
populaces of countries where independent judiciary systems do not
exist. The populace pays the ultimate price.
No one will ever argue in a democracy that we need separation of
powers between the legislation and the independence of the
judiciary.
Where the problem arises is with the appointment of judges being
done by the PMO, by one individual. What is so difficult about
moving this to a committee to make it more transparent? I am
sure the judges who are on the benches today would probably all
be appointed again. That is fine. That is not the issue I am
talking about. I am not talking about the competency of judges.
I am talking about a process that should bring transparency. Why
can we not have that? I fail to understand why we do not address
that issue. We can. Maybe we should. Hopefully it will be on
the agenda. This is a bill about judges.
There is a need for change in parliament. There is a need for
us to address this and to talk about our constituents. It is
true. Yesterday we had a debate on these issues. It is true
that a lot of points came out, but are we going anywhere? The
answer is no.
The throne speech talked about electronic voting. Great.
Electronic voting is the great reform that will take place in
this parliament. Give me a break. Is electronic voting why we
come here? No. We come here to debate and to stand on votes so
that our constituents can see what we are doing.
1650
I have read reports saying that the government is backtracking
on electronic voting now, after the hue and cry. I had the
pleasure of meeting members of the German parliament who were
visiting us and I asked them a question. As we all know, with
the unification of Germany a new parliament has been built in
Berlin. I asked the visitors for their views on electronic
voting. They said no way to electronic voting. The committee
that they set up to look at it has totally disregarded it. I
asked them why. They said they want their ministers, the people
who are in power, not to get it into their heads that they are
above ordinary citizens. They said their ministers are part and
parcel of the process and they want to see them stand up with
them in their parliament. They felt that with electronic voting
they would have less access to those in power. I thought about
it and I agreed.
Of course a lot of my colleagues from the other side are now
joining in the debate and are opposing the electronic voting
notion. My friend on the other side is part of this thing and I
am sure will join in the debate when he gets time to address this
issue.
What is the relevance of what I am talking about? It is
accountability. We are asking for transparency and
accountability.
Here is an opportunity under Bill C-12 which could have
addressed transparency and accountability of judges. However, I
have been in committees and I have heard time after time from
that side, from parliamentary secretaries and ministers, a
reluctance to change. They have a total reluctance to change the
system, to better it. We have all heard that change is for the
better. We are now in the 21st century, yet this system is what
was here 30 or 35 years ago. It is the same system with the same
rules. There has been no change. Can we not move forward? Can
we not learn? Can we not build on what we have learned?
However, there is this reluctance. Time after time, in the
committees and everywhere, I have heard from that side that this
is the way the system is and it is fine. Yet there are people
asking questions.
This afternoon my colleague from the Conservative Party brought
up a fantastic example of what is wrong with the system. It was
a fantastic example of a job posting under the federal
government, from someone supposedly representing Canada and the
unity of Canada, the residence of the Governor General. At this
point I must say that I have the highest respect for the Governor
General and the comments I will make have absolutely nothing to
do with Her Excellency, whom I hold in very high esteem. I am
just talking about the process of the government.
Here is the Government of Canada advertising a job situation
that is applicable only to a few Canadians. It bars everyone
else. If that is not discrimination, what is? Why are we paying
with the tax dollars of all Canadians for a job that is
restricted for certain Canadians? If people inside this region
want to apply and it is convenient for them, so be it. The job
should be open to anyone. However, How can a job with a salary
paid by taxpayer dollars be restricted to only certain Canadians?
It boggles my mind.
1655
We are in the 21st century. These are the issues that we need
to debate and to talk about. This imbalance that keeps taking
place eventually may become—and I hope never—the threat to our
unity. We are all working hard to maintain our nation. As we
all know, when we travel abroad we are all proud of the maple
leaf. We are proud of what we have achieved and of what other
people have achieved, including the immigrants who have come into
the country, those who were born here and the first nations. We
are proud of everything that has been built here, but there also
comes a time to build better, and if we have seen errors, we
should learn from them.
All I get from the other side is a total reluctance to change
the procedure or change anything, even if it is glaringly in
front of our eyes that it is wrong. That advertisement I
mentioned was in front of everybody's eyes and was glaringly
wrong, but who has the guts to stand up and admit it is wrong?
The minister of the treasury today could not admit it was wrong
or that she would look at it. She threw the blame on some other
government out there in question period, but at no time did she
say that she was going to address the issue, that here is a
glaring example of what is wrong. When are we going to learn?
When are we going to say that we need change? When can we adapt?
When can we heal?
Perhaps these members sitting over there can start pondering it
and talking about it. If the people over there do not listen,
members can stand up in the House of Commons and talk about it.
They can talk about what their constituents are saying and
represent them properly. It is not only east or west in here. I
do not represent only the west. I am here as a Canadian standing
in the Canadian House of Commons. I am standing here as a
Canadian. Issues of Canadians are being discussed here which are
applicable to all Canadians across the nation.
When we see something like that, it makes us angry. When we see
the government refusing to address the issues, then we are not
proud. How is it possible that the ruling party, supposedly
considered one of the most successful ruling parties of our time,
as its members say themselves, had to set up a task force and
send it to that region of the country to see what is wrong? There
was a government that did not even know why people in one half of
the country were upset. Why? Because that region has a smaller
population, that is why. Those government members are supposed
to represent Canada and the government sets up a task force and
sends it out there to figure out what is wrong.
There is something amiss. Those individuals are supposed to be
in government. Do we know why there is this problem? Because it
is the reluctance to change the system that has been entrenched
instead of the demand for change. The government members are
reluctant to change, so they cannot pick up on the currents
taking place in the other regions of the country. They cannot.
Their ears are closed because the system allows their ears to be
closed.
They sent that committee out there, and lo and behold, it was a
joke. Even the members of the committee were not from that part
of the region. I do not know what happened. What happened to
the committee's report? I do not have a clue as to what happened
to that committee. They are still talking about it.
Of course our nation has its great potential, but its great
challenges is regionalism. There are challenges and regional
challenges and aspirations and regional aspirations. That does
not mean that we can stand in the way here.
In conclusion, when I am talking about the Judges Act, I am
talking about transparency and I am talking about accountability.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Questions and
comments. The hon. member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.
1700
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member seemed to be at one point in
his dissertation struggling with the subject matter. I thought
for a moment that I should rise and suggest that he share his
time with a Liberal. I would have been happy to have a speech of
my own on this subject.
If the House and the member will indulge me, I would not mind a
somewhat extensive comment to the speech he just gave and a
comment that I hope he will answer. I have the bill before me
and it is all about numbers. It is about remuneration. Page
after page we see the bill describe how much judges should be
paid and all that kind of thing. It looks very important.
I say to the member opposite that we are missing an opportunity
in the legislation because there is an opportunity to do
something in the bill, not only for judges, but for people.
I had occasion to be in Alberta a month and a half ago trying to
get a line on the case that is before the Alberta courts
involving Mr. Stephen Harper and the crown. It deals with a
charter challenge of the Canada Elections Act pertaining to
certain aspects of third party advertising that is in the current
legislation.
I was amazed to discover that I could not get court transcripts.
What has happened in Alberta and many other jurisdictions is that
the courts and the government have farmed out the taking of trial
transcripts to private firms that record the actual verbatim
testimony. A citizen, or even somebody who is a defendant at
the trial, has to then purchase page by page the transcripts
which can run into many thousands of pages.
What that does is make it impossible for the ordinary citizen,
much less the person who is the defendant in the case, to have
access to the deliberations of that particular court. This
becomes very important when it is a charter challenge because
something like that is of interest and of importance to every
Canadian. Not only do we have to purchase it, but we cannot get
it through the normal means.
I would have thought, and I would like the member to comment on
this, that we in the House should be very concerned about the
lack of transparency and the lack of opportunity of ordinary
Canadians to know what is going on in the courts, issues that
concern charter challenges, or any other case before the courts
that has a wide public interest.
I would have thought that it would have been incumbent upon
governments and indeed incumbent upon the courts to not only make
the transcripts publicly available for free but to put them on
the Internet, so Canadians can follow these very important
deliberations. What I found out was that I could not gain access
to the transcripts without paying for them page by page.
While I am probably a little bit more affluent than the average
Canadian, at $1,000 a shot, it was not something I was prepared
to do. I point out that this is not even an expense that is
covered by the House. If I want to see the transcripts, it would
appear that I would have to pay for them out of my own pocket.
This is a situation that I do not believe is good for the
country.
I cited a case in Alberta but I believe it is the same situation
in Ontario and other jurisdictions. I suggest to the member
opposite that if we really want to do something that is important
for the public, we should be pressuring the government to add an
amendment to the bill, phrase it so that it would require courts
to take transcripts of the testimony and make the transcripts
available to the public, not only for free, but also available on
the Internet, so that all Canadians can be engaged in the kind of
important debates that occur in the courts when someone like Mr.
Stephen Harper decides to challenge the crown on something like
the Canada Elections Act and makes it a charter challenge.
This is something that every Canadian should be engaged in and
be able to follow. The only answer to that is to make all court
transcripts available to the public for free.
1705
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, in my speech I asked
members to talk about what their constituents want. I am happy
someone took the bait.
On the issue of the member's experience in Alberta, one can
relate to the fact that it was a provincial code and therefore
the requirement of the province, and we are federal.
I will not speak to that issue but I will speak to the very
important issue the member raised about transparency and
accountability. The whole point of my speech was accountability
and transparency in the bill in reference to our federal
jurisdiction, which is judges and the appointment of judges.
The question that he asked was about transcripts being made
available for free. That is an issue that should be visited. I
agree with him that transparency is very important. In our code
system transparency is something that will bring confidence. That
is what we need to retain in our court system. That is something
that needs to be discussed, and I am glad the member raised the
point.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, we have seen other judges acts over the last four years
since 1998. In 1996 we saw a Judges Act, the name or number of
which I am not familiar with right now, but there have been four
such bills. As we go through the bill, it is all about
compensation. There are probably 10 or 15 pages on annuity
scheduling.
The bill gives judges close to a 12% raise. In 1998 they had an
8.3% raise. The salaries of judges are indexed yearly. Could
the member enlighten us a little more on remuneration? When we
look at different sectors of criminal justice we see that in 1998
and prior the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had its wages frozen
for five years. For five years the police forces had their wages
frozen.
Then in March 1998 they were awarded a 3% increase, retroactive
to January 1. In April they received another 1% and later on in
October, three-quarters of 1%. Over the past six, seven and
eight years, our police forces have seen marginal salary
increases of up to 4% or 5%.
Are we seeing a higher level of concern or importance respecting
the remuneration of higher levels of the public service? We have
seen close to a 26% increase over the last few years when we
factor in the indexing. I wonder if it is a higher level than
other public sector employees are receiving. Why is it that the
government seems to be paying such close attention to high level
public servants when frontline police forces are seeing such
nominal pay increases? Could the member enlighten us on that a
little?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, what the member is
saying is that the general public pay raises are correspondingly
much less than those of privileged positions in society. Lawyers
and judges have access to people in power. Therefore they can
articulate the need for higher wages for themselves.
As I stated, they are saying that higher wages are needed so
that they are not under undue pressure. One could have used the
same argument for the police, the ones upholding the law. They
should be getting higher salaries so that they are not under
pressure as well. That also applies to prison guards and others.
The argument could be applied to ordinary Canadians working on
the frontlines.
I agree with my colleagues. That is why we are debating these
issues and that is why the Alliance and many of us are raising
them. We are not judge bashing, let me be very clear about that.
1710
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-12. It is a
bill that is somewhat technical in nature having to do with
compensation for judges.
Many of my colleagues have explained the remuneration part of
the bill in terms of the issues we have with the bill. I will
focus a bit on one part of that and then I will talk a bit about
judicial activism. I will make reference to a creation of the
bill, having to do with the ability of the government to appoint
individuals, thereby having another outlet for some possible
patronage jobs being created. I will also talk about some local
issues happening in Dewdney—Alouette.
The bill deals with about 1,000 individuals, those who are
federally appointed judges. As my colleagues from the Alliance
have pointed out, there have been several increases over the last
number of years for individuals serving in this important
position.
At the same time there have not been the same kinds of
significant increases for those law enforcement agents and guards
in our prison system that are on the frontlines providing good
service, protection and security for our citizens. My colleague
from Wild Rose touched on this issue and my colleague from
Crowfoot just asked a very good question about it. It is
something that needs to be raised.
We realize that the government does not have an endless supply
of dollars. It is actually taxpayer dollars held in trust by the
government. The government is called upon to use those hard
earned tax dollars in a wise way. We have pointed out over the
last number of months and years in this place some areas where
the government could do better in managing taxpayer dollars.
We have explored lots of opportunities for the government to
look at its expenditures to see where it could save some dollars
in wasteful spending, such as the areas having to do with the now
infamous billion dollar boondoggle. We have not heard that word
for a while, so I thought I would throw it in. There is also the
file on Shawinigan, Shawinigate.
We have explored those areas and approximately $13 billion is
allocated from the government to grants and contributions across
government departments. We have become very aware, because of
what happened in human resources development, of how the money is
allocated. Some work needs to be done in all government
departments in terms of how they are using their resources and
their dollars.
If what is happening in the area of human resources is
indicative of how the government is managing the hard earned tax
dollars of our citizens in all departments, there is cause for
concern. There is a possible pool of taxpayer dollars held in
trust by the government that could be used for law enforcement,
providing the resources the RCMP needs to do the job of fighting
organized crime on the frontlines.
Police officers from across the country came to speak to us this
week. Officers who have been working on the frontlines in our
communities told us what has been happening and how they feel
limited in what they can do because of their lack of resources.
It is incumbent upon us to provide law enforcement officers with
the proper compensation and the proper resources to be able to do
their job properly. As has been raised by other colleagues as
well, we know that those individuals the government and the
police forces are fighting have an unlimited pool of capital.
1715
Our forces must be equipped to combat those kinds of activities,
which cause so much harm to our communities and to the safety of
our country. That is something we need to touch on here in the
debate today.
Part of Bill C-12 allows for the creation of the judicial
compensation and benefits commission. As I indicated in my
opening remarks, this provides the government yet another
opportunity to make patronage appointments.
There are a couple of appointments about which I and many of my
constituents have questions. We are not saying all individuals
appointed by the Liberal government fall into this category.
However there needs to be a higher degree of accountability and
scrutiny of individuals appointed to important positions by the
government.
A former colleague in this place, Lou Sekora, the former member
for Coquitlam, was recently appointed by the government. He was
given a patronage position as a citizenship judge. It was a bit
alarming because in the history of his dealings in the House, he
often acted in a very partisan manner and resorted to name
calling in regard to racial comments, comments which were
recorded in Hansard. He even made such comments in his own
community after he was defeated in the election.
Despite that, he was appointed a citizenship judge. It does not
make sense that he was chosen for that job based on his prior
experiences, performance or public record of having said things
that were in many ways inflammatory to the issue of new citizens
and immigrants. That is an example of an appointment that needed
more scrutiny and that the government was remiss in making.
Many other positions could have been chosen. The government
showed a lack of sensitivity in putting that individual in that
position. The opportunity to scrutinize such appointments is
provided for in this part of the bill.
We have had debates in the House in the last couple days about
related issues having to do with the minister for
multiculturalism and her circumstance. I will not go into detail
on that. It is on the record and it is circulating out there.
When there is a lack of sensitivity on important issues like
this, we must look at the actions and deeds rather than just the
words of individuals. That is a cause of concern for us.
We are attempting to work together with members of parliament
from all parties to build alliances and common ground on all
kinds of issues. A committee has just been struck on
parliamentary reform. That was an idea brought forward by the
government House leader and other members of parliament, and I
think it was a good one. It is time for some changes.
Signalling an intention to work well with each other is a good
thing. The government can demonstrate that intention through its
actions. In the case of the minister for multiculturalism, the
government could show its good will by taking action regarding
the minister for what transpired in the last couple of days.
I will move now to the whole notion of judicial activism and how
it has evolved in the last several years through the way the
government has handled particular issues. There are many
sensitive issues in the public domain, ones the government might
hesitate in approaching when they bring forward legislation.
1720
We had the supreme court decision on child pornography. We are
well aware that the Alliance brought forward a motion and that
about 63 government members wrote a letter to the Prime Minister
asking him to use the notwithstanding clause. When that vote
happened they did not support it.
The supreme court took about 18 months to rule on that decision,
and we support the decision made by the court. However there was
a window of 18 months where the government had an opportunity to
act and did not.
During that time the government's lack of action resulted in
specific activity in British Columbia and across the country that
was not beneficial for children. It provided those who would be
involved in the child pornography industry the opportunity to do
so. It sent a message to—
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would again raise with the Chair the issue of relevance
in this place to ensure that members restrict their comments to
the bill before the House. This is not a matter of debate but
rather of order.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member has
raised this point of order before. I did state very clearly that
there is a lot of latitude given by the Chair in terms of the
content of speeches. Obviously hon. members must respect the
debate before the House. It is Bill C-12 we are discussing.
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I did outline in my
opening that I wanted to talk about the issue. Obviously it is
related to the bill before us. I talked about the part of the
bill having to do with the Judicial Compensation and Benefits
Commission that allows the government the opportunity to provide
patronage appointments.
I talked briefly about judicial activism. I will wrap up my
comments on that part of my speech in relation to judges and the
justice system. When the bill goes forward it will go to the
justice committee where it will take up a fair bit of time. We
must question what other issues might be brought forward by the
government in relation to justice issues.
I will talk about a few issues that affect communities in my
riding. Mike Potter, head of the chamber of commerce in Maple
Ridge and Pitt Meadows, is bringing forth some proactive
solutions to combating crime, particularly among businesses in
the community that have been hit hard. That is a noble cause. He
is working hard with Helen Secco, also of the chamber of
commerce, to develop a strategy in which the community can come
together to stop crime from happening.
Vandalism is causing a great deal of harm to local businesses in
Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, and that is of great concern to
business owners who are the backbone of the local economy.
Some of their initiatives are to be applauded. They recently
had a forum in Maple Ridge regarding the issue. Those kinds of
crimes are on the increase, which is unfortunate. That is why
the community is looking for proactive solutions.
There is also a crime prevention priority session coming up in
Mission. People in that community are getting together to try to
find a way to solve issues of crime in the community. That also
is to be applauded. Those citizens are coming forward to work
together to address important issues of safety in their
community. That is a good thing and it should be applauded.
1725
I do know that in debate on the bill we have covered in great
detail the compensation of judges. I started my speech on that
topic. As my colleagues noted, we have concerns that the
government is not putting the same priority forward with
individuals of our front line law enforcement communities.
I will now conclude. I know the government House leader is
hanging on my every word as time draws short in the day. This
is, of course, an important issue. I will conclude by focusing
on the people of Dewdney—Alouette because they are, of course,
the people who sent me here. I applaud their proactive efforts
to provide safety in their community. I will wrap up my comments
by wishing them well in all their endeavours and saying that I
look forward to working with them on those important issues.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I raised this on questions and comments
a little earlier, and I wish to put on the record that the cost
of the transcripts that I was referring to from the Alberta court
was $2.20 a page. I was unable to get these transcripts. I was
unable to get them except by either paying the $2.20 a page or,
in my case, I was lucky enough that I could go across the road
and look at the transcripts in the Department of Justice. The
Department of Justice could not release the transcripts because,
as they were prepared by a private firm, the private firm was
entitled to, by copyright according to the Department of Justice,
to require that the transcripts could not be released.
They were in six boxes of thousands of pages apiece, and
binders. The point I wish to make, regardless that this debate
has to go on a little longer than perhaps intended, is that no
one in the general public would be able to afford to see those
transcripts. I was able to see the transcripts solely because I
happen to live here in Ottawa, I happen to be a member of
parliament and I was able to access them because the Department
of Justice was the defendant in this particular case.
This is a trial involving a charter issue which is of concern to
every Canadian. In order for an ordinary Canadian to access
those transcripts, that ordinary Canadian would probably have had
to pay something like $6,000 or $8,000.
I see the members opposite are laughing at that. They are so,
so concerned about judiciary remuneration that they do not pay
attention to the fact that ordinary Canadians cannot access the
debates that are leading ultimately to the very judicial activism
that they complain about.
I do not want to actually prolong the debate with a speech of my
own, although I would be delighted to under normal circumstances.
I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that in fact the thing
that we should be really concerned about is not only making these
transcripts available that are so important in criminal cases, as well as
in civil cases and even in human rights tribunals, we still have
to pay for the transcripts because private firms prepare them.
I would only say this. I hope that the members opposite
would consider this as a very important issue that is just as
important as the remuneration of judges, the public access to
court transcripts, and put it indeed on the Internet just as our
Debates are put on the Internet. I am sure the members
opposite would agree that this would be a very fine thing to
recommend.
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I heard the question
earlier that the hon. member had asked.
He knows that it is a provincial matter. I have individuals
coming into my constituency office asking me the exact same
questions. This brings to mind the same dilemma members of
parliament are faced with in terms of getting information from
the government.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 5.30 the
House will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In an effort to be helpful to the House, I wonder if the
House would consent to putting the question prior to going into
private members' business.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the House give
its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The House leader asked for unanimous consent that the
question be put. If you check the record you will find that
consent was not given for the motion to be put because the clock
being 5.30, debate has ended.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The Chair did not
hear a no when I asked for unanimous consent. I will ask for
unanimous consent again. Is there unanimous consent to put the
question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring
in legislation defining a “human being” as a human fetus or
embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the
mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and
making any and all consequential amendments required.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is the most important issue facing
Canada today. In fact, this issue is more important than
anything that has been debated in the House since May 1991. Let
me explain.
May of 1991 was when Bill C-43, an act respecting abortions, was
debated in parliament. That was the last time there was any
serious debate about the rights of the unborn in the House. That
is a disgrace. For 10 years now successive governments have
buried their heads in the sand on this life and death issue. I
will correct myself. It is not a life and death issue, it is
only a death issue.
Between 1988 and 1998, 1,021,965 unborn babies died because the
government did not have the courage to deal with the issue. Now
is that time. Those one million unborn do not think this is the
best country in the world to live. They never had a chance.
Bill C-43 was actually passed by the House of Commons but was
defeated in the Senate by a single vote. One vote was a death
sentence to how many babies? After one million have died is the
senator who defeated the bill proud? After one million babies
have been killed is the government proud of how effectively it
killed the debate of this issue?
The unwillingness of the government to even debate the issue, to
even study the issue, to even ask Canadians what they think about
the issue is criminal negligence if, in fact as I contend, these
one million unborn were human beings. Does the government really
think it can ignore the fact that 100,000 babies are being killed
every year? Does it actually think there are no consequences for
its actions?
Before I get into my main remarks, I want to tell the House
about a response I got to one of my access to information
requests. I asked Health Canada for the documents, reports and
correspondence in the department that provided evidence that
abortions are medically necessary.
On March 8 Health Canada responded by saying:
I regret to inform you that after a thorough search of all likely
record holdings, departmental officials have confirmed that they
have no records relevant to your request.
That is amazing.
More than 100,000 unborn babies lose their right to live every
year and the Department of Health does not have one document that
says abortions are even medically necessary.
1735
If they are not medically necessary, why are we doing them? Why
are taxpayers paying for them? Why is this happening?
The problem is the way we define a human being in Canadian law.
Our legal definition of a human being is wrong and needs to be
amended. This is the sole purpose of my motion.
Currently a human being is defined in section 223(1) of the
Criminal Code of Canada as follows:
A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when
it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of
its mother, whether or not
Motion No. 228 which I put foward today states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring
in legislation defining a “human being” as a human fetus or
embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the
mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and
making any and all consequential amendments required.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which
Canada signed, states:
—the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity,
needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal
protection, before as well as after birth.
In Canadian law there simply is no protection for a child before
birth. The Government of Canada cannot discharge its legal
obligations under this international agreement, an agreement the
federal government and 10 provinces have ratified, unless and
until it changes the definition of a human being.
Prior to 1969, all abortions were illegal. From 1969 to 1988,
Canada had a law in our criminal code that provided for an
abortion only when a therapeutic abortion committee of three
doctors agreed that the continuation of a pregnancy would cause
harm to the life or health of the mother. The word health was
not defined or limited.
In 1988 the supreme court struck down the 1969 abortion law as
unconstitutional. The supreme court ruling, commonly referred to
as the Morgentaler decision, provided constitutional parameters
for a new abortion law.
Based on the instructions from the supreme court justices, in
1990 the government of the day introduced, debated and passed
Bill C-43 in the House of Commons. As I mentioned, Bill C-43 was
defeated by one vote in the Senate. Since that time the
government has not restricted abortions in any way and the unborn
have been without any rights. Since then more than one million
babies have been aborted while politicians were hoping the issue
would just go away.
In 1988 the supreme court said that this is an issue best left
to parliament. I say it is time for parliament to assume its
responsibility. Many key moral and legal issues such as
reproductive technologies, rights of the unborn and a mother's
duty of care for her unborn, all hinge on when the law says a
child becomes a human being.
Today's definition is unacceptable in my mind. It is debatable
in the minds of most people. It is time the debate began. How
we define a human being is the place to begin this entire debate.
That is why I have introduced this motion.
Since introducing the motion, I have been asked some important
questions like why I am trying to ban abortions. While that
would be my personal preference, my motion would only ban
abortions if the legislation I am asking the government to draft
bans them. The more likely consequence of my motion would be
that parliament would determine at what point during a pregnancy
an unborn human being has rights.
I have also been asked why I am bringing in this motion. Because
the current definition of a human being in the criminal code is
scientifically incorrect. A baby has to emerge completely from
the birth canal before it becomes a human being.
1740
It is obvious to everyone that a baby is a human being before it
is born. It is a proven law of science that like things beget
like things. Dogs have dogs, cats have cats and people produce
people.
I have also been asked about a woman's right to her own body and
if my motion is passed whose rights would come first, the child's
or the woman's.
I agree that everyone has a right to their own body, until it
interferes with the rights of someone else's own body. The
problem is that under the Canadian law, the human being growing
inside the woman has no rights until he or she has fully emerged
from the birth canal. I maintain that at some point during the
pregnancy the unborn baby's rights are equal to the woman's
rights. Even the United Nations agrees that every unborn child
has rights. These rights need the protection of the Government
of Canada.
My motion would start a debate in parliament, and in the public,
to determine at what point during the pregnancy does the
helpless, unborn child deserve protection under Canadian law.
A month ago I had the pleasure to meet and listen to Scott
Klusendorf. Scott is a director of bio-ethics for Stand to
Reason from San Pedro, California. I was impressed by the
simplicity of his approach and his direct hard hitting message.
I appreciated his taking the time to meet with the pro-life
caucus and with our staff. I thank him for the printed materials
he shared with us, some of which I have used in preparing for
this debate.
The question we must answer is “Can we kill the unborn?” The
answer is “Yes, we can kill the unborn if it is not a human
being”. How many have watched a video of what actually happens
to a baby during an abortion? After watching any video that
depicts the truth, no one can doubt what is being killed is a
human being.
When MPs opposite support abortion, they are going against what
Canadians would think Liberals normally stand for. Liberals
normally pride themselves as defenders of the weakest members of
society. Who could be weaker and more defenceless than an unborn
baby?
Liberals normally pride themselves in not discriminating against
anyone, and I use small l there, but every year they are
discriminating against more than 100,000 unborn babies and
defending every adult mother's right to kill the baby in her
womb, for any reason or for no reason, up to the very moment the
baby fully emerges from the birth canal.
During the election, the Liberals attacked pro-life policies and
any politician who holds these views. However, who should really
be attacked? The Liberals because they approve of killing more
than 100,000 unborn babies or me because I want to save the lives
of many of these poor, defenceless, unborn babies as possible.
What is so wrong with trying to save as many little unborn
babies as we can? What is so wrong with trying to get a real
debate in the House about saving these babies' lives? What are
we so afraid of? What is the government afraid of?
We are not the scary ones. We are the ones who think the unborn
have some rights. The government thinks the unborn has no
rights. We are the ones who want to save these babies.
Why do we have a law that allows the killing of a little unborn
baby, even when they are eight or nine weeks old? It is like
unborn babies are not people. From conception to birth, the
unborn are not technically people so it is okay to murder them.
However, the moment they emerge from the birth canal, it is a
crime to murder them. Where is the sense in that?
Remember when the law did not consider slaves to be people?
They were property. Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed
this was wrong and the law was changed.
Remember when the law did not consider women to be persons and
denied them the vote? Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed
this was wrong and the law was changed.
Remember when aboriginal people and Chinese immigrants were not
considered people? Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed this
was wrong and the law was changed.
1745
It is time we recognize the fact that the unborn are people. It
is time someone heard their cries. Their cry is not a silent
cry. It is a silent scream. It is time the law was changed. It
will take a lot more than one hour of parliament to provide some
small measure of justice in the defence of the rights of the
unborn. In a moment I will be asking for consent to go beyond
that.
Abortion has been defined as the strong and independent
exploiting the weak and defenceless. Here we stand, the strong
and the independent. We are the only hope for the weak and the
defenceless in Canadian society. There is no one weaker and no
one more defenceless than an unborn baby. Anti-life activists
challenge us by asking why we are forcing our morality on them.
I say to them that their morality is being forced on me.
When I cannot stand up for what I believe, is that right?
Anti-life activists approve of killing the most weak and
defenceless human beings. I am trying to save them. Who is
standing on the high moral ground? Abortion is not a complex
issue. It involves the honesty of answering one simple question.
What is the unborn? That is what I would like parliament to
debate. That is what we are here for today.
Madam Speaker, could I request unanimous consent to make the
motion that I have before the House votable?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If someone denies unanimous consent, does he or does he
not have to be in his seat when he does so? The individual who
denied unanimous consent was not in his seat.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I will tell the hon.
member and the House that I did hear a no. I did not look over
to see if the hon. member was sitting in his seat, but I believe
the no came from the parliamentary secretary, who was in his
seat.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois: I said no, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member said no
as well. Because she did not understand the question in English,
I repeated it, and she has already said no.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the concerns that motivated the
member for Yorkton—Melville to introduce this motion in the
House are entirely respectable. They are very important and
deserve serious examination.
I wish to take this opportunity to emphasize a few important
considerations which are relevant to this motion.
[English]
As the House will appreciate, the views of Canadians diverge
significantly on the important issues suggested in the motion.
Achieving a consensus is indeed a challenge.
The Government of Canada has been visible in laying the research
groundwork necessary to support an informed policy debate on the
multitude of issues implied in the motion. There are moral,
social, economic and legal implications on health and research,
as well as repercussions for the general public, that must be
fully explored.
Through its three federal research funding agencies, the
Government of Canada seeks to support and promote a framework for
conducting ethically sound research.
[Translation]
More recently, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its
decision in Dobson v Dobson. This was a case involving a fetus
which had sustained injuries as a result of a car accident in
which a pregnant woman died.
What did the Supreme Court of Canada say? It said that it was
up to the provincial legislature rather than the courts to find a
solution to these questions, given the limitations imposed by the
charter.
All the research done by scientists and researchers, funded
through Canada's health research institutes, the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council is reviewed according
to the standards contained in the tri-council policy statement on
ethical conduct for research involving humans.
1750
[English]
In 1998, these three federal research councils developed a joint
policy statement for research involving humans. The statement
replaces the separate policies that have been in place since the
seventies and ensures a co-ordinated approach to all federal
funding initiatives in terms of ethical standards.
It is interesting to point out that with its launch in September
1998, Canada became the very first country to produce a
comprehensive ethical policy statement for research involving
humans in all academic disciplines. The councils believe that
sensitive and thoughtful implementation of this policy statement
benefits researchers, their institutions and their subject
ensuring ethically sound research.
[Translation]
For example, the section of the policy statement dealing with
research using gametes, zygotes, embryos and fetuses emphasizes
how very central respect for human dignity remains in any
ethical, political or social debate.
[English]
The policy statement adheres to the internationally held
standard that no research involving human subjects should be
started without prior review and approval by a properly
constituted and functioning research ethics board.
It requires that research ethic boards be established in
institutions where the research is conducted and to contain
expertise in the areas being studied: ethical expertise, wider
academic representation community representation and in most
cases legal expertise.
[Translation]
The tri-council policy statement is also an evolving document.
Given the complexity of the considerations surrounding the ethics
of research involving humans, the federal research agency
releases regular updates to the tri-council policy statement and
is open to any comments or discussions at any time.
[English]
We in Canada are lucky to have outstanding scientists and
researchers. As Dr. Alan Bernstein, president of the Canadian
Institute of Health Research, recently pointed out:
With the right structure, the right vision and the right
resources, there's no doubt we can more than play our fair share
in this exciting revolution in health research in the 21st
century.
[Translation]
This revolution in health research must incorporate ethical
standards which will reflect in our policies and programs the
values with which we are comfortable in this country.
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Madam
Speaker, today's debate revolves around three points: first, the
recognition of a fetus or embryo as a human being; second, the
fact that it can be conceived naturally or otherwise, in the womb
of the mother or not; and third, if the motion is agreed to, the
resulting legislation ought to provide that “any and all
consequential amendments required” shall be made. This would
involve discussions on abortion and the regulation of embryo or
fetal tissue use for research purposes.
Despite all the respect I have for my colleague from
Yorkton—Melville, it must be acknowledged that this bill is
treacherous, deceitful and misleading.
First, it refers to new reproductive technologies on which this
House has not yet been informed.
This bill has links to previous discussions held in past
parliaments on which we have already reached conclusions. The
subject matters are admittedly closely linked. A person is
either for or against abortion, for or against recognition of the
fetus as a human being.
Given the situation, I venture to believe that colleagues here
will agree that such a bill would be unacceptable and
will act accordingly. As Bloc Quebecois critic for the status of
women, however, I must present the position of a heavy majority
of Canadian and Quebec women on the two components of this issue.
1755
There are two radically different and opposed concepts involved
in this debate. While some defend the right of everyone to choose
life, their opponents see but one thing: life at all cost.
The argument for the embryo being considered a person from the
moment of conception is that when the nuclei are fused the
entire program for the development of that being until death has
been set. Yet the celebrated physician and theologian Alberto
Bondolfi, after thorough examination of the question, stated
that while a fetus is neither a thing nor a tissue, it cannot
however be treated as a human person from the time of birth.
Nor must we deliberately ignore the definitive caesura of birth,
what Hans Saner called the fundamental shift in worlds.
We must recall that up until birth the embryo is not an
independent being. Most philosophers, ethicists, theologians,
men and women, Catholics and non-Catholics make a fundamental
distinction between prenatal life and the being after birth.
Furthermore, neither the Canadian constitution nor international
conventions confer on an embryo the right to life. Here in
Canada there is even a fairly major controversy over the extent
of the federal government's jurisdiction in this regard.
During the 33rd Parliament, the government introduced a motion
for debate and a vote in order to obtain the advice of parliament
on the wording of new legislation concerning the recognition of
the fetus as a human being and the criminalization of abortion.
This motion was not passed and, of note, no female MPs voted in
favour of the motion.
In 1988, Canada gave the woman in question the fundamental
right protected by the constitution to make a free and
independent decision. Various private member's bills to restrict
access to abortion were introduced during the 34th and 35th
parliaments, but none made it past second reading.
One could also talk about the policy stands taken by governments
of other countries in favour of freedom of choice. Even the
European Commission of Human Rights pointed out that the
expression “any person” in its second article, which guarantees
the right to life, does not apply to an unborn child.
Abortion and birth control practices date back to the earliest
civilizations. Even today a number of traditional societies use
plants that cause sterility or abortions for birth control.
But it was in the middle ages that abortion was considered
criminal. Assemblies of bishops—men—condemned it in a number
of decrees. I would point out to members that today's proposal
is being advanced by men. History makes abundant mention of the
fact that attitudes toward abortion were influenced by religious
beliefs, customs and attitudes toward women and the family.
Despite religious bans, women continued to use plants that cause
sterility, turning to charlatans of the day or to witchcraft in
order to have an abortion at the risk of their life.
Today, in these so-called modern times, religious considerations
continue to surround the debate on abortion. However, in the
Bible the Christian message does not mention it. What may be
understood from the Bible is that each woman is free to choose
independently and according to her own conscience.
In the New Testament, Luke reports the sentence Jesus said “Woe
unto you also, ye lawyers. For ye lade men with burdens grievous
to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of
your fingers”.
1800
This brings me to a discussion of the fundamental rights of
women. The decision to have a child or not is no light matter.
It is one of the weightiest decisions to be made in the life of a
woman. It is for her and her alone to choose in full knowledge
of the facts to end a pregnancy.
Who are we to intervene in such a personal decision? To prevent
a woman from ending a pregnancy obliges her to bear a child and
this obligation is contrary to the fundamental rights of women.
Is it up to us to rule behaviour and conscience by imposing our
concept of life?
A woman has a right to life, health, physical integrity, freedom
of conscience, moral independence, the right to make her own
decisions and to choose motherhood freely, a right recognized
fundamentally the world over.
To decide against having a child is also to decide for
something: one's own life and the life of one's family, to
procreate later, when the woman is able in more favourable
conditions. It is a responsible decision that considers the
impact of one's own choices. And it is not wrong to do that.
To truly protect life is first and foremost to protect the life
aspirations and perspectives of women. It is to prevent
undesired pregnancies and to ensure that every child is wanted.
It is to create conditions through appropriate social policy so
that motherhood may be lived in full awareness and in joy.
Is the hon. member aware only of the responsibilities a woman
faces when she is pregnant and when she has a child to raise?
Pregnancy is not just about reproduction; it is about the
ability to have access to appropriate clinical services; it is
about access to information and assistance; it is about
parenting skills; it is about being able to raise a child
without living in abject poverty; it is about the availability
of services that will ensure both mother and child quality
life.
Why is the hon. member not calling for free and universally
accessible health and social services? Why is he not calling
for measures against poverty as it involves women? Why is he
not calling for social housing? Why is he not calling for
legislation that would force men to pay child support and
shoulder their responsibilities?
With the one and a half million children living in poverty,
without three meals a day, why is he not calling for the House
to legislate on that? And I could go on and on in this vein.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are of the opinion that defining a
human being as a fetus and making consequential amendments will
initiate a debate that will take us back to the middle ages.
Fortunately, public opinion has changed a good deal over the
past 30 years on this issue. I can only hope that my
parliamentary colleagues will become aware of this reality and
act accordingly.
[English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the motion. For
those who might be following the debate on television, let us be
clear that this is a motion, not a bill. Before I begin my
remarks I will reread the motion for the record and then comment
on the remarks of the three previous speakers.
The motion is fairly simple and yet extremely complex:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring
in legislation defining a “human being” as a human fetus or
embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the
mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and
making any and all consequential amendments required.
First of all, I wish to commend the hon. member who moved the
motion for doing just that. I wish to commend him as well on his
concise and correct history of this issue in Canada.
I want to remind the people who have spoken and people who are
watching that this is not some esoteric topic that we are trying
to impose here. There already is, as the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville pointed out, a definition of human being. It
is already in the criminal code.
1805
The issue is this: are we as Canadians comfortable with the
definition that is already there, or should we, based on whatever
considerations we believe to be correct, amend that definition?.
We are not going back to the middle ages by reviewing the
question, which is already in the criminal code. The question is
simple. First, where does human life begin, and second, where
does society wish to protect human life?
We already know that society at least wishes to protect human
life from the time stated in the criminal code, and that is, as
we have heard, when the child exits the womb, whether breathing
or not. The question now is do we wish to extend that protection
backward, or shall we say forward, to the development of the
child? That is, in my opinion, a reasonable question to ask.
That is all we are doing. That is all this motion is trying to
do. It is trying to bring this issue to the forefront.
The parliamentary secretary, in his remarks, which I found to be
respectful, recognized the importance of some of the comments
that were made by the mover. I do not want to be completely
complimentary of the mover of the motion because I do not think
this matter should be dealt with in a partisan way. I do not
think this matter should be debated by pointing fingers to this
side of the House and saying what this side of the House does and
what they do not do over there, or anything like that. This is a
bigger issue than a political issue. This is an issue of life
and death and should not be discussed on a partisan basis.
I will remind listeners that the votes and the bills talked
about by the mover were brought forward by a Conservative
government. The votes were free, except for cabinet ministers,
and people voted for or against the legislation for a variety of
reasons.
To educate the member from the Bloc Quebecois, I can tell her
that there were women on this side of the House who voted against
the legislation, not because it so-called offended the rights of
women, but because it did not go far enough to protect the unborn
child. Of course she was not here at that time so she might not
know. I was.
I found it interesting when the member from the Bloc Quebecois
said that this matter had been dealt with and therefore we should
not deal with it again. It is a very interesting philosophy from
a party dedicated to the breaking up of the country. That matter
has been dealt with. There was a referendum. What legitimacy
does that person have to sit in the House and attempt to break up
the country when the matter has been dealt with? We cannot have
it both ways. If a matter has been dealt with, fine, then it has
been dealt with, but we cannot pick and choose which matters have
been dealt with and which matters have not.
I am a lawyer. I do not know if the Bloc member is, but in my
view she misstated the holding of the Supreme Court of Canada.
It was correctly stated that the Supreme Court of Canada found
that there were technical reasons why the law that was in place
was not in accordance with the constitution and it did turn the
ball back to the Parliament of Canada to do whatever it wished to
do in order to correct that. There is no legal right to abortion
in this country, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. That
is a misstatement of the Morgentaler decision.
She also mentioned the Bible. I was not going to mention the
Bible because as soon as one does that, one imposes one's views.
However, the member opposite mentioned the Bible. I would just
like to remind her about a little story in the Bible which I am
sure she is familiar with. When Mary, who was going to become
the mother of Jesus, visited her cousin Elizabeth, who was
carrying John the Baptist, the baby leapt in her womb, says the
Bible, in anticipation of the great joy of Jesus being born. The
Bible uses those words, the baby leapt in her womb. Not the
fetus, not the zygote, not the embryo, but the baby leapt in her
womb for joy. That is from the New Testament.
I do not want to talk about the New Testament. I want to talk
about the motion. The parliamentary secretary said there is no
consensus in Canada on the issue of abortion.
I do not want to talk necessarily about abortion. I want to talk
about the definition of human being. Of course abortion is one
of the consequences, as the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois
correctly stated.
1810
There are a number of consequences that flow from this motion.
One of them is, what is the definition of human being? There is
no consensus on that issue, as we have already heard in the
debate, but does that mean there is no truth? There was no
consensus that the earth was round. In fact I would say that the
majority of people thought at one time that the earth was flat.
Did that make the earth flat? No.
At one time the majority of people around the world felt it was
perfectly reasonable to have slaves. Even the Bible mentions it.
It is mentioned in the laws of Moses as to what the Hebrews are
to do with their slaves. At one time slavery was considered to
be perfectly acceptable and in some countries it still is. Does
that make it perfectly acceptable? No.
The truth is that slavery is wrong and the truth is that the
earth is round, no matter how many people say that slavery is
acceptable and no matter how many people say the earth is flat.
Is what is inside the womb a human being? That cannot be
decided by consensus. It is either a truth or it is not. Let us
look at that.
As was mentioned by the previous speaker, we have a law of
science. It is undisputed. It is the law of biogenesis. It is
very simple and very logical and it cannot be argued, that is,
like begets like, period, full stop. Two hamsters cannot produce
a frog. Two dogs cannot produce a cat. Two humans cannot
produce anything other than a human. That is simply a fact.
Once a fertilized egg has been conceived by the act of
procreation of two humans, that is the commencement of human life
according to the law of biogenesis. If that is the commencement
of human life, does that life need protection? Let us look at it
philosophically.
We are talking about human rights and protecting against
discrimination, but we cannot talk about the discrimination that
the unborn child has. It has no rights. It has an absolute
impossibility of protecting itself from a decision that another
person makes about its very right to breathe.
Do you not find it interesting, Madam Speaker, that on the one
hand it is perfectly acceptable and legal in Canada at the
present time to kill an unborn child at any point of its
development, right up until it comes out of the womb, yet on the
other hand we are wringing our hands about the ethics of
experimentation on zygotes?
Where is the logic in that? How can it be logical to permit a
third trimester abortion at eight months without blinking our
eyes and wring our hands about whether or not a fertilized egg is
going to be flushed down a scientist's drain?
Let us start thinking about the realities of what we are talking
about. Do we discriminate on the basis of size? No. Therefore
we should not discriminate on the basis of the size of the fetus.
Do we discriminate on the basis of level of development? No. If
someone has a lower IQ than someone else we do not discriminate.
Therefore, why do we discriminate because the unborn child has a
lesser level? It is the same with its environment and degree of
dependency.
This is an issue of fundamental human rights. The issue should
be discussed in parliament. All of the views should be aired and
decisions should be made. We should not be afraid of discussing
the issue. I commend the hon. member for bringing it forward.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I too commend my colleague from Yorkton—Melville
for bringing this motion forward.
It has of course been a topic where there are deep feelings on
both sides of the abortion issue. The motion specifically talks
about the government bringing in legislation defining a human
being as a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception,
whether in the womb of the mother or not, and whether conceived
naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential
amendments required.
I want to state my unequivocal and unqualified support for the
motion and be very clear about that.
1815
I want to take a minute or two to rebut the comments made by my
colleague from the Bloc. The member for Scarborough Southwest
spent some time on that as well so I will not go into great
detail, but he made a good point when he said that her argument
was logically inconsistent in regard to the separation issue
being dealt with and that we should just leave it alone. She
claimed that because the abortion issue, in her mind, has been
settled and closed, we should not go there. That is logically
inconsistent.
She also claimed that the opposition to this particular idea of
redefining what is a human or the definition of a person is, in
and of itself, one that is religious in its nature. I would
disagree with that. I would say that it is a moral issue and one
where individuals, who are both religious and non-religious but
who are what we might call, absolutists who believe in right and
wrong, would find broad agreement. Those who would say that
abortion is wrong would be absolutists and I would include
myself as an absolutist. I therefore reject the premise of her
argument that it is simply a religious argument for those who
speak against abortion.
A very big dilemma in this whole issue of abortion has to do
with the definition of a human being. My colleagues have talked
about the legal definition. It is in statute right now that a
human is a human when the person leaves the birth canal. That
creates a dilemma for many of us specifically because of the
technology and advancement within our world in terms of medical
sciences.
We know that in one room we may have a doctor performing
microsurgery with the latest technology to save the life of what
some may call a fetus, an unborn child who might be six months in
its development, while in the very next room we might have
somebody else in a very similar situation having the termination
of a pregnancy or an abortion. That is a big dilemma. How do we
explain that? How do we deal with that?
On the one hand, we are seeing medical dollars allocated to
saving the life of an unborn child through microsurgery and, on
the other hand, in the next room a child is being aborted. That
has been a great dilemma for people who are both pro-choice and
pro-life.
We could have agreement from many pro-choice individuals and
pro-life people, people who would identify themselves as such,
that in terms of partial birth abortions, or late term abortions,
that we should look at redefining the definition of a human. We
must scale it back, or as my colleague says, scale it forward.
The debate is, when does life begin. I believe life begins at
conception. Many members in this place believe that. That is
the fundamental question, the philosophical debate that we have
around the issue. It does get very emotional.
We would do well to try and strip away as best we can those
emotional catch phrases, in many ways similar to the kinds of
partisan debates that can take place in the House on many
different issues. We must remove that aspect in the debate and
have reasoned debate taking into account the technologies that
are available and that our understanding has changed from when
this practice of abortion became commonplace in the sixties and
throughout the seventies. We must re-examine the question and it
is only fair that we re-examine it.
Yes, it has been dealt with previously, but does that mean that
because we have made a decision on something, we cannot go back
and open it up?
My Bloc colleague also said she was speaking for her party. I
think that was a mistake because I know she has colleagues that
would identify themselves as pro-life. This being private
members' business, it is good for members to state their
positions. We have individuals in our caucus that are both
pro-life and pro-choice, and I think that would be the case for
all parties.
We should talk about the issue and open up the debate.
1820
As a man, individuals have asked me why I feel I have the right
to even speak on this particular issue. As a man, I am also the
husband of a wife. There are a lot of women in my life but just
one wife whom I love dearly. I am the father of three beautiful
daughters, the uncle of eight beautiful nieces and the son to a
mother. I have many other close friends who are women.
I have two very close friends who had abortions earlier on in
their lives. They have reflected many years later on that
experience. One was put in the position of being with an abusive
husband who forced her to go through with this particular act,
and she did. The second time she became pregnant, she was being
forced to do again. However, she left her husband and gave birth
to a son. There are countless stories of individuals who have
been put in that situation.
Another friend had an abortion at a very young age. She told me
she wished she had received counsel on this particular issue
before embarking on this choice.
There are other solutions and other things that we can look at.
Some say it is wrong to force a woman to remain pregnant. There
is another possible solution for those women who find themselves
in an unfortunate circumstance, and that is adoption. Abortion
is one possible solution but so is adoption. I have many friends
who are adopted.
We are losing generations of children every year. There are
100,000 children a year who will not walk with us in this world,
who will not be able to contribute to our society and who will
not be the doctors, the lawyers, the scholars, the workers and
the people across the strata of our society. That is an issue we
need to examine.
When we make a decision to end a child's life, are we making a
decision to end the life of someone who might have a great and
profound impact on our society? Each and every life is
important. Each and every life will have a profound impact the
child's family of course but also within a greater sphere as well
in their lives.
I wrap up my comments by saying that I support the motion. We
need to approach this topic in a reasoned and rational way. We
need to bring forward the knowledge that we received from the
great science and technology advancements in our society. We
need to work together, even individuals who disagree on this
particular topic. We should look for some common ground. We can
start by redefining life at an earlier stage. I think pro-life
and pro-choice people would have a broad consensus on the issue
of partial birth abortion.
It is a worthwhile motion. It is one that is emotional but it
is worthwhile because it is the definition of life, which is the
most important question in all of our entire lives.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the member on bringing the issue before the House. I
believe that life begins at conception and ends at natural death.
That is precisely what the intent was of the motion before the
House.
One of the issues I worked on in the House was fetal alcohol
syndrome which relates to the consumption of alcohol during
pregnancy and leads to very serious problems. The House might be
interested to know that a number of jurisdictions in the United
States have laws where chronic or irresponsible drinking during
pregnancy is now considered a criminal offence and is equal to or
equivalent to child abuse. That was very interesting because it
was the first time I heard of the rights of the unborn being
protected.
1825
It shows the House and all members that things are changing.
Things do change. Science is changing. We can operate on unborn
children, examine them, do all kinds of microsurgery, et cetera.
All of a sudden we need to start thinking about fundamentals,
about what the difference is. The member from Scarborough says
size, the degree of independence and the level of development can
be different in and outside the womb.
Nothing really changes. That convention was established a long
time ago and I suspect it will be debated for a long time to
come. However I lend my support to the member's motion because I
believe it is an important issue for all Canadians to consider,
to have input into and to understand. Children, as one can
imagine, are celebrated every day in the world, even unborn
children. All one needs to do is go to a baby shower and ask
what everyone is celebrating.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I thank all hon. members who have
spoken in support of my motion. I appreciate that. I thank them
for putting politics aside and standing for what is right. Some
who have spoken are more eloquent than I on this issue.
The question I have asked is: What is the unborn? I have
talked about the abortion issue and will continue to do so
because it is one of the key consequences of my motion. I will
briefly reply to some of the people who oppose the motion.
Anti-life advocates or those who oppose the motion say that
abortion is a private matter. The response to that is we do not
allow child abuse if it is done in private. Those who oppose the
motion will say that many poor women cannot afford to raise
another child. The answer is obvious: We do not kill people
just because it is too expensive to care for them.
Those who oppose the motion say killing a fetus is not the same
as killing a person. The response is that it comes down to a
simple question: What is the unborn? By the way, Madam
Speaker, did you know that the word fetus means little one?
Opponents to the motion will ask whether we think a woman should
be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world. The
response is obvious: The homeless around us are unwanted, but we
do not kill them. If the unborn are human beings they deserve
the same protection as other human beings. In Canada they do not
have that protection. We are one of the few countries that does
not provide it.
For the government to defend its current stand supporting
abortion, it must offer a better definition of a human being than
currently exists in the criminal code. I ask that they produce
evidence that the unborn are not human.
If people could produce evidence that the unborn are not human,
I suspect that the people supporting the motion and I would walk
away from the debate immediately. Some will respond by saying
that no one can prove whether the unborn are human so we will
keep killing them anyway. We cannot accept that. What if the
criminal code is wrong? What if we are killing human beings when
we kill a fetus? Is the question not worthy of a full debate in
the House?
I will offer three scientific reasons as to why an unborn child
is a human being. First, the unborn is genetically distinct from
its parents. It is not just a part of the woman. Second, the
unborn has human parents and human parents can only produce human
offspring. Third, the unborn is genetically complete. It is a
self-integrating organism.
In a paper presented to the 1978 meeting of the Association of
Planned Parenthood Physicians in San Diego, California,
abortionist Dr. Warren Hern, in describing the abortion
procedure, said:
1830
An unborn child differs from a newborn child in only four ways:
It is smaller; it is not as well developed; it is located inside
its mother; and it is more dependent. Those are the only
differences. The evidence is clear that the unborn are human
beings. They deserve protection. After 10 years of not debating
the issue and not talking about it in the House, they deserve a
fair hearing.
In conclusion, we could probably all reach a decision. We need
to talk about the issue. I think people on both sides of the
debate would agree that what we have in the criminal code is not
enough. There must be some point at which we can agree that
pre-born children must have protection.
Because I think the debate should continue, I respectfully
request the House to refer the motion to the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights so that parliament can hear what
Canadians think. The committee can hear from scientists and from
people on both sides.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House for that to be done
on the issue at some point. When the government feels it is
appropriate, this should be discussed by the justice committee. I
hope this has been enough of an indication that we need to
further debate the issue.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
It being 6.32 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.)