37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 008
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 7, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| AIR CANADA
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| GOVERNMENT SPENDING
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| GERRY MORIN
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1405
| TOYOTA CANADA
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| FULGENCE CHARPENTIER
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| BARIYA IBRAHIM MAGAZU
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| DAVID IFTODY
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
1410
| FULGENCE CHARPENTIER
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| THE FAMILY
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| DAVID IFTODY
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| NOVA SCOTIA
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| SAINT-CÔME FESTIVAL DE SCULPTURES SUR GLACE
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1415
| NOVA SCOTIA
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| NUCLEAR WEAPONS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| AUDITOR GENERAL
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1440
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1445
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1450
| INTERNATIONAL LOANS
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FOOD INSPECTION
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1455
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1500
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF PYRITE DAMAGE
|
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-8. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-241. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-242. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1510
| HEPATITIS AWARENESS MONTH ACT
|
| Bill C-243. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-244. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-245. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-246. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1515
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-247. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-248. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
| Bill C-249. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1520
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
1525
1530
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1535
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1540
1545
| Mr. James Moore |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1550
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1555
1600
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1605
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. Serge Marcil |
1610
1615
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1620
| Mr. Scott Reid |
1625
1630
| Mr. David Pratt |
1635
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1640
1645
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1650
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1655
1700
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1705
| Mr. John McCallum |
1710
1715
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1720
1725
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1730
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1735
1740
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1745
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1750
1755
| Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
1800
1805
| Mr. John Bryden |
1810
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1815
| Mr. John Bryden |
1820
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 008
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 7, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[Translation]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O
Canada, led by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
AIR CANADA
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we
learned that Air Canada has undertaken a study which might lead
to its providing unilingual English counter service as well as
service on certain flights in western Canada.
Although Air Canada is a private company, we wish to remind Air
Canada of its moral obligation, at the very least, to provide
bilingual service on all its flights and those of its
subsidiaries within the country.
The Liberal MPs wish to remind Air Canada that both official
languages are greatly valued by Canadians in all parts of this
Country and we expect Air Canada to respect all Canadians.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, starting tomorrow the city of Saskatoon will be
witness to another flagrant and irresponsible waste of taxpayers'
money by the Liberal government. In this instance the amount is
$20,000, small potatoes compared to last year's scandalous misuse
of billions by the Liberal government's human resources minister,
but wasteful spending nonetheless.
I am referring to the federal government's cash handout of
$20,000 to the Queer City Cinema Film Festival, notorious for
playing such films as the one about lesbian bikers who use
children as sex slaves.
Taxpayers may not know which is more peculiar, the strange
misuse of taxpayers' money in this instance or the Queer City
Cinema Film Festival itself. One thing they do know is that both
are somewhat at odds with, much less appreciated, by hard working
families who pay taxes to the federal government expecting that
their money will not be wasted.
* * *
GERRY MORIN
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
Mr. Gerry Morin was sworn in on February 2 as a judge in the
province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Morin is a member of the Peter
Ballantyne Cree Nation and has had extensive experience in
northern Saskatchewan. He has served as a probation officer in
various communities. His aspirations in the legal profession
were realized when he graduated from Saskatoon's University of
Saskatchewan.
Mr. Morin started his law practice in the city of Prince Albert
and served northerners in the justice circles and as an adviser
in major negotiations. He gained national prominence when he was
appointed chairman of the RCMP complaints commission.
Mr. Gerry Morin will be utilizing his Cree language to conduct
his responsibilities and make his decisions as a judge in our
aboriginal communities.
I am honoured to stand today to acknowledge our friend, our
partner and our fellow Canadian for such a profound achievement
for his family and his people.
* * *
1405
TOYOTA CANADA
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Toyota
Motor Manufacturing Canada of Cambridge, a leading North American
auto manufacturer, recently unveiled the 2003 Matrix. Blending
outstanding performance, versatility and affordability, the
Matrix will be built at Toyota's award winning plant in
Cambridge.
Production of the Matrix will create 300 new jobs and will bring
Toyota's total investment in Cambridge to $3 billion. This
announcement follows last year's decision to build the new Lexus
RX and places the Cambridge plant at the forefront of Toyota's
new products and technologies.
The excellence and hard work of team Toyota in my riding of
Cambridge has long been recognized. I congratulate Toyota for
its ongoing success and its bold vision for the future of the
auto industry.
* * *
[Translation]
FULGENCE CHARPENTIER
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my colleagues, I wish to express our great sadness to
learn of the death of Fulgence Charpentier at the age of 103
years.
A native of Ste. Anne de Prescott in eastern Ontario, Mr.
Charpentier was Clerk of French Journals and Chief of Debates
and Procedures at the House of Commons.
He was a diplomat, journalist, parliamentary correspondent and
president of the National Press Gallery. He will be remembered
for his many years with the newspaper Le Droit.
With his passing, Ontario francophones have lost a great man.
Mr. Charpentier has left a great heritage. His professionalism
and grace will be greatly missed.
I extend our most sincere condolences to his family, his colleagues and
his many, many friends.
* * *
[English]
BARIYA IBRAHIM MAGAZU
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the
Canadian Alliance caucus and millions of Canadians from coast to
coast to condemn the brutal caning of teenage mother Bariya
Ibrahim Magazu in the Nigerian state of Zamfara on January 22 of
this year.
Ms. Magazu had no legal representation at her trial and,
according to Amnesty International, the evidence surrounding the
allegations, charges and trial of the girl can be brought into
serious question.
The young mother received a cruel 100 lashes after having given
birth, despite the fact that Nigeria is a party to various
international human rights treaties that prohibit torture and
inhumane or degrading punishment.
I join with my caucus, party members and all Canadians in
denouncing this brutal act and call on the government of Nigeria
to ensure that the human rights treaties it signed are respected
and enforced.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our charter of rights says that everyone has fundamental
freedoms, two being freedoms of conscience and religion. Almost
every bill of rights and the UN charter says the same thing.
It is almost universal. The abuses of those freedoms are almost
as universal.
The Prime Minister will be on a trade mission to China this
month. The abuses of people practising their religious and
conscience freedoms are well documented: Christian, Muslim,
Buddhist and Falun Gong.
Why is it in Canada's interest to raise these issues? Are these
matters not best left to internal Chinese authorities? Is Canada
not somewhat hypocritical about raising this issue as opposed to
some other issues?
In a word, it is the rule of law. How can Canadian businesses
do business if the rule of law is routinely abused? If
fundamental rights of conscience and religion are routinely
abused, how can a Canadian business person expect that matters of
undertakings and contracts be recognized? What are personal
undertakings and WTO undertakings worth if these things occur?
It is good for business to recognize these issues.
* * *
DAVID IFTODY
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of parliament were shocked and
saddened Monday to learn of the death of a former colleague.
David Iftody died as a result of internal injuries sustained in
a snowmobile accident near his home at Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba.
David was first elected as the Liberal member for Provencher in
1993. He was re-elected in June 1997. For two years he served
as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
David was a man of integrity who cared deeply for his
constituents of Provencher. He pursued issues that were central
to Provencher with passion and conviction, which took him to
every part of his riding. He never let disappointment get in his
way. He always followed his conscience and did what he thought
was best for his constituents and his country.
David will be missed by all who knew him. His life was far too
short at only 44 years, but he made the best of what God gave
him.
On behalf of my colleagues, I extend sincere condolences to the
family.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
FULGENCE CHARPENTIER
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Fulgence
Charpentier, the dean of journalists, passed away yesterday at
the age of 103. A citizen of the world, he achieved his dream
of witnessing three centuries of history through which he
followed his exceptional career.
This Franco-Ontarian, one of the most prominent representatives
of the French Canadian culture, was a source of pride and will
remain a model for us all. He said recently that one of the
reasons he had wanted to be a journalist was so he could defend
the cause of French and speak without restriction of the life of
francophones of the region and the country.
In the final years of his life, he felt that things were not
really changing and that history was continually repeating
itself. Still, he defended the cause of French throughout his
life.
We thank him for his secular wisdom and the example of
perseverance and integrity he set for us and hope that many of
us will draw on it.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I offer his
family and friends our most sincere condolences.
* * *
[English]
THE FAMILY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
last week in New York, the United Nations held a special session
on children. This was designed in part to monitor progress of the
convention on the rights of the child, which came into force some
10 years ago.
Many citizens have been dismayed by language and practices
supported by some delegations to the UN that have diminished the
role of the family.
What a treat to read U.S. Ambassador E. Michael Southwick's
release in which he stated that we need to be “emphasizing the
vital role the family plays in the upbringing of children”. This
was good common sense, spoken clearly so no one could
misunderstand.
I applaud the U.S. position on the family. This statement is
accurate and significant and, in my view, is supported by the
vast majority of Canadians. I hope it will be reflected in
future UN documents on the rights of the child.
* * *
DAVID IFTODY
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today as chair of the Manitoba caucus. On Monday
this week we experienced the sudden and tragic loss of our friend
and colleague, David Iftody.
David was more than a member of the House. He was an active
member of his community and a kind, caring and dedicated Liberal.
David fought tirelessly for his beliefs and brought the voices of
not only his constituents but all western rural Canadians to
Ottawa.
He was outspoken and persistent but always good-natured. There
was never a doubt that David knew his actions were in the best
interests of his constituents.
My office in Winnipeg received many calls yesterday and today
from people across the province of Manitoba who wished to let me
know how much David meant to them and how his seven years as the
member for Provencher made their communities better. This is
truly David's legacy.
The residents of my riding and members of my staff join me in
the mourning of the passing of our friend. Our thoughts and
prayers are with the Iftody family.
* * *
NOVA SCOTIA
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia
needs to be given equal opportunities under our federal
equalization and social transfer regime.
I refer specifically to the need for a temporary exemption of
offshore oil and gas royalty revenues in the calculation of
equalization payments, similar to the one granted to Newfoundland
for Hibernia. This temporary measure has obviously helped boost
the economy of that province and Nova Scotia deserves no less.
I also call on the government to increase its support for
post-secondary education in Nova Scotia through a bilateral
agreement recognizing the extra costs we pay for a high number of
out of province students. Our provincial government could use
these funds to reduce Nova Scotia's tuition fees, currently the
highest in Canada, and to increase the inadequate student aid
program.
Now is the time to correct the crippling impact of underfunding
on our education and health care, on our schools and hospitals in
Nova Scotia.
Now is the time to revisit the equalization formula to ensure
that all provinces are afforded an equal level of services and
all Canadians an equal level of citizenship.
* * *
[Translation]
SAINT-CÔME FESTIVAL DE SCULPTURES SUR GLACE
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
the honorary patron of the 10th Saint-Côme Festival de
sculptures sur glace being held now until February 10, I take
this opportunity to congratulate the organizers, volunteers,
artists and sponsors who make this event such a success. This
festival introduces thousands of visitors to one of the most
beautiful corners of the country.
Again this year, there will be over 70 ice sculptures by artists
in my riding for the public to admire.
1415
The festival also offers a multitude of activities, including
skiing, snowmobiling, sleigh rides and a tribute to lumberjacks.
I extend an invitation to our audience, the members of the House
and to you, Mr. Speaker. If you come on the weekend to
Berthier—Montcalm, dress warmly, because generally at this time
of year, the temperature in the kingdom of Saint-Côme is a lot
lower than it is in Ottawa.
* * *
[English]
NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Nova
Scotia's PC premier is campaigning for fairness. Let us talk
about fairness.
What is not fair is that Nova Scotians should have to face the
fiscal mess made by a previous PC government. What is not fair
is that a party, which promised it could fix health care for $46
million, has not kept its word. What is not fair is that Nova
Scotia taxpayers are stuck with a royalty deal made by two PC
governments in 1986.
What is not fair is that a party that claimed it could cut taxes
10% cannot do so without outside help. What is unfair is that
young Nova Scotians are paying and will pay a terrible price for
Tory mismanagement.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
important to remember certain facts concerning the Prime
Minister and Auberge Grand-Mère.
In 1996-97, the Prime Minister made representations to the
Federal Business Development Bank on behalf of Yvon Duhaime. The
application for the initial $3.5 million loan had been rejected.
Later, following the meeting held at 24 Sussex Drive between the
Prime Minister and the president of the bank, the loan was
approved.
In September 1999, François Beaudoin, the president of the bank,
left his position. During the course of legal proceedings, he
admitted to having been forced to resign, following his
suggestion that the loan granted to Auberge Grand-Mère be
recalled.
The Progressive Conservative Party will not be muzzled.
The Prime Minister and his government are asking us not to point
the finger.
If the Prime Minister conducted himself properly, he will show
transparency and ask, among other things, the ethics
counsellor to table in the House a complete report on how he
conducted his investigation regarding this issue, before
drafting his findings.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the
Prime Minister was asked whether immigrant investor funds were
invested in the Auberge Grand-Mère as a result of his meeting at
24 Sussex Drive with immigrant investor Gordon Fu. The Prime
Minister replied, and forgive my language, “He has not invested
a damned cent in that”. That was his quote.
We have now obtained documents, which are available today, that
show that in fact immigrant investors put $2.35 million into the
hotel after the meeting with Mr. Fu. Will the Prime Minister try
to explain this serious contradiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the investor fund is managed by the provincial
authorities. I was not aware that there was any investment
there.
At that time I received people from my riding. We discussed
many things. All the members of parliament from all the
provinces were asked to preserve that fund. All provincial
governments insisted that the investor program be kept in
operation, including the government of Alberta.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): That is not the issue at all, Mr. Speaker. The
meeting took place at Sussex Drive. The Prime Minister denied
following the meeting that it had anything to do with Mr. Fu,
that these investor funds would flow. Yet it is very clear now
with the information received that $2.35 million began to flow
from the immigrant investors fund alone.
Can the Prime Minister understand that Canadians have a right to
ask whether his own involvement with the golf course, and
therefore with the hotel, had anything to do with his very
serious, intense involvement, and what appears to be financial
gain?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the taxpayers never had to pay a cent because of my
errors, as was the case for the Leader of the Opposition.
The member should also know that I receive members of parliament
from both sides every day at 3 o'clock and visitors also come to
see me.
Every day of the week people from my riding or members of
parliament visit with me. We shake hands, discuss things for two
or three minutes and then they leave. This visit was of the same
nature.
1420
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have proof right here that the Prime
Minister is not out of the woods as regards the auberge. He
hosted meetings that allowed Auberge Grand-Mère to get close to
$3 million. Worse still, two of the participants in these
meetings were people who had previously been convicted of
criminal activities.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he used his office to
collect money that benefited a business of which he is a
beneficiary? Does he realize that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these are totally unfounded insinuations.
The issue was discussed several times in the House. In fact, the
hon. member is saying that he came to 24 Sussex Drive, and that
is not true.
The investment fund is managed by the provincial government. In
1996, the provincial government was led by Premier Bouchard. I
am pleased to learn now that he tried to help out businesses,
probably as a result of representations made by members of the
National Assembly.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, one wonders if Mr. Bouchard made these decisions on his
own.
The Prime Minister said that not one cent of immigrant investor
money went into the Auberge Grand-Mère. He was out a whopping
235 million cents. It was $2.35 million that went into a
business, which would increase the value of a golf course that
was still owned by the Prime Minister.
Is that not the real reason that the Prime Minister tried to
cover it over?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is another false statement. The ethics counsellor
replied very clearly that I had sold my share in the golf club in
1993 before I became Prime Minister of Canada.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the entire country knows that money was still owed
to him in 1996. It was taken care of in 1999.
The Auberge Grand-Mère received, just for instance, $50,000 from
economic development for Quebec, $60,000 in HRD wage subsidies,
$165,000 in TJF grants, $615,000 in Business Development Bank
money, and now a whopping $2.35 million in immigrant investor
funds.
The Prime Minister needs to tell the House what impact that had
on neighbouring real estate.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the programs she referred to are public programs and
are applied to all ridings. I have nothing to add beyond what I
have always said, which is that I had absolutely no conflict of
interest. I sold my 25% interest in the golf club in 1993
before I became Prime Minister. My assets were then given to a
trustee to be managed.
As members of cabinet when our assets are in the hands of the
managers we do not have any right to intervene any more.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
case of CINAR, the minister told us that the voluntary
disclosure program resulted in an agreement between his
department and CINAR. He told the House, and I quote:
This seems logical.
What we saw in the case of CINAR was not a voluntary disclosure
but the result of complaints and investigations into serious
allegations of fraud.
Without going into the details of the affair, can the minister
tell us what mechanism was used to reach an agreement with
CINAR, because one such mechanism could be a discriminatory
decision by the minister?
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 have said repeatedly, one
of the fundamental principles, one of the cornerstones, of the
Income Tax Act is the confidentiality that must be observed by
the minister responsible for the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency, myself in this case, and the opposition is perfectly
aware of this.
It will be understood that when there is a reference to a
particular case in the House, I am bound by this duty of
confidentiality, which is fundamental and which has the support
not just of the House, but of all Canadians.
1425
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
such an agreement was reached between CINAR and the
department—and we know that one was—this agreement is based on
figures submitted by CINAR.
But CINAR's financial statements have been questioned by the
accounting firm engaged by CINAR, Ernst & Young, which has
refused to endorse them, saying that they did not give a
faithful and accurate representation of the situation.
How can the minister stand by while his department concludes an
agreement over something that does not even have the backing of
the accounting firm engaged by the company?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very generally speaking, I must
say that the Minister of National Revenue would often like to be
able to comment on certain cases. Unfortunately, and still
generally speaking, I am bound by the duty of confidentiality.
Again generally speaking, and with reference to no particular
case, I must also say that investigations are conducted
internally by officers of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency,
without any interference. They are conducted by individuals
with solid expertise who, in my view, do an excellent job.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
let us be clear. In the CINAR affair, the company apparently
obtained millions of dollars fraudulently.
An agreement was reached with public servants, and these same
public servants have refused to co-operate with the RCMP. It
seems there will be no court case and the minister tells us that
he cannot make any comment, that everything was done properly.
And he asks us to trust him.
What we want to know, however, is quite simple. Without going
into detail, under what provisions of the Income Tax Act was the
agreement with CINAR entered into?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the opposition to
trust me as a minister. Essentially, what I am asking it to do
is respect the underlying principles of the Income Tax Act, in
this specific case those set out in section 241.
I would also like to make the general comment, with no reference
to any particular matter, that it is a regular occurrence when
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is working on a case—and I
am not in the least involved in such things—for it to also
co-operate with provincial administrations.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
of course we have nothing but trust in the minister's answer.
The agreement between CINAR and the Minister of National Revenue
represents millions of dollars. Can the minister tell us
whether he gave approval to this agreement between his
department and CINAR?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have always been told I was
pretty clear.
First, section 241 of the Income Tax Act says that there can be
no disclosure. It is very simple; we have a duty of
confidentiality, and this goes for all files.
Second, I would also like to point out that, when the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency carries out an investigation, the
minister is not the one who intervenes to terminate it. The
minister does not intervene in any of the agency's
investigations.
This is all done by a department made up of experts, and they do
an excellent job.
* * *
[English]
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the U.S.
yesterday announced they are proceeding with another missile
defence test.
A lot of ink has been spilled on the pros and cons of the
American nuclear missile defence system but not a lot about
Canada's position. In fact, the purpose of my question is to
find out if Canada has a position.
Clearly Canada faces a choice, a choice between bowing to Bush
and supporting the American position or standing against the
spread of nuclear weapons.
My question to the Prime Minister is, which will it be?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we discuss this problem with the Americans we say
that we are listening to what they have to say.
When I talked with the president I made sure that before the
system proceeded there would be consultations with all concerned
citizens in Canada. We have to make sure that NATO will be well
protected.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, and as I have said
to the president, this system has to be developed in a way that
will not be offensive to the Russians and the Chinese. They know
this and they said that they will take the time to do the proper
consultation before they proceed. I know it will take some time
before—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
1430
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians want to know about the government's position. A wise
person recently said about Canada's non-position on the nuclear
missile defence system “it is not something you can duck much
further”.
The person who said that is the former minister of foreign
affairs Lloyd Axworthy. His position is clear: Canada should
reject the American missile defence system. Now Canadians want
to know the current government's position. Does it support the
American nuclear missile defence system? Yes or no.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decision has not been made. The technology is not
finished yet. It is a bit difficult for us to come to a
conclusion before we know exactly what will be the system.
I had a discussion with the president on that and he confirmed
to me that some of the tests which occurred last summer did not
produce good results. I insisted that if they wanted to do that
they should have discussions with all the affected people
including Canada and all NATO members.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
In a letter to me dated November 21, 2000, the ethics counsellor
noted that the involvement of ministers with crown corporations
was not dealt with when the guidelines affecting him were first
written. He went on to say that he intended to “undertake a
review of this issue in the coming weeks”.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House if recommendations on
potential conflict of interest guidelines for ministers and crown
corporations have been received from the ethics counsellor and if
so, will he table them in the House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is no.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
was that one no or two? When he gets it, will he table it in the
House of Commons or will he keep us in the dark?
My supplementary question relates to answers given by the Deputy
Prime Minister to me, who took as notice my question on whether
Mr. Jean Carle was involved in any way in the Auberge Grand-Mère
file, either during his tenure in the Prime Minister's Office or
in his work with the Business Development Bank.
As well, I asked the Prime Minister, and the answer was fobbed
off by one minister earlier, if Cedric Ritchie had been briefed
on the auberge file before he assumed his position as chair of
the board—
The Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member has run out of
time.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first answer is no; the second is no; and the third
is no.
* * *
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we should remind the House that on January 27, 1996, the
Prime Minister called the ethics counsellor to tell him that the
sale of shares in the Grand-Mère Golf Course had fallen through.
In other words, he still owned the shares. This is an important
point.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister tried to leave
the impression that immigrant investor money was not going into
the Grand-Mère Hotel, not one cent. Now we discover he hosted
meetings at 24 Sussex that resulted in $2.35 million going into
the Grand-Mère.
Why did the Prime Minister try to hide his lobbying activities
on behalf—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I just explained that some people come to visit
me in my office at three o'clock. I do this every afternoon with
members of parliament from all parties.
Second, I never discussed this problem.
Third, the immigration fund is managed by the provincial
government of Quebec. I was not aware because it does not come
under federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question that the Prime Minister owned
shares in the golf course that bordered the Grand-Mère Hotel.
If that hotel had gone down the tubes, so would the value of the
Grand-Mère Golf Course. Is that not the real reason the Prime
Minister used the power and the trappings of his office to pour
money into the Grand-Mère Hotel?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have explained many times, and the ethics counsellor
has looked into it, that I sold my shares before I became Prime
Minister.
Not only that. The hotel was not owned by the golf course. It
was only a lease and it was taken over six months before I became
Prime Minister and four months before the start of my political
campaign.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general is criticizing the government for the
partisan nature of appointments to the boards of crown
corporations. He points out a total lack of expertise in
business management. In short, the auditor general confirms
that it is “buddies” first and foremost. As for ability,
it is a plus if there is some.
Has the Prime Minister not taken partisanship too far when he
puts the management of $129 billion of public money at risk?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite must know more
than he is saying today. He must know that the appointment of
people like Julie Payette, a well known astronaut, to the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is a
good one, and that Phil Fontaine, who was appointed to the
millennium committee, is a highly qualified individual. He must
also know that Benoît Bouchard was certainly not a Liberal MP,
but was well versed in the field of transportation. A number of
his friends opposite must know that for sure.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government House leader should know that, for each of the
names he has given us, we can name him at least 50 partisan
appointments each.
According to the 1993 red book, a Liberal government would
ensure that appointments reflected abilities when filling still
vacant positions.
How does the Prime Minister explain this lack of ability in his
appointments, he, who promised a return to healthier practices
more in keeping with the principles of good management?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is accusing
us of appointing more women to boards, it is true. We have
appointed 30%, three times more than in the other sectors. It
is true. He would be right in saying that women represent 18%
of board members as compared with 6% in the public sector as
well. If he said more native people are being appointed by this
government than in other sectors, that too is true, and we are
proud of it.
* * *
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, evidence keeps mounting that raises
questions about unusual amounts of money flowing into the Prime
Minister's riding.
We have now obtained figures from the immigrant investor program
in Quebec. On average four times as much money has gone into the
Prime Minister's region as into any other in Quebec, including
much larger regions based on population.
What influence has the Prime Minister exerted to obtain such
skewed results?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to explain again that the management of this
fund is done by the provincial government. I am very happy to
learn today that Mr. Bouchard was very keen to make sure I was
re-elected.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that do not
add up in the way money goes into the Prime Minister's riding.
For example, he says that he did not own the golf course because
he had sold it before the election. On January 27 he phoned the
ethics counsellor to say that the sale had fallen through and
asked what he should do. The ethics counsellor said that he
still owned the shares. He cannot have it both ways. Money
keeps going in and the answers do not add up.
Will the Prime Minister give us some straight answers about why
all of this money goes into his riding with his fingerprints all
over it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this was dealt with extensively by the ethics
counsellor. I sold my shares and eventually I got paid many
years later.
* * *
[Translation]
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in endorsing
the appointment of the new U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Robert
Zoellick, U.S. senators have asked him to play hard ball with
Canada, particularly in the softwood lumber issue.
Will the Minister for International Trade contact his American
counterpart to find out if he shares the senators' view?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I intend to phone Bob Zoellick—with whom I
had dinner on Monday evening, along with the Prime Minister—this
afternoon.
1440
We congratulated Mr. Zoellick for getting the unanimous support
of all 98 senators yesterday. This is quite an achievement. I
will certainly have the opportunity to discuss this matter, but
Mr. Zoellick has already expressed his opinion during the senate
hearings last week.
I must say that I was very pleased to see that the new U.S.
commerce secretary is determined to have with Canada a
constructive dialogue, which will lead to trade. The U.S. economy
has a need for Canadian softwood lumber.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the rigid
position of the U.S. senate, which we have all read and heard
about, is in stark contrast with the minister's optimism, and
also with the Prime Minister's optimism following his meeting
with President Bush.
How does the Prime Minister explain these warnings on the part
of U.S. senators?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister just said it. We had a meeting. We explained to the
U.S. president, the vice-president and the ambassador responsible
for this issue in the United States that we have a free trade
agreement with their country.
If we have a free trade agreement, it only makes sense that it
would apply not only to energy, natural gas and oil, but also to
lumber.
We made it clear to them that, in Canada, we are complying with
the rules and that our lumber should be allowed to enter the
United States without any restrictions.
* * *
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Justice Ted Hughes, the B.C. conflict of interest
commissioner, has established this rule for the ministers of
B.C.:
A minister must not make personal representations on behalf of a
constituent to—a commission, board, agency, or other tribunal
established by the government.
The Prime Minister obviously violated this principle in lobbying
the president of the Business Development Bank on behalf of Yvon
Duhaime. Why do the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet
ministers practise a lower standard of ethical conduct than the
ministers in B.C.?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor has written recently to the Leader
of the Opposition and has responded to the most recent
correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition. He has made
crystal clear that all these matters, all the allegations being
raised today, have been addressed. There were no private benefit
by the Prime Minister whatsoever and no conflict of interest.
If the member wants to talk about private benefits from public
funds to leaders in the House, we could talk to the leader of the
Alliance Party.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at another province. Ontario's
integrity commissioner has ruled that:
Parliamentary convention prohibits all ministers from personally
appearing or advocating on behalf of a private party with any
agency, board, or commission of the government.
The federal ethics counsellor has stated that the Prime Minister
did not break any rule or parliamentary convention in lobbying
the federal agency. Why has the Prime Minister set up the ethics
counsellor at the federal level with lower ethics than the ethics
counsellor in the province of Ontario?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we appointed the ethics counsellor. We never had one
before this government came in.
Before we named this person, we consulted with the opposition.
Both the leader of the opposition of the day, Mr. Bouchard, and
the leader of the opposition of the other party were consulted.
Both parties made statements in the House of Commons approving
the appointment. They told everyone that Mr. Wilson was a man of
great integrity.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. While we are waiting to
receive results from labs in Winnipeg to determine if in fact a
critically ill woman at Henderson General Hospital in Hamilton is
infected with the ebola virus, the concerns of Canadians, in
particular Hamiltonians, are rising.
What steps has the Minister of Health taken to protect the
people of Hamilton and Canadians everywhere from such deadly
infectious diseases?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I understand the hospital in Hamilton will be holding a news
conference at 3 o'clock with the appropriate Health Canada,
regional and provincial health authorities to discuss this case.
I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the officials
from the local and regional authorities for their collaboration
on this difficult case.
1445
In the world we now live travel is so frequent and so fast that
we will be facing these challenges into the future. This case
was a good example of the importance of having a national
strategy in place. Authorities worked together in an effective
partnership to make sure that the risk was contained.
* * *
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
following on the heels of the Vanier Institute report, how much
more evidence does the government need to understand what
Canadians already know, that a decade of failed Liberal policies
has resulted in Canadians working harder and longer with
deepening poverty for millions?
How could the Prime Minister feel content, sitting on a massive
surplus while millions of Canadian families lag behind and are
living in poverty? How could he tolerate that?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as does the hon. member, we welcome the
work of the Vanier Institute. Indeed we recognize that some work
has been done toward the effort to reduce poverty in Canada.
The last thing we want is a society of haves and have nots. That
is why it continues to be important for us to invest in the
national child benefit. That is why it continues to be important
for us to recognize in the employment insurance regime that low
income families should receive an 80% benefit, not just the 55%
benefit. That is why it is important for us to focus on our
youngest citizens, our children.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let
us be very clear. It is this government that has created a
society of haves and have nots. If that is all the government
can come up with then clearly it is socially bankrupt.
What is of even deeper concern is that in the throne speech we
now hear reference to a national project on poverty, which is
nothing more than a new guise for a workfare program to drive low
income parents into low wage employment.
Is that her government's vision of the new economy? Is that
what parents can look forward to?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear that on this side of
the House we are pleased to be working with provinces right
across the country, including New Democratic governments in the
hon. member's province of British Columbia and those in
Saskatchewan and Manitoba that believe, as we do, that investing
together in the national child benefit, increasing the number of
services available to low income families in support of their
children and investing $2.2 billion in the lives of our youngest
citizens are precisely the things we need to do in a modern
Canada to reduce poverty.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This morning
a Conservative caucus of MPs and senators had a unique joint
meeting with Israeli and Palestinian diplomats. Several
proposals were made by the Palestinians and the Israelis on how
Canada could play a key role in facilitating a joint lasting
peace.
One of the suggestions was for Canada to host a further joint
meeting between parliamentarians from Israel, Palestine and
Canada. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs work with all of us
to establish the process requested by the Palestinians and the
Israelis?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course Canada is anxious to be a positive force in
encouraging the continuation of the Middle East peace process. I
would certainly be prepared to look at any proposals that either
side has for us and to consider them.
The Prime Minister spoke this afternoon with Mr. Sharon to
assure him of our continuing interest in the peace process in
that troubled region.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, both the Israelis and Palestinians acknowledge that
Canada has a unique place, has tremendous respect in that region
and can play a role. However, both Palestinians and Israelis
have also projected that commercial trade could triple between
Canada and their region.
Will the Minister for International Trade begin the process of
expanding trade talks with this region as they both requested?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had the privilege of talking with the new prime
minister of Israel. I wished him good luck in the very difficult
task of being the prime minister of Israel. I said that Canada
wished that the peace process would continue. We have offered to
do whatever we could to help in these very difficult
circumstances.
The member talked about trade. We are trading with Israel and
we are trading with all the nations of this area. They are all
happy with the relationship they have with Canada.
* * *
1450
INTERNATIONAL LOANS
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada recently announced that it
would fight Brazil's subsidies to its aerospace sector by using
Canada's good credit rating to provide low interest loans to
Bombardier's customers.
However, even that low interest loan did not compare to the one
Canada provided to Brazil in 1999: $500 million at an interest
rate of 4.3%. How does the Minister of Industry know that the
low interest loan to Brazil did not go directly to subsidize its
aerospace industry, which is in fierce competition with
Bombardier?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at a time of financial contagion following the Russian
default it was very important that the nations of the world
pulled together to make sure the Latin American crisis and the
Asian crisis did not continue.
As a result, all of the G7 nations participated in the
particular loan, Canada among them, and I am very proud that we
did.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that was the same time in those four or five years that
there was a fierce fight over aerospace subsidies going on
between Brazil and Canada.
I think it is an awful strange signal that the Liberal
government is sending to Brazil. It talks tough about Brazil's
subsidized financing of its aerospace industry, but it turns
around and gives sweetheart loans to the same government. What
kind of priorities does the government have? How will it deal
with Brazil in the next dispute that comes up?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member obviously ought to understand that
Canada as a G7 country has responsibilities internationally and
that we have exercised them responsibly, as indeed have other
countries.
The hon. member also perhaps ought to know that the loan was not
exercised by Brazil.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. We were making good progress
in question period. Hon. members know that however much
enthusiasm questions and answers generate, we need to have some
order so that we can hear the next question.
* * *
[Translation]
FOOD INSPECTION
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, according to the auditor general's report, the
inspection of meat destined for Canadian consumers is less
rigorous than that done for meat sold to Americans.
Does the minister, who said yesterday that consumers had nothing
to fear because the system in place was naturally the best in
the world, intend to correct this situation?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, all the food in
Canada is inspected according to the Food and Drugs Act and
regulations of Canada.
We sell meat products to some 40 to 50 countries outside Canada.
Some of them ask us to do the inspection in a certain way that
satisfies their method of doing it.
We have a method in Canada that gets to exactly the same result
at the other end. The equivalency is there and no meat is sold
to anyone unless it meets those high standards.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, are Canadians not right to be worried when the auditor
general himself raises serious questions about the quality of
the inspection of meat sold in Canada?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everyone in the food system is concerned
about the safety of our food.
We have one of the best food safety systems in the world that
has equivalency with those in the rest of the world. It is
better than some in other parts of the world. I can assure
consumers, whether they are in Canada, in the United States or in
any of the other dozens and dozens of countries to which we sell
food, that our system inspects it to ensure it is safe.
* * *
HEALTH
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
[Editor's Note: Members rose and applauded]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that makes it difficult to ask a
nasty question.
1455
It has been eight years since a royal commission recommended
that the government develop a framework for the regulation of
reproductive and genetic technology.
As we all know, these technologies have an enormous impact on
human health, both for good and for bad, and yet Canada lacks a
regulatory framework or lags behind a number of other countries
in providing that regulatory framework.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Does the Minister of
Health intend to bring forward a bill to provide that regulatory
framework and if so, when?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member can tell from the response that we missed him in
more ways than one, I might say.
Apart from welcoming the hon. member back to the House, let me
say that he has raised a matter which has to be dealt with by
legislation. Right now in government caucus we are discussing
and deciding how it is best dealt with.
One of the approaches we have in mind is the possibility of
preparing draft legislation which sets out the way forward and
then putting it before the health committee where all parties can
sit, have hearings, look into the matter and have some public
discussion. I will let the hon. member know as soon as possible
what—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we await the draft legislation with
interest, but as the minister knows our constitution assigns
primary responsibility for health to the provinces.
In order for any regulatory framework dealing with a subject as
important as this one to have the right kind of foundation, it is
important that there not only be consultation with the provinces
but that there be support for the framework. Has the minister
obtained the support of the provinces for the regulatory
framework he proposes in that legislation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
not entirely. It is important that we do that. We are looking
at various mechanisms, including potentially some equivalency
clauses. That too may be something for the committee to look at.
I think, after we as a caucus decide on the best approach in our
view, we will consult with the House leaders of other parties to
see how the committee could be engaged on issues such as this
one.
This is not a partisan matter. All parties want to get this
right. We will find the best approach and we will communicate
with the parties opposite at the appropriate time.
* * *
[Translation]
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government announced in the throne speech that it would double
investment in research and development by 2010.
Can the secretary of state tell us what impact this investment
will have in Canada?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in recent years, our
government has invested more than $3 billion in new money in
research and development.
We have created the Canada Foundation for Innovation, health
research institutes, Genome Canada, and over 2,000 university
chairs, and we are going to double this amount by 2010 in order
to improve the quality of life and standard of living of
Canadians.
The federal government cannot do this alone and that is why we
are asking the private sector and provincial governments to do
likewise. We are also prepared to adjust our science policy in
order to allow the new investments that could bring about—
The Speaker: The member for Portage—Lisgar.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, members of all opposition parties in the House agree
that the current system of equalization payments is unfair and
counterproductive to provinces that are struggling to develop
their economies.
Many of the industry minister's Atlantic caucus colleagues have
spoken out in favour of revisiting the equalization formula, as
has he. However the finance minister and the intergovernmental
affairs minister oppose any changes to the current system. They
are clearly divided on the issue. Will the Prime Minister please
tell us what his government's position is on the issue?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that equalization is an essential foundation
of the Canadian economy. It is the one of a very few programs
that was not cut when the country had its back to the wall. At
the present time it is at an all time high.
I am delighted to hear that members of the opposition support
the equalization program, but I must say that is a complete
reversal of position. They spoke out against equalization in the
previous parliament and said that it should be cut.
1500
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, besides the basic inaccuracy of the response, its
insipidness is just what we would expect from a government that
pays no attention and has no plan to face up to the regional
diversities that exist and to deal with them.
The industry minister knows from his experience as the premier
of Newfoundland the problems that exist in the system. So do
members of that backbench. So do members of this party and those
parties. When will the government face up to the challenges of
dealing with this issue? When will the industry minister stand
and keep—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before the hon. member opposite stands in the House and
makes accusations, what he ought to do is take a look at what the
members of his party said when he was not here.
They opposed equalization. They opposed regional development.
They opposed every measure that the government brought forward to
help the people of Atlantic Canada, and he is not going to turn
that around.
* * *
[Translation]
ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF PYRITE DAMAGE
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during the election campaign, the Liberal Party committed to
financial participation in the program to help the victims of
pyrite damage introduced by the Government of Quebec in July 2000.
Pyrite is a mineral found in the broken stone used as fill under
buildings; it swells and has caused considerable damage to a
number of buildings.
My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services. Can he tell us today whether he plans to meet that
commitment, and if so, when?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. It is yes,
and soon.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recent media reports state that the Canadian forces are facing a
recruiting crisis.
Could the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence tell the House how DND plans to ensure that the
Canadian forces continue to recruit and retain the qualified and
skilled personnel needed to do the job?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
a very important question.
There is no question that the military is facing a significant
recruiting challenge. The Canadian forces are focusing on
recruiting and retaining the qualified and skilled personnel
needed for the job both now and in the future.
Efforts are already underway. They are streamlining the way we
process results. They are building an advertising campaign so
young Canadians know the Canadian military is an employer of
choice that offers exciting careers. There is no life like it.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Order, please. I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Honourable John Hamm, Premier
of Nova Scotia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Edward Picco,
Minister of Health and Social Services of the Government of
Nunavut.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to make a correction to something I said during
question period on Monday.
When answering a question about whether documents had been
transmitted to the Russian authorities in the tragic case
involving the Russian diplomat sent back to his home country, I
said at that time that these documents had been transmitted.
I learned this morning that I was mistaken in this regard and I
wish to apologize for any misunderstanding created, but I do
understand that these documents will be in the hands of the
Russians in the next few days.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-8, an act to establish the Financial
Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation
to financial institutions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-241, an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (work for welfare).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to
require every province to have in effect a work for welfare
program established by law for every fiscal year commencing on or
after April 1, 2002 in order to qualify for the full Canada
health and social transfer payment for that fiscal year.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-242, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal
liability of corporations, directors and officers).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to introduce this bill, seconded by my colleague from
Acadie—Bathurst, to amend the criminal code, establishing
criminal liability of corporations and of their executives and
officers with respect to health and safety practices, of which
they were aware or should have been aware, that put their workers
at risk.
Workplace deaths and injuries in Canada are at epidemic
proportions. Following the horrifying deaths in Nova Scotia in a
mine disaster at Westray, which resulted in the preventable
deaths of 26 workers, there was a public commission that
recommended such changes to the criminal code.
1510
In the spring the justice committee unanimously recommended that
the government bring forward such changes to the criminal code.
It is very much hoped that this continuing pressure on the
government will result in long overdue action. The immediate
demand on the government to come forward with such a bill
dissolved with the dissolution of parliament but the problem has
not gone away.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
HEPATITIS AWARENESS MONTH ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-243, an act
to provide for a Hepatitis Awareness Month.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it brings me great pleasure to
reintroduce this bill. It is a simple enactment that would make
the month of May hepatitis awareness month.
Over 700,000 Canadians are afflicted by hepatitis of some
strain. It is imperative for parliament to designate a month in
order to get education out at the forefront of this terrible
disease and its various strains.
At this time I want to thank two promoters of the bill, Mr.
Joey Haché of Ottawa and Mr. Bruce DeVenne of Nova Scotia.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-244, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(deduction of mechanics' tool expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill
again, a bill that I introduced about four years ago. It has
been debated in the House and has been brought forth by other
members since then.
The bill would allow mechanics to deduct the cost of their
tools, the insurance costs on their tools, the rental costs and
so on. It would also allow them to claim a capital cost
allowance on the cost of tools above $200 when a requirement of
their employment is that they pay for their own tools. This is
something that is supported by all parties to some degree and is
certainly supported by all mechanics.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-245, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(search and seizure without warrant).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would rescind part of Bill
C-68, a bill that was introduced by the government some time ago.
What the bill would specifically do is remove the unusual
search and seizure provisions put forth in Bill C-68 and bring
them more into line with other search and seizure provisions,
which is certainly something Canadians have asked for.
In the case of unreasonable damage being done during a search
process, the bill would ensure that the individual involved would
be compensated. It would fix part of what was put in place
through Bill C-68, the gun bill, which was unfair.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-246, an act to
amend the Criminal Code to prohibit coercion in medical
procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human
life is inviolable.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce today a
bill to amend the criminal code to prohibit coercion in medical
procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human
life is inviolable.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that health care providers
working in medical facilities of various kinds will never be
forced to participate against their will in procedures such as
abortions or acts of euthanasia.
The bill would not ban abortion or euthanasia but would
make it illegal to force another person to participate in an
abortion procedure or an act of euthanasia. Incredibly, there
are medical personnel in Canada who have been fired because the
law is not explicit enough in spelling out their rights of
conscience. The bill would make those rights explicit.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(forfeiture of property relating to child pornography crimes).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to reintroduce
this bill for the third time. When I introduced it last time I
had support from all opposition parties and some support from the
government. Hopefully this time the government can be convinced
because Canadians across the country, the Canadian Police
Association and others have come out in support of it.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code by allowing a court that
convicts a person of a child pornography offence to order the
forfeiture of anything in relation to which the offence was
committed or the possession of which constituted the offence.
We believe it was an oversight in the Criminal Code and section
163.2 needs to be inserted after 163.1, which would allow courts
upon conviction to take away the equipment that these people use
to produce and distribute child pornography.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-248, an act to amend the
Competition Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it must be as a result of the lack of
energy in the country that I introduce a bill which was
introduced in the last parliament.
As we know, section 96 of the Competition Act creates a
veritable loophole for those proposing to take over other
competitive interests and as a result create virtual monopolies
which have an anti-competitive harm attached to them.
It clarifies the powers of the tribunal and ensures that mergers
which ultimately create monopolies as an outcome are
unacceptable, particularly if they have harmful effects for
consumers.
It is for this reason and in the timely context of the cost of
energy being what it is today that the bill is proposed to
correct that loophole.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-249, an act to amend the Access to Information
Act (Crown corporations and the Canadian Wheat Board).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I too have tabled this bill in a previous
parliament. The Progressive Conservative Party as well as other
members on both sides of the House have always favoured openness
and transparency in government. This bill would take the
exclusion of crown corporations and the Canadian Wheat Board out
of the Access to Information Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[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]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1520
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion
for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to
her speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Surrey Central.
I begin by congratulating you, Mr. Speaker. I know you and I
are just beginning our new roles and I am sure that we will both
go through a wonderful learning curve very quickly.
I also offer my thanks to the constituents of my beautiful
constituency of Portage—Lisgar. They have bestowed the great
honour on me, an honour that all of us who are members of this
parliament share, of having the opportunity to speak on behalf of
those who we love dearly, who we care very much about and who we
share so much with. I look forward to fulfilling, in any and
every way I can, my role and obligations to those people who
reside in my constituency, my province and my country.
I also thank my wife Esther and our daughters Quinn and Shawn.
They have been a tremendous support and encouragement to me.
Ultimately the sacrifices made by members of this Chamber are not
sacrifices we alone make. There are sacrifices that are made by
our families as well and I especially want to thank them for
that.
I also thank our leader for giving me the opportunity to join a
political movement where I am made feel welcome and where the
openness to new ideas and new approaches on many issues is very
real. The willingness to reach out and include other Canadians,
not just in terms of theatrics or partisanship but in terms of
real debate on real issues right from the grassroots level up, is
a real and genuine thing.
Over the last several years I have tried to do my best to reach
out to and get people across this country who share the goals of
small c Conservatives to join together and fight for those
goals effectively beside one another. The people of our country
who share those goals to be divided plays only one role. It is a
role of effectively perpetuating a government of people who do
not share those values, the government that is presided over by
the Prime Minister.
My constituency is Canada in microcosm and it is Canada in
microcosm in many good ways. Portage—Lisgar has attracted
people from around the world to settle there. It is an old
constituency. It was a fur trading area originally. In fact, my
home community of Portage la Prairie was one of the first
settlements of Pierre La Vérendrye who was one of the first
explorers of western Canada. He saw the shining mountains that
some of my colleagues and other members of the House are so
familiar with. It was that original sense of exploration, of
reaching out, of going into new territory and into new lands that
drove those people and that drives the people of my constituency
to this very day.
If I can define the mindset of my constituents in an accurate
and general way, I would say they are desperately fair-minded.
They are people who are brutally honest and frank with one
another. More than any people I have ever met, they are tolerant
and understanding of the differences which exist within that
riding and within Canada.
In Portage—Lisgar we have people who very much pride themselves
on the diversity that exists within the riding and within the
country. They see it as a source of great strength and as a
brighter future for all of us. We are by every definition an
inclusive people. I feel very comfortable and feel very
supported by this inclusive political organization of which I am
now a part.
The issue of regional equity is something that is not addressed
in the throne speech to any satisfaction, in any way, shape or
form. It is that inclusiveness that I, the people of
Portage—Lisgar and the people on this side of the House value.
That is missing from the throne speech. The lack of
responsibility of the government opposite is so evident. There
is a lack of a plan and a lack of any method or means to address
the important issues of including everyone in this country.
There is a centrifugal reality of the way in which the
government has governed. This centrifugal effect has pulled the
people who do not reside in the centre of the country away from
the centre of the country. The policies enacted by the
government have exacerbated those circumstances. It has shown a
disregard and a disrespect for the people outside that central
area.
1525
An example would be in my riding. Agriculture is such a key
industry to us. The government has no food plan for the nation.
It has shown no respect for the trials and tribulations of long
time family farmers, not just in Portage—Lisgar but across the
country. That disrespect is resulting in a playing field being
perpetuated that is not level. Foreign nations are subsidizing
their farmers and their agricultural producers and we are, by
default, adopting a policy of rural depopulation in this country.
We are letting the nations of Europe and the United States
establish policies which we cannot respond to. That is what the
government is doing.
By our failure to respond, we are saying to family farmers
across the country that it is time for them to move to the
cities. It is time for them to leave. That simply is not right.
The damaging effect that has on rural societies across Canada is
very obvious to all of us on this side of the House.
Basically, the only effort the government made in the throne
speech to address the problems of agriculture was a comment made
about connecting farmyards to the Internet. That should be
increasingly easy as the number of farmyards across Canada
dwindle.
The problem is that when the government addresses the need for
adaptation it looks elsewhere. When it looks for adaptation
within it does not find it. The reality is that the most
adaptable and diversified people, in terms of the challenges they
have faced and the reality of their lives, are the farm families
and farm producers of the nation who have been forced by
necessity to made tremendous adaptations. One of the principle
adaptations they have had to make is to say goodbye to their
children.
We would like to see these issues addressed in a real way. That
is what we are committed to doing.
Today we raised the issue of equalization. The equalization
formula seems to have a perverse incentive. It seems to provide
a disincentive for certain provinces to increase their industrial
job component and to develop the resources that are within
themselves because of the problems of the formula which benefit
the federal government but punish the provinces. We need to see
those formulas revisited.
Other regions such as Atlantic Canada and the west have many
shared goals and concerns. They also have concerns that are
specific to their regions. Nonetheless, if we do not see a need
to address the problem, as it is clear the government does not,
it will not be addressed. There is no plan in this throne speech
to address these problems.
Another longstanding issue to many of us is the issue of
parliamentary reform. Parliamentary reform would give a greater
sense of involvement and representation, not just to the people
here but far more importantly to the people we represent. It is
those people who we hear from on a regular basis. They
are telling us that they would like to see us have a more
meaningful role.
What better evidence of the truth of the disdain which Canadians
increasingly feel for this institution than the absence of these
same Canadians from the polling booths. From their absence they
have said to us that it does not really matter. I am told that
fewer Canadians turned out to vote in the last federal election
than had for over a century. More Canadians came out to vote
when they were two horse families than when they were two car
families. That is a shame.
Parliamentary reform and other reforms such as electoral and
Senate reform, and other aspects of measuring and addressing in a
real way the need to include Canadians, to make their
representatives more effective and with a magnified voice of
effectiveness in the House, have not been addressed by the
government in perpetuity.
The government has taken an approach to many issues which
basically is threefold. First, ignore the problem and hope it
goes away. Second, belittle and blame those who advance and
articulate the problem. Third, if that does not work, throw
money at it and maybe the people who articulated the
problem can be coerced into supporting it.
That is a disrespectful approach. It is that disrespect most of
all that is reflected in the comments of the intergovernmental
affairs minister, the immigration and citizenship minister of all
people, and also in the Prime Minister himself. Disparaging
remarks about one region or another should not come from any of
us. They certainly should be apologized for by the members who
made those disparaging comments.
I close by quoting Donald Savoie in his book Governing from
the Centre who said:
While I argue that the centre and, in particular, the hand of the
prime minister, has been considerably strengthened in recent
years, this is not to suggest that the federal government is
better able to define new strategic direction or a coherent plan
to which all government departments can contribute. It is ironic
perhaps that as the hand of the centre has been strengthened, its
ability to manage horizontal issues has been weakened.
1530
I will close by saying that we need to reinforce the fact that
the members of the House are not puppets of the Prime Minister.
They are the tools for the people of our constituencies. The
reality is that we have a plan to address those issues and we
will do so. I look forward to doing this to the best of my
ability with the support and help of all of my colleagues in the
House.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened intently to the speech by the member, which I think is
his first one in the House.
The member, who I believe is from Manitoba, talked about there
being an exclusion in central Ontario. I suppose I am part of
that process because I am from Ontario. He went on to talk about
the agricultural community and how we have no understanding of
it.
The province of Ontario produces more agricultural products than
all the western provinces combined. The reality is that it rains
on both sides of the field. We have agricultural problems in my
riding. I used to farm at one time. Is the member telling me
that there are no programs, that there is nothing the government
has done to recognize the plight of farmers?
Our caucus has been very active in creating new moneys for
farmers. We continue to make the argument that it may not be
enough, but Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular have received
additional funding in the last three or four years. In fact, it
was his former government that came here asking for money and we
were receptive and listened to that.
We have tons of farm programs. I can think of programs like
NISA, the Ontario market revenue program, CFIP and AIDA. Yes, we
are very concerned about the issue of family farms. I talk to my
farm group almost on a daily basis about their problems. Some of
the things that the member is talking about is because of the
people that he is hanging around with. They actually believe in
western alienation. The reality is, it is all psychological. It
is because of how long it takes them to get here that somehow
they are discriminated against. It is nonsense.
There are more people in the province of Ontario who feel
discriminated against because of agricultural policy than in all
the west. We have a problem here in agriculture.
The member goes on to say that we need to help farmers. The
same party gets up day in day out and says no to subsidies. Its
platform document in the last election specified no subsidies to
farms. Those members do not believe in subsidies but that is
exactly what they are asking for today. They cannot have it both
ways. What is it going to be?
Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his comments, erroneous and misguided as they may be. He makes
the statement that he used to farm. I guess that implies empathy
for agriculture generally. He makes the statement that Ontario
produces more commodities than other regions. Therefore he is
dismissive of the plight of grain farmers in certain
jurisdictions.
This dismissive and arrogant attitude that is so evident in
his comments shows an unwillingness to address the very vital
issues that face real people regardless of region.
The member made reference to western alienation. I referred to
alienation by region. In the households of people, regardless of
region, there is a sense of alienation from the government.
The larger issue is the very powerlessness, which that member no
doubt feels—although he will not admit it today in the House—as
he sits in the backbench and knows that he has no input into the
government's policy direction. More power and decision making
has been centralized into the Prime Minister's office and into
the Prime Minister's hands than in the history of any prime
minister.
The Prime Minister has made announcements without consulting
members of his own cabinet. The member opposite knows the sad
truth of that fact. The member behind him, from Prince Edward
Island, a former director and president of the national farmers
union, knows how truly powerless he is in the equation.
When the most powerless agriculture minister in our history, a
minister who presides over a department that is so important to
our country, comes out to Manitoba during a disastrous
circumstance, meets with a group of farmers and then tells them
in their hour of need that the best thing that ever happened to
him was when he quit farming, and then I listen to a comment by
another member telling me about his former farming practice, I
wonder at the ability and willingness of those members to
genuinely empathize with people who are trying to continue to
farm and make a living.
1535
These are the people who do not wish to give up and become
members of parliament. There are only so many places over there
for people to sit and pretend they care about farmers.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
respond to the Speech from the Throne. I thank the constituents
of Surrey Central for re-electing me as their MP with triple the
margin of the last election. I shall try my best to represent
them and address their concerns.
I congratulate you on your election as Speaker of the House. I
am sure you will receive the co-operation of the House all the
time.
In my reply to the Speech from the Throne, I will address some
of the issues brought forward by my colleague from
Portage—Lisgar. The throne speech is supposed to be the
illustration of vision by the government.
Traditionally members of parliament are invited to the Senate
chamber where the speech is read. Members of parliament are not
allowed to sit down to listen to the speech. Rather, they stand
outside the Senate chamber, crammed in the hallway and scramble
to listen to the speech.
Many of those who are seated inside have no business or role to
play in implementing the contents of the speech. Frankly it
would be more appropriate for members of parliament to sit in
front of a TV set rather than march off to the other chamber.
Let me read a quote from my colleague, the former leader of the
Reform Party, who said:
The TV cameras panning the audience focus not on the innovative
entrepreneurs or scientists of the new economy, but the TV
cameras focus on political fossils, former senators, staunch
resistors of change and defenders of the status quo.
What a great quote. What a great observation of the dinosaur
government that fights change.
There are important omissions and inconsistencies in the empty
throne speech. I will list some of them very quickly. The first
is the concrete plan that reduces taxes and pay debt. There is a
renewed need for the tabling of a budget as soon as possible,
particularly in light of a substantive tax reduction in the U.S.
and a sluggish economy, which is quite likely on the verge of
affecting Canada.
In the last election we saw the lowest voter turnout. It
signalled a warning to the Liberals. Despite this, there is no
meaningful commitment to parliamentary reform. Western Canadians
feel alienated like every other region in Canada. Since their
concerns are not being addressed, the Liberals are fanning the
fire of alienation instead of using the firehose to put out the
flames by addressing the needs of Canada's regions.
The arrogance of the Prime Minister and the Liberals was evident
even during the election when the Prime Minister made his
infamous comments about his preference for dealing with eastern
Canadians rather than with western Canadians.
Since 1993 the Liberals have failed to address these concerns
despite the new west being the fastest growing region in Canada
with a lot of potential. Here is a quick list of points worth
listening to.
The Liberals have been hurting the B.C. salmon fishery, mining
industry, softwood lumber industry and tourism industry. For
years the Liberals have failed to negotiate a Pacific salmon
treaty with the United States. They are killing jobs in British
Columbia. They closed CFB Chilliwack and left British Columbia
without emergency preparedness.
1540
The Liberals believe British Columbia is under-represented both
in the Senate and in the House. They will not let B.C. elect
senators. They do not give B.C. a fair share of government
contracts and other resources.
Another issue deals with transit levies. The federal government
raked in $700 million in fuel taxes from B.C. and returned only
$35 million in the repair and maintenance of roads and highways.
British Columbia is the only province in Canada that does not
have four lane freeways.
It was the Liberals who cut transfer payments which affected
British Columbia's education and health services. While the
Liberals continue to ignore British Columbians, there are many
reasons why British Columbians ignore the Liberals. They turned
off Pacific lighthouses. They ripped the heart out of the
Pacific coast guard and so on. The list is long enough and it
goes on.
It was pathetic watching the Liberal finance minister being
given a tour by helicopter of my constituency of Surrey Central
during the last federal election. His handlers could not dare to
have him listen to the concerns of the residents. It was a vain
attempt to give him a tour of the city by air. Perhaps he saw
more geese than people.
The finance minister was actually quoted in our local media as
admitting how naive he was to the needs of Surrey. Following the
helicopter ride he admitted that he was totally unaware of the
transportation problem in Surrey. During six years in office the
Liberals have not listened to the needs of Surrey, but at
election time a cabinet minister appeared from the sky, out of
the blue.
We all know that the Prime Minister spent more time in Florida
than in the west. Mostly he comes to B.C. to rake in money from
fundraisers, as if westerners are not already paying enough into
the federal coffers.
On another important issue, the offices of members of parliament
are overloaded with immigration case loads. That work should be
done by the immigration department, but the Liberals keep our
immigration system clogged with backlogs.
Why is the federal immigration department not able to work
efficiently and effectively? That remains a big question. The
people caught in the system are suffering and are victims of the
government's mismanagement. Even refugee cases are taking too
long to resolve.
Visitor visas present a different kind of problem. Politicians
should not be allowed to interfere with the process, but the
Liberals allowed their candidates during the election campaign to
interfere in obtaining visitor visas for those who had been
refused, even after repeated interventions by their members of
parliament. The system should be so effective that genuine
visitors should get visitor visas without political interference
and without hassles.
I have already had corruption investigations initiated in our
embassies abroad, and they produced successful results.
On another note, there is nothing in the throne speech
concerning the federal taxes on fuel and our transportation
problem. In B.C. the federal government takes over 10 cents per
litre in excise tax. It charges GST on top of the excise tax and
then puts GST on top of the PST. There are taxes on taxes.
Only $35 million of the $700 million from the gas taxes being
taken from B.C. is reinvested in transportation and
infrastructure in B.C. That is only 5%. These kinds of
injustices are at the root of regional concerns throughout
Canada.
I should like to comment on the Liberal government's lack of
concern for British Columbia's emergency preparedness. There is
nothing about this in the Speech from the Throne, even though we
have recently seen terrible earthquakes in India, El Salvador,
Turkey and Taiwan.
We know that scientists predict that British Columbia's lower
mainland will have an earthquake. The government refuses to
dispatch the Vancouver search and rescue team to areas around the
world that have been struck by earthquakes. We should not be
waiting to be asked. We should be immediately sending our rescue
team that is always ready at a moment's notice so that it can get
experience that is needed at home.
1545
The biggest threat Canada faces is from organized crime. As
usual, there is nothing except a promise in the throne speech.
The same is true regarding the RCMP. There is nothing which
gives the RCMP contingent in Surrey, for example, which is the
largest in Canada, the tools, resources, legislation and
personnel for it to do its job.
I commend the Liberals for having listened to my cry to do
something about recognizing foreign academic credentials. However
the Speech from the Throne has not mentioned anything about
standardizing the national academic standard.
The Liberal government is increasingly out of touch with
Canadians regarding regional differences, particularly those of
B.C. and western Canada. However the Canadian Alliance, the
government in waiting, is here to continuously remind the
government about these injustices just as I have done. The ball
is in its court.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Surrey Central for his excellent speech outlining the grievances
of the province of British Columbia.
Could the member comment on a newspaper item I saw just after
the federal election campaign? The article quoted a senior
minister from Victoria, British Columbia, who said that the
results of the November 27 election were not a repudiation of the
Liberal government in B.C. and that the Liberals between
elections actually eclipsed the Canadian Alliance and Reform
Party but that the Alliance seemed to pass the Liberal Party at
campaign time. I found this astonishingly arrogant. It speaks
exactly to the concerns raised in the member's speech.
Could the member comment on how this might impact on the
capacity of the government to appropriately represent our
province in the House and to address our grievances, when the
senior minister from B.C. on the government bench has this
mindset vis-à-vis our province?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his excellent question and wish him good luck in the House. This
is also an opportunity for me to welcome all of my other
colleagues and members from all parties who have joined us with
enthusiasm and excitement.
The alienation of different regions in Canada is a very
important issue, particularly so because the federal Liberal
government since 1993 has failed to apply the glue which would
bind all the provinces and regions together to make a stronger
Canada. If we put all our excitement together and address fairly
the issues and problems of different regions, the federation will
work.
The government's arrogant and ignorant attitude and its failure
to listen to and address the problems are the root causes of the
problems. The Prime Minister goes more to Florida to play golf
and do other things than to western Canada or other regions to
address issues and listen to people. We only see the Prime
Minister in British Columbia when he is attending a fundraiser.
That is ridiculous. That is the root cause of the problem that
is causing this fire of alienation.
Rather than fan the fire of alienation by not listening to the
concerns of the various regions, the government should hold a
firehose and put out the flames so it can address the issues. The
government should address the issues and keep the glue in place
that is binding various regions together.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am impressed with the speeches we are hearing today,
both from new members and members who are very well experienced
in the House. The member from Surrey Central has been here three
and a half years, since the Prime Minister called the election
only three and a half years after the previous one.
One thing I would like him to comment on is the working of the
House with respect to the representation by members of parliament
of the wishes of their constituents.
1550
It has impressed me that whenever the member stands to speak his
opening sentence is always that he is proud or honoured to
represent the people of Surrey Central. I am sure he has
observed the way some members of parliament are not able to do
that. Would he comment on the effectiveness of parliament on
that topic?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
who is a very hard working member of parliament and represents
the beautiful constituency of Elk Island. His dedication is
highly appreciated.
It is the moral responsibility of members that when we are sent
by our constituents to this great House of honour where we have
the honour and privilege of representing them, that first and
foremost we understand why we are here.
We are here to represent our constituents, not to represent
Ottawa in our constituencies. That is what our constituents
expect of us. That is why they sent us to this place. It is
always important that we bring forward to the House the issues
and concerns that our constituents have so that they can be
addressed. Similarly I have brought forward concerns today about
the whole region of my riding, to give a bigger picture.
However, certain things definitely need to happen before our
issues can be addressed. There should be free votes in the
House. The House should work more in a democratic fashion. The
committees should work. We highlighted all these things that
should work in parliamentary reform.
Since my time does not allow me to elaborate on that I give the
blanket, bigger picture that parliamentary reform is the first
and foremost important thing that should be happening in the
House.
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will
be splitting my time with my colleague, the newly elected member
for Beauharnois—Salaberry, whom I salute and congratulate once
again for his victory, which is a great source of pride.
I am happy to rise today in support of the Speech from the
Throne read on January 30. Allow me to begin with a quote to
express the essence of the government's vision.
The Canadian Way recognizes that economic and social success
must be pursued together. In co-operation with Canadians, our
government will keep on increasing prosperity in our society
based upon the capacities of our citizens, communities and
companies and on the unique place that Canada holds on the
international scale.
I am quoting the Prime Minister of Canada. He was expressing by
these words the vision that
we want to develop here in Canada to ensure that we not only
exist on the North American stage, but also that we radiate
around the world.
Our vision is a balanced vision, a respectful, reasonable and
responsible vision.
On the one hand, there is the issue of economic development, the
positioning of our firms not only at the national but also at the
international level.
On the other hand, there is the issue of all the members of our
society benefiting from the collective wealth we have been
developing here in Canada these past few years. That is also a
vision that comes within the logical flow of things.
We will recall that, in 1993, when Canadians gave us the mandate
to form the government, the situation was rather gloomy. We have
since put our fiscal house back in order, launched a program
review, and invested in some strategic sectors.
We also paid a great deal of attention to the Canadian social
safety net that is the envy of many countries in the world.
Today, our vision is a vision of the future, aimed at setting a
balance among all these measures.
1555
First, when we look at the plan as it is put forward, we can see
that the government is banking a lot on innovation, which is the
spearhead of the Canadian economy and which can help improve the
competitiveness of all our businesses.
A large number of initiatives have been put in place. For
example, Technology Partnerships Canada, a well-known Industry
Canada program, has served all Canadian industries well . All
things considered, it helped us not only to strengthen our
competitive position but also to create good jobs.
There is also the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which is
also supporting the government's desire to invest in innovation.
We also have all the regional development agencies in Canada,
including the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec, which I am responsible for.
Under Industry Canada policy, these agencies operate in all the
regions of Quebec, as is the case of the Economic Development
Agency of Canada, and they try to support regional development
according to the priorities, needs and policies of the regions.
They also strive to assist in the acquisition and use of new
technologies to help the regions cope with a new factor:
innovation.
An important phenomenon is globalization. As a society, we must
be able to use the various tools available to us.
The first of these tools that comes to mind is the Internet,
which eliminates borders between countries and opens up many
opportunities socially, and with respect to economic
development.
Here again, Canada has made tremendous efforts to become the
most connected country in the world by the year 2000. The throne
speech expresses the Canadian government's determination to be
better connected with all communities in Canada by 2004.
All departments will be increasing their services and presence
on the Internet. Certainly, the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency, which is under my responsibility, is one of the key
players in the use of and access to services on the Internet.
Let us think about the pilot project that was launched by the
agency last year and asking some Canadian taxpayers to file
their income tax returns through the Internet. This year, the
pilot project is open to the majority of Canadians.
Also, I would mention “Government of Canada's Connecting
Canadians”, which is providing its services on the Internet. One
of the sites that is widely used in Canada and even in the rest
of the world is without any doubt Industry Canada's Strategis
site, which is probably the finest and largest bank of
commercial data in Canada, indeed in North America. This site,
which gets an incredible number of hits each week, has been very
successful. Its primary objective was to provide better service
and information to people.
With our objective of being the most connected government by
2004, the philosophy underlying our efforts is to better serve
all Canadians.
In the Speech of the Throne, we also find the issue of Canada's
positioning in the world. How do we deal and interact with our
trading partners, and how can we help our businesses to evolve
in the era of globalization?
One of the major aspects of globalization is certainly
everything that relates to customs. This is part of the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency and is being modernized, if I can put
it that way.
As members know, last April, I tabled a Canadian customs
modernization plan for the next five years, so that customs
could continue to properly serve people and fulfil its dual
mandate, which is to ensure the safety of our communities and to
make economic relationships easier, particularly between Canada
and the United States.
1600
As we know, a certain number of initiatives have been put
forward.
I will end by talking about research and development. If we want
to be able to compete with other countries, we have to be able to
innovate and to increase the productivity of our businesses. R
and D is essential in today's new economy, to which we are
confronted.
By the year 2010, we will no doubt have to double research and
development. This is an important commitment taken by the
government. One only has to think about the tax credit for
research and development. This credit, which is administered by
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, may provide the Canadian
business community with up to $1.5 billion a year in tax credits.
These are all important tools which will help us increase our
competitiveness and better position ourselves.
We cannot talk about research, development and innovation
without mentioning the National Research Council of Canada, which
does an excellent job and plays a major role in helping all
Canadian businesses to position themselves.
I will conclude by talking about vibrant communities. We want to
continue to support all Canadian communities from coast to coast.
As we know, the Canadian government has been omnipresent in that
regard. I think, for instance, of Community Futures Development
Corporations. There are many in Quebec and they work to assist
all communities.
We have launched a Youth Strategy which, according to the
figures, has been a real success. Of course, the commitment
regarding the broadband access to Internet project will provide
considerable support to all regions. We do have a good Speech
from the Throne with a great vision.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I want to congratulate the minister and member for Outremont
on his victory in what probably was a hard fought battle.
We are aware of the traditions in the riding of Outremont, where
the Liberal candidate must be strong and courageous, must be well
known and must have good credentials within the party. My
congratulations on your re-election. You will be here a long
time.
The minister talked about research and development, and the
projects, initiatives and claims of the Liberal government with
regard to innovation.
I would like to know what he thinks of his government's attitude
so far, unless he has new developments to share with us
today, regarding the pulp and paper centre, a most important
project for the Trois-Rivières area. That centre was created when
the UQTR research centre and the CEGEP pulp and paper centre
amalgamated into a new world class research centre, as the
president of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières described
it.
This new centre will ensure that at least 3,000 young people
receive adequate training so they can adapt to the technological
change the pulp and paper industry must undergo, having to go
from newsprint to special types of paper.
The Government of Quebec has already offered a contribution
amounting to tens of millions of dollars. However, the federal
government, unless the minister has good news to tell us, has
refused to grant $16.5 million as a financing package.
In light of the federal government's claims, I would like to
know if the minister thinks it is acceptable for the government
not to contribute to a project of such importance for Quebec,
particularly for the Trois-Rivières area.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon.
colleague for referring to my beautiful riding of Outremont, of
which I am very proud, in the preamble to his speech.
He seemed however to be saying that the Liberals take the riding
of Outremont for granted.
1605
I just want to say that no riding in the province of Quebec and
in Canada should be taken for granted. We must do as thorough a
job in each and every one of them. The same goes for my beautiful
riding of Outremont. We must respect the people, the will of the
people and the election process.
What I understand from what the hon. member has said is that he
takes his constituents for granted, something, of course, I would
never do.
About the pulp and paper centre he was talking about, I have
already had representations on this project. It is a nice
project. Naturally, an application was submitted to the Canadian
Foundation for Innovation.
I know that applications were also submitted not only to Canada
Economic Development but to other departments. They are being
reviewed to determine whether something can be done. There is no
doubt that this could be an interesting project for our region.
I also note that the Government of Quebec has undertaken to
contribute a large amount of money. Of course, I would like to
see the letter of undertaking. If there is one, it probably
states as usual that the province's contribution is conditional
upon the Canadian government investing in the program after doing
all the groundwork.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in comments made by
the minister concerning Customs and Revenue Canada and its
modernization. Having travelled on both sides of the 49th for my
constituency, I am particularly interested because of the deep
concern Customs and Revenue Canada has about the modernization of
technical and electronic entry, moving back and forth across our
border.
I have talked to these people. It is interesting to know that
on the American side officials say that this is taking place to
save on manpower. Customs officers in Canada tell me they have
great fears, simply because many of the ports of entry would be
50 to 60 miles from the nearest RCMP office. Having the largest
number of border crossings in Canada, I would like to hear
comments on that.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, the question is very
interesting. The hon. member refers to the fact that Canada and
the U.S. share by far the longest border in the world. I do
recognize that. That is why we have within Canada Customs very
good human resources. We have officers with very good expertise
and experience. Today when one has a look at the situation and
the management of customs not just in Canada but all over the
world, one realizes that it is a question of risk management.
With the reform package we tabled last year we will be able to
have much better risk management. On the one hand, we will be able
to use what we call soft technology, such as CANPASS. We have
started to establish CANPASS in some ports of entry across
Canada. On the other hand, using soft technology will allow us
to use human resources when we have higher risk situations. It
is a much better system.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my first words are for the constituents of my riding,
Beauharnois—Salaberry. First, I want to thank them for having
placed their trust in me during the election campaign, not only
by choosing me as their representative, but also as their
spokesman.
In making that choice, they have allowed the beautiful riding of
Beauharnois—Salaberry to escape its turpitude so that the people
of the riding can have access to the wealth that is growing from
day to day, from week to week in Canada.
Canada is one of the countries with the highest economic growth.
Unfortunately, the problem for the riding is that it did not
derive any benefits from this growth, so it has remained at a
standstill since 1993.
1610
There is a reason for my coming back to politics. It is because
I read a study conducted by the Seigneurie de Beauharnois CLSC,
which clearly showed the problems in the riding, compared to the
rest of the Montérégie, the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry
riding being the most underprivileged enclave of that area.
I am happy, therefore, to see that social justice is one of the
main themes of the Speech from the Throne. This is something that
will have specific applications in my riding.
Why? Because the study, which was published but was ignored by
members at the time, draws a parallel between the unemployment
rate in the riding and in the Montérégie.
In this very vibrant region of Quebec, the unemployment rate is
approximately 6%. Unfortunately, in the riding of
Beauharnois—Salaberry, the unemployment rate is always twice as
high, at approximately 12%.
The study also showed that the highest rate of suicide among
young people in the Montérégie was in Beauharnois—Salaberry, of
course.
In the Montérégie, the highest percentage of single parent
families in the Montérégie is also in Beauharnois—Salaberry, as
is the highest percentage of seniors living alone.
We realized, and so did the population, that this riding had
been left to its own devices since 1993. This is understandable
because a vote for a Bloc Quebecois member is almost a wasted
vote, since that person can do absolutely nothing for the
riding.
I decided to enter politics precisely to take on that challenge.
I was asked to get involved and I presented a three-step action
plan that will give the people of that riding a chance to catch
their breath. They say that creating wealth is nice, but to be
able to share it is even nicer.
The Speech from the Throne carries a strong message for us.
In my riding, we have a high unemployment rate and a very high
dropping out rate compared to the rest of Montérégie and we also
rank last for economic growth. There are reasons for that.
The people of my riding already started to do something about
the situation. Setting aside all political partisanship, they
created a coalition. The leaders of the area got together to
form this coalition with the Liberal candidate in the riding.
Together, we put forward this plan. All the leaders were backing
me. When I speak in the House, I do so on behalf of the
leaders and the population of my riding.
Of course, we have a lot of work to do to put companies on solid
grounds. We have ailing companies.
There is very little funding for the companies in my riding.
That does not bode well for the future. We decided to
consolidate existing jobs. Meanwhile, we must also be in a
position to create a climate that can stimulate investments from
outside the area.
There is a road infrastructure problem in Montérégie and it is
particularly acute in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry. That
was one of the themes of the last election campaign because we
wanted to complete what we had started in 1985, which is to
disentrap our region as well as the greater Montreal area. The
road system was therefore one of the major themes of the
election campaign.
One of the basic reasons I came back to politics is the tragic
situation of youth, something that was highlighted in the
report. Earlier, I mentioned the high suicide rate among young people
and the dropping out rate, which is also dreadful.
1615
We launched an initiative, which is perfectly consistent with
the Speech from the Throne, to establish a foundation to help in
the fight against poverty and dropping out among our young
people.
All the workers in this region as well as entrepreneurs have
shown some interest for this initiative. For some weeks now,
young people have been building this organization and learning
about the problems of the region. In the coming months, they will
be able to develop an action plan.
In addressing these needs, it is very important to provide the
people with an effective representative, one who will be able to
communicate their concerns to the government. In my work as a
member of parliament, I will use that victory, this seat that the
people have given me, to address the needs of the region and to
work aggressively with my government to get rid of the negative
and pessimistic climate that has existed for a few years now. We
want people to take charge of their own lives and to develop
their region.
Both the rural and the urban areas are concerned.
I said earlier that one of the major points that will help us
get out of this state is to work in co-operation with the people
in this, to put pressure on the federal and Quebec
governments to make sure that a plan of action can be developed
so that everyone can benefit from the economic growth that
Canada is currently enjoying.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. I also want to wake
him up from his deep sleep and tell him that he is not in the
National Assembly but in the House of Commons and that issues
such as dropping out and health are provincial jurisdictions.
The hon. member sat in the Quebec National Assembly through two
mandates. He should know or remember these things. Considering
that he even forgot about his promises to build bridges when he
was sitting in the National Assembly, perhaps we should ask him
about that now. That will be my main question later on.
The hon. member said there were no economic spinoffs in the
riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry because voters voted for the
wrong party. Was he an MNA under Taschereau or in a modern era?
Because this is no longer how things work, or at least it should
not be the case, unless the Liberals' policy is to penalize
those who do not vote for them. It seems to me that this is what
was implied in his speech.
As for the unemployment rate, I should inform the hon. member
that, in Quebec, the riding with the highest unemployment rate
is Saint-Maurice. Yet, for 33 years now, it has been represented
by a guy who supposedly belongs to the right party.
In his mailer, which I have here with me, the hon. member
clearly promises his voters—this is crystal clear, it is not a
commitment but a promise—that two bridges will be built. Now that
he has been elected, now that his constituents have put their
trust in him, will the hon. member tell us if he intends to
fulfil his promise and build these two bridges during the
current mandate?
An hon. member: Let him put his seat on the line.
Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Speaker, a debate on the division of
responsibilities between the federal
government and the provinces was held with the Bloc Quebecois
candidate at the Valleyfield Cegep. I would point out to the
Bloc Quebecois member that when one is an MP, one represents the
entire community. There is no breakdown of jurisdiction. One
represents all members of the community. That is how I intend
to operate in my riding.
If a constituent comes to me with a problem, I will not be the
kind of member who might say “Go and see the MLA, because this
does not concern me”. I was elected by the same people and I am
going to represent them the same way.
1620
With respect to the bridges—and contrary to what the member said,
this is not a promise but an undertaking—I would like to remind
him that between 1976 and 1985, when the Parti Quebecois was in
power in Quebec, there was a moratorium on road construction.
In 1985, we made this a major theme in Montérégie. Between 1985
and 1994, we went back over this issue from A to Z. None of the
corridors were retained.
We achieved consensus in Montérégie. We finalized one corridor,
and built two segments of highway, which had not been seen in
Quebec since 1976, and we concluded the impact studies in 1993.
In 1993, Quebec's Department of Transportation wrapped them up.
Unfortunately, we were defeated in the 1994 election. So the
impact studies were not filed with IBC until 1997.
I have now returned to politics to continue the work begun back
then. But now the problem is no longer necessarily a local,
regional one. It has become a national problem, because now all
of greater Montreal is involved.
[English]
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for
Wetaskiwin. As is traditional, I will begin my comments by
thanking the voters of my riding of Lanark—Carleton for placing
their trust in me and for sending me to this place as their
representative.
Lanark—Carleton is as large as Prince Edward Island and holds
as many people as that province. It is in some respects the most
diverse riding in the country and contains within its bounds
large tracts of rugged wilderness, much rich farmland, many of
the prettiest small towns in Ontario, and also Kanata which is
Canada's fastest growing and most dynamic urban area and the home
of silicon valley north.
The residents of the riding have long been among the most
individualistic and creative of Canadians, from Dr. James
Naismith of Almonte who invented basketball, to Captain Arthur
Roy Brown who capped a glorious flying career in the first world
war by shooting down the Red Baron, Manfred von Richtoffen. In
Lanark—Carleton we are, to quote from the motto of Beckwith
township, proud of our past and confident of our future.
I will also take a moment to salute a few individuals: my
parents, Gord and Leatrice Reid, for their wisdom and perpetual
support and my remarkable campaign team, headed by Frank Hall and
Jerry Rice, who did so much to win the Canadian Alliance's
easternmost seat.
There is one other individual to whom I extend my personal
thanks. My primary opponent in the election was Ian Murray, the
former Liberal member of parliament. In a national campaign that
was characterized by negative campaigning, Ian ran a clean and
honourable campaign and was always a gentleman. I salute him for
that as he begins his life in private industry.
It is a great honour to serve as the critic within Her Majesty's
Loyal Opposition for intergovernmental affairs. As such it is my
obligation to set out the parameters of the position my party
will take in matters relating to federalism in this new
parliament, and to emphasize as well one policy in particular
that will occupy my own attention, that of intergovernmental
transfers.
On this side of the House we are federalists in the true sense
of the term: in the sense employed by James Madison in the 1780s
when he wrote The Federalist Papers; in the sense that the
term federationist was used a century ago in Australia when a
federal system was being considered for that country; in the
sense that citizens of Switzerland mean when they speak of the
way their country divides its powers between federal and cantonal
levels of government; and, most important, in the sense that the
term confederate was used by the fathers of our own federal
system at the conferences in Quebec City, London and
Charlottetown in the mid-1860s.
We believe that a federal system ought to consist of two orders
of government, each of which is completely sovereign within its
own areas of jurisdiction and each of which has no authority
whatsoever in the areas of jurisdiction assigned to the other
order of government. This is what the great British jurist
Albert Venn Dicey meant when he made the startling but accurate
observation that:
A federal state requires for its formation...a body of countries
such as the...Colonies of America or the Provinces of Canada, so
closely connected by locality, by history...or the like, as to be
capable of bearing, in the eyes of their inhabitants, an impress
of common nationality.
1625
Of course our Fathers of Confederation viewed the U.S. model and
chose to construct our own federation a little differently. They
judged that the United States constitution had given the federal
government too few powers and the states too many.
They therefore assigned to the central government certain powers
which in the U.S.A. are given to the states. An obvious example
of this is criminal law, which in most federal systems is the
responsibility of the state or the cantonal government but which
in Canada is a federal matter.
Our fathers were federalists nonetheless in the pure sense of
the term and not advocates of a unitary state. Within the sphere
of jurisdiction falling to each province the fathers clearly
meant for that province to be absolutely sovereign. They also
intended the federal government to be absolutely sovereign within
its own areas of jurisdiction, with no provincial interference.
Wherever the fathers thought some form of joint jurisdiction
would be the best arrangement, and they did not think this very
often, they said so overtly, as in section 95 of the constitution
which gives joint jurisdiction over agriculture.
Unfortunately this decision to create a less decentralized union
has been misinterpreted in recent decades as proof that what was
intended for Canada was a highly centralized union in which the
federal government could justifiably tinker in matters that
clearly fall within the provincial realm of jurisdiction.
The federal government does this by offering to share the cost
of provincial government programs and then attempting to impose
conditions not only on how the transferred money is spent but
also upon the manner in which all provincial moneys in that area
will be used.
This may seem a reasonable request, or at least tolerable, when
speaking of federal grants amounting to 50% of total spending on
a program, the so-called 50 cent dollars of the 1960s and 1970s.
Today when the federal government contributes less than 20 cents
to every dollar of health care spending, for example, such
demands for compliance to federal standards is clearly intended
purely as propaganda, with the provinces bearing the lion's share
of the cost of important programs but with the federal government
taking as much credit as possible for maintaining standards that
it does not take seriously.
This does not happen because the federal government is smarter
than provincial governments. It has not happened because the
voters who participate in federal elections are more responsible,
more caring or more intelligent than the voters who cast their
ballots in provincial elections. It has not happened because
federal Liberals care more about health care and education than
do provincial Liberals, Conservatives or New Democrats.
It has happened solely because the federal government has more
revenues than it can reasonably expect to use for its own areas
of jurisdiction while the provincial governments lack the revenue
raising ability to directly finance their own constitutional
responsibilities.
It should be noted that the so-called spending power stems not
from any words to be found in the constitution itself, nor even
from a supreme court interpretation of some unwritten emanation
from a penumbra of the constitution, but rather from a
straightforward assertion by successive federal governments that
they have the right to disregard the boundaries set out in the
constitution and to interfere directly in areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
No less an authority than Pierre Elliott Trudeau argued in 1957
that the spending power was completely unconstitutional.
[Translation]
The disadvantages of a situation where taxes are levied by one
level of government, and spending is done by another, are well
known.
The preliminary report of the Liberal Party of Quebec says the
following:
The federal spending power leads to three types of problems.
First, the predictability of funding; with respect to cost-shared
programs, for example, the provinces find themselves faced with
the progressive withdrawal of federal funding once the programs
are established.
Second, the unilateral imposition of federal standards; in the
case of conditional transfer payments in areas of provincial
jurisdiction, the conditions imposed by the federal government
lead to pan-Canadian standards, despite the fact that the
provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in the area in question.
This is an especially delicate issue for Quebec, given the
specificity of its society.
Third, the duplication of measures; one example of this is when
a federal program is added to an existing provincial program.
1630
[English]
Nor is any of this a recent discovery. In 1930 Mackenzie King
stated in the House “It is a pernicious principle to have one
government collect taxes and another government spend them”.
Over 100 years ago Sir Wilfrid Laurier warned “It is an
entirely false principle according to which one government
collects revenues and another government spends them. This must
lead always to extravagance.”
I have outlined a serious problem that was not addressed in the
Speech from the Throne.
In concluding my remarks, I would suggest that there is a simple
solution that could be and should be considered by the House.
It is to transfer tax points and tax room to the provinces to
allow their tax base and spending base to expand to reflect
their important constitutional jurisdiction. This would allow
for our federal system to be represented, our constitution to be
respected and our most important programs, such as health care,
to be adequately financed now and in the decades in the future.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Lanark—Carleton is using arguments in
connection with Canada's constitution, which we are beginning to
hear more of with respect to the Canadian Alliance's position on
the constitution. In my view, it is a complete distortion of our
constitutional history.
He talks about the federal government and the provincial
governments being absolutely sovereign in their particular areas
of jurisdiction at Confederation. Anyone who has read Canadian
constitutional history will know that the government created by
Macdonald, Cartier and others was looking very specifically at
what was happening in the United States in terms of its
federation. It saw the problem with states' rights and slavery.
It saw a union and a federation dissolve after the civil war.
That was the lesson learned from the American constitution.
There was always that toing and froing even within the American
constitution's founding fathers, between Jefferson and Hamilton,
in terms of whose theory of federalism would have ascendancy. As
it turned out, Jefferson's theory took hold in terms of the U.S.
supreme court's interpretation of the American constitution.
In relation to his speech, how does the hon. member's theory of
absolute sovereignty of both levels of government at
Confederation square with the power that existed at the time of
reservation and disallowance? At that time the federal
government had the power to nullify all provincial legislation,
which was a very significant power. It was only after years and
years of constitutional interpretation by the British judicial
committee of the privy council that the power fell into
disrepute.
How does the hon. member square the Alliance's theory
of absolute sovereignty in its own particular areas of
jurisdiction at Confederation with what actually occurred?
Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member,
whose riding adjoins my own, for his questions and his comments.
When it comes to the question of federal transfers and the use
of tax points and tax rooms, it is not a new innovation of my
party, nor is it something on which we stand alone. This
approach has been suggested by the Quebec Liberal Party in its
recent report. The so-called six wise men in Alberta have also
suggested it in their recent proposal. It is in fact a long
standing proposal of various parties within Quebec. The
Ontario government has expressed an interest as well.
When we look at Premier Hamm of Nova Scotia and his comments on
the need to change the equalization formula, certainly the idea
of using tax points is compatible with that.
1635
A broad based consensus is evolving and emerging in opposition
to the Liberal Party and the government which basically holds
that there is an effective way within our own system of dealing
with the fact that there is a fiscal imbalance between the
revenue raising abilities of the federal government and the
spending needs of the provinces.
He raised questions with regard to the manner in which the
Fathers of Confederation saw our country and the question of
disallowance and reservation. I am surprised, in all honesty,
that anybody at this time would want to defend the powers of
disallowance or reservation. The power of disallowance was most
recently used in the 1930s and conventionally speaking is no
longer regarded to be acceptable.
The power of reservation, if I am not mistaken, was used most
recently in 1961 by the lieutenant-governor of Saskatchewan. He
was either dismissed or at least reprimanded for attempting to
use it. Both of these are constitutional provisions which have
fallen into disuse.
With regard to the original intention of those constitutional
provisions, we may recall that when Canada was founded it was not
an independent country at all. Nor did the Fathers of
Confederation want it to be an independent country. The debates
that took place in the predecessor to this Chamber over the
provisions of Confederation are full of strong emphases on just
how we do not want to be an independent country. We want to be
part of the British empire. We want to be in the position of a
protectorate of what was regarded at that time as the freest and
greatest assemblage of people in the world.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your
ascension to the chair. I also congratulate the others sharing
the chair with you. We only demand of you perfection; nothing
more, nothing less. I do not think that will be too hard a bill
to fill. If that were not enough, perhaps we would also suggest
that you could be an agent for some change in the House while you
are at it.
This is my first intervention in the 37th parliament. I thank
the people of the constituency of Wetaskiwin for yet another
tremendous vote of confidence bestowed on me on November 27
during the federal election. I give a special thanks to my wife
Dianne. As all members of the House know, their duties here also
affect family members. certainly my wife Dianne has been a great
supporter. I also thank our daughters Michelle and Dalene and
our son-in-law Andy for their continued support.
I also mention the people on my campaign team who worked so hard
in winter weather to get me re-elected. In particular, my
campaign manager Janet Moseson did a marvellous job of working
with a less than perfect product, myself. My official agent
Gerald Grant has done a stellar job of looking after the
finances, and his wife Averil Grant looked after the constituency
office during a very busy time, and did it single-handedly. I
thank all of them for their help, and the result is that I am
back in the House of Commons for my third term.
Throughout the campaign I promised the voters of Wetaskiwin that
I would bring their message to Ottawa. It would not be the other
way around, that I would never bring Ottawa's message to them. I
would be their servant.
My constituents have asked me to bring a message to the
government and to the Prime Minister. Part of that message is
that they want the government to be fiscally accountable and
responsible. They want the government to treat all Canadians
equally regardless of where they live or who they support.
1640
My constituents do not want and certainly do not need the Prime
Minister's tough love. They want and deserve respect from the
Prime Minister and his government. Last week's throne speech was
not a great start. It had even more platitudes than previous
speeches from the throne. It was notable in that it had very
little to say and it was notable in what it did not say.
When the government came into power in 1993 the national debt
and deficit had reached astronomical proportions. A responsible
government would have made tough decisions to cut wasteful and
unnecessary spending in order to get things back on track. Not
these Liberals. Instead, they kept their patronage ridden, make
work projects, and they balanced the budget by raising taxes and
offloading expenses on to the provinces and municipalities.
The throne speech promised that the government would fund
improvements to municipal water and waste water systems through
the federal-provincial-municipal Canada infrastructure program.
That is the same promise that we heard in red book one. Instead,
millions of dollars were squandered on questionable
infrastructure spending.
In the 35th parliament the government announced the $6 billion
infrastructure program. Here are some of the examples of what
the government thinks are infrastructure and how that money was
spent, and I beg to differ with it. There were bowling alley
renovations in Ontario. There were a $24 million tennis stadium
and a $14.4 million circus training centre in Montreal. There
were a fountain in Shawinigan and golf courses in Atlantic
Canada. Hardly any of that in the wildest imagination is
infrastructure.
It appears that municipal sewage and water treatment
infrastructure was not a high priority for the Liberal government
as bowling alleys or golf courses. In the short term, make work
projects designed to provide Liberal backbenchers with photo ops
better describe it. The main reason to invest in infrastructure
should be to make sure that the economy remains competitive and
buoyant.
If a municipality, a province or a country cannot offer clean
water, a reliable transportation system and affordable housing,
businesses will locate somewhere else. If the British Columbia
companies participating in the upcoming team Canada trade mission
to China win large contracts, they will be faced with the
problems of how to get their products to port because of
deteriorating, congested road networks.
If Canadian companies cannot get their products to market, they
will simply lose those contracts. Workers will have to be laid
off and there will be a deteriorating effect on the economy. The
government will then have fewer tax dollars to collect from those
people.
Canadians, whether they live in the west, the east, the centre
or the north, expect the government to provide core services.
They pay enough taxes to justify these expectations. Before the
government embarks on another potentially frivolous
infrastructure plan, it should recognize what was wrong with the
first two and steer clear of culture and social infrastructure
components that led to many boondoggles.
Existing physical infrastructure has long been one of the areas
consistently neglected by the government. An infrastructure
program should embody economic efficiency and be a patronage free
zone. By the end of the program in 1999, the Liberals'
inefficient manner of allocating taxpayer dollars was obvious.
They left the private sector out of the picture in helping to
identify, finance and administer the projects. Unless the
neglect is followed up by an innovative way of finding new areas
of financing, Canada's infrastructure will continue to
deteriorate to the point where governments will be required to
spend more money for improvements. As a matter of fact,
improvements might not do it. They might have to completely
rebuild the infrastructure.
Treasury Board claims that the program was not renewed in 1999
because the economy was booming. That brings us to where we are
today: another red book and another throne speech promising to
fix Canada's roads and sewers.
1645
This time the government is still promising $2.6 billion, as
announced in the February budget, for new physical
infrastructure. Is it any wonder that westerners are skeptical
and nearly shut out the Liberals in the last election?
If the economy is booming and Canada does not need another
infrastructure program, we have to wonder why the government is
renewing this program. Perhaps it has something to do with
bringing goodies to certain regions of the country. For
instance, Quebec got $515 million in federal contributions while
Alberta got only $171 million. This is not regional fairness.
Albertans have heard the same storyline over and over.
Yesterday the auditor general noted that Canadians get upset and
angry when they see their tax dollars wasted. We cannot blame
them. They expect the government to take the same care of and
have the same prudence with their money as they themselves must.
I would like to point out that my former colleague in the House,
the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Lee Morrison, authored
a private member's bill that would have dedicated revenues from
fuel taxes for repair of our crumbling highways. Our
Trans-Canada Highway is a shame, a disaster, and I think his idea
is one that is well worth exploring.
I want to conclude by saying that if the Prime Minister doubts
what I am saying, he can visit the great riding of Wetaskiwin. We
would be glad to have people meet with him and give him this
exact message.
The other message the people of Wetaskiwin want me to deliver to
this place today is that they want to see a country in which
their children and grandchildren are treated with respect, have
unlimited opportunity and have a government they can respect.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
disappointed in the member's speech. If this is how he is going
to start the new House I do not think we have much to look
forward to.
He begins by saying that he is bringing us a message from his
constituents. He is obviously very proud to be a member of
parliament, as I am. He obviously believes in representing the
people of his riding as well as he can.
However, in discussing the first two infrastructure programs he
proceeded to malign the villages, townships, towns and cities of
my riding, because within the guidelines of those first two
infrastructure programs in the 1993 and 1997 parliaments, the
choices were made by the municipalities themselves.
He also maligns the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. That
was the design program municipalities specifically asked for
and have asked for again this time. If he were to go to my
riding he would discover that the elected representatives of my
villages looked very carefully at their infrastructure needs.
They effectively defined what was infrastructure and what was
priority infrastructure at that time for their communities.
He went on to mention highways and water and sewage. What is
the point when a small municipality that has recently spent large
sums of money on its highways is given money to spend on
highways? If there is a municipality that has recently invested
in its water supply and has gone to great lengths to develop a
good water system and a system of checking it, what is the point
of giving that municipality infrastructure money for water?
Putting it another way, why should a municipality which has not
done that get the benefit of a program simply because it is
behind in checking its highways or water and sewage?
I believe that the purpose of this type of infrastructure
program—and I do understand that there are others—is to deal
with the smallest units in our system, which are the villages and
townships of my riding and of the member's riding. I hope the
design of this program is the same, because only the design of
this program can do it. No one in Ottawa knows what the village
of Havelock in my riding needs today. We just do not, but we can
listen to the villages and townships and respond as well as we
are able to with flexible programs that allow them to make the
decisions.
1650
I welcome the hon. member's comments. In his riding, in the
1993 and 1997 programs, was someone other than the municipalities
themselves deciding what was infrastructure?
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, what I did say in my
remarks was that not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a
fountain in Shawinigan being infrastructure. What I certainly
can imagine being infrastructure is the repair of the
Trans-Canada Highway, and I cannot quite understand why it has
not been done. To me that is infrastructure.
Certainly, as the hon. member says, if municipalities chose to
repair their water and sewer systems before the infrastructure
program became available to them, then he is right, it would not
make sense to force money on them for water and sewer where it is
not needed.
By the same token, I challenge the hon. member to tell me how a
fountain in the Prime Minister's riding would qualify, even in
the broadest terms, as infrastructure.
The availability of infrastructure money should come with no
political strings whatsoever attached to it. From where I sit,
it appears that quite a lot of the infrastructure money came with
some political strings attached to it. It should be available on
the basis of need for infrastructure spending in a municipality.
I agree with the hon. member when he says that it should be
decided by the area of governance that is closest to the people.
Those people should be able to make the decision because they are
the ones who know what is needed in the community.
I am just having a very difficult time understanding how he
qualifies a golf course, for instance, or a fountain as
infrastructure.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the representative from the
Northwest Territories and the Secretary of State for Children and
Youth, I am pleased to contribute in the debate on the Speech
from the Throne. I am sharing my time with the member for
Markham.
Had it not been for the support that I received from my
constituents through four elections in a row I would not have the
opportunity to speak today. I am grateful for having been
returned to my seat in the House of Commons. To serve as a
member of parliament is one of the highest honours. We are
sitting in the highest court of our country, apart from the
supreme court and the Senate, and we all take that seriously.
In regard to the Speech from the Throne, I am delighted to say
that the emphasis is something that I really believe my whole
life has been about in the work I have undertaken for the people
I represent. The emphasis is one of inclusivity and innovation.
Our goal is to ensure that all Canadians can succeed and fully
participate in today's society. As is said in the Speech from
the Throne, the true value of a strong society in Canada is our
willingness to include everybody and generate opportunities
shared by all communities. Every region, every province, every
territory, every community and every citizen has a strong voice
and can contribute to building our nation.
That resonates with me specifically because I come from such a
remote part of our country. I represent 33 communities in over
half a million square miles, many of which are not connected by
road and are only accessible by air. These words in the Speech
from the Throne really mean something to my constituents, because
when we are essentially physically isolated there is the sense
that everything is happening out there and we are not connected
to it.
My community and the territory I come from can appreciate these
words.
1655
Allow me to state how much we are progressing in the north. Much
more economic development is occurring at this time. Land claims
are continually being settled. A few are well on their way to
being settled and others are in different stages of completion
and development.
The goal in the north is to become much more self-sustaining. As
Canadians, we want to contribute. We want to be able to give
back to this wonderful country what we have received in terms of
transfer payments and equalization. Never in the north has there
been an opportunity as great as there is today to position
ourselves to do that. We are a part of Canada that is
positioned, because of our resources and the region we come from,
to be able to do that in a very short time if we are given the
opportunity and the support we need.
Allow me to say that at this time I see a better future for the
people in the north because of the opportunities there. I am
honoured that the government has made a commitment to strengthen
its relationships with the aboriginal people of Canada through
the Speech from the Throne. The government will support first
nations communities in strengthening governance, including more
effective and transparent administrative practices.
In my community there is an ongoing debate about the Dogrib land
claim. Embedded in that claim is the provision for
self-government. These are constitutionally binding commitments.
They are legal. They are constitutional once they are completely
finalized. We have to recognize that. Those provisions are not
put there so that these instruments become hollow vessels. They
have to mean something.
Also in my riding is the community of Delenhe, which is working
on a community self-government proposal. This proposal is
progressing quite well.
These communities are serious in their negotiations and their
intent and I believe the negotiators on all sides are negotiating
with goodwill.
We also have a proposal from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation
and the Gwich'in Tribal Council for regional self-government.
Self-government does not have one mould. It can have many
different structures. These are serious negotiations. The
proposal would provide greater responsibility to those who would
be governing once they complete their negotiations and
arrangements with the federal and territorial governments and
among themselves.
These are important negotiations. They speak to the actual
substance of what the throne speech is speaking to in terms of
strengthening governance for aboriginal people.
The government will work with first nations to ensure that basic
needs are met for jobs, health, education, housing and
infrastructure. This will be reflected in all of the
government's priorities. This is good news.
Nowhere is the creation and sharing of opportunity more
important than it is for aboriginal people. Too many live in
poverty without the tools they need to build a future for
themselves and their communities. Over the last 12 years I have
been to many reserves in many parts of Canada. I have gone to
touch the earth and be with the people, as have many hon.
members. I have seen many diverse living conditions in Canada
and many ranges in the quality of life of Canadians. That is
being recognized in the throne speech. We need to help these
people develop the tools they need to build a better future for
themselves and their communities.
As we enter this new millennium in a faster paced, digital
economy, the government will work with all Canadians to build a
stronger, more inclusive Canada, fueled by innovation, ideas and
talent, an innovative economy built on an innovative society
whose people welcome diversity and are willing to explore
creative approaches.
We can only achieve our potential in the north and elsewhere if
we expect all of our citizens to do well in education, work and
life and if we willingly support them in that achievement. We
are already seeing progress. Many of our young people are very
technologically savvy, outward looking and more educated than
ever. They are managing very well. However, we are ever more
determined to build on this momentum.
The throne speech refers to instruments like the creation of the
registered individual learning accounts to make it easier for
Canadians to finance their learning. We will improve the loans
available to part time students so more workers can earn while
they learn. We anticipate many thousands of working Canadians
will take advantage of learning opportunities like these over the
next five years. This is good news for Canadians who need to
upgrade their skills.
1700
In the Northwest Territories we see tremendous opportunities
opening up. We have two diamond mines that are in full swing and
producing diamonds. They are the Broken Hill property mine and
the Diavik Mine, which just started and is basically bringing in
all its supplies because the winter road has now opened.
With all the spin-off effects on jobs and economic growth, it
was said at one time that we could never cut and polish diamonds
in the Northwest Territories, which is a value-added subsidiary
of the diamond industry. We have two cutting and polishing
facilities in Yellowknife. One of them is co-owned by Aboriginal
people.
In addition to that, oil and gas companies have committed more
than $1 billion in exploration in the Northwest Territories.
This includes $750 million in the Mackenzie Delta, $85 million in
the Sahtu region and $25 million in Liard area.
The demand for natural gas is robust. The development of a
Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline has many benefits: $1 billion
dollars in wages to workers; aboriginal people would have new
opportunities and perhaps a chance for equity ownership of the
pipeline; towns would have an increased tax base; and the service
industry would expand.
When the next two diamond mines come into play, Diavik and Snap
Lake Diamond mines, the Northwest Territories will be producing
20% of the world's diamonds. Diamonds have landed. We have
become a big player in the diamond industry in Canada and it is
happening in my region.
This is like every other part of Canada. Northerners want the
opportunity to participate. They do not want a handout, they
want a hand up. There are opportunities and the throne speech
speaks about many of those opportunities.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with
respect to the throne speech, could the Secretary of State for
Children and Youth tell us what some of her ideas are regarding
the issue of young people with disabilities?
In the throne speech there is a section on support for persons
with disabilities who have some attachments to the labour force.
However, I see nothing that deals with the very real problems
that young people with disabilities face in the education system
in terms of mobility support. At the present time there are no
adequate national standards for education and certainly not for
children with disabilities.
In my town hundreds of parents struggle every year to make sure
there will be a speech therapist, a teacher's assistant and a
psychologist. We seem to throw all of these things into the
provincial pot.
As a spokesperson for children and youth, I know that education
and national standards for learning have to be part of any kind
of a vision for the country. How does the hon. member feel the
government is helping with the solution?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased
that the hon. member has a particular interest in the issue of
disability. I and many other members do as well.
Specifically, in the aboriginal community in my area the
incidence of disability is four or five times higher than the
national average. It is a very difficult issue for that
community to deal with. We have had a number of reports. We
have a working group for aboriginals with disabilities.
I know that there is a particular concern for children with
special needs.
It was very well registered during the election by many of my
constituents that we can do the integration into the labour
market but that does not deal with the children who have FAE/FAS,
or dyslexia, or impediments, or learning difficulties, or
attention deficit or who have a number of other learning
challenges.
1705
The big debate right now is how will we be able to take the $2.2
billion of early childhood development and square that with the
needs that are out there. That is the challenge.
The other challenge is that we must not focus on our
jurisdictional differences between the provinces, the territories
and the federal government. To a child, there is no difference.
To families who need the help and to the schools that find this a
tremendous challenge financially as well as in terms of human
resources, there really are no differences.
We need to be able to come together as the representatives of
various levels of government and come up with a strategy that
will deal with children, specifically children with special
needs. That can be done through some of the suggestions in the
Speech from the Throne. The items that are listed there are for
children, specifically early childhood development. The most
preventable disability, FAE/FAS, also got a special mention. We
have a national strategy for that as well.
That is not to say that there is a silver bullet and there will
be a quick fix. It will take a long time. It will take greater
dedication and more focus in terms of what is needed in the next
report that comes out on the disabilities. There has to be some
kind of reflection of those needs that are out there.
We have many considerations because it is not simple. It is
very complicated as I indicated. However I do not believe that
it is insurmountable.
[Translation]
Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to
thank my fellow citizens in Markham for electing me. I also want
to thank my family, which has accepted wholeheartedly the family
and financial costs of political life.
[English]
Often many things have a silver lining. For my two teenage
sons, the greater availability of a car during my sojourns in
Ottawa is a definite plus.
[Translation]
I thank the Prime Minister, who invited me to join his team by
selecting me as a candidate.
[English]
Finally, I thank my Liberal colleagues, fellow rookie MPs from
all parties and the staff of the House of Commons who have made
this first 10 days a very exciting and pleasurable experience.
My theme today is that in at least two respects Markham, my
riding, can be seen as a vanguard of the shape of things to come
in much of the rest of the country. I refer first to the
increasing multicultural nature of our country and second to the
degree to which we are as a country leaping into the new economy
and making it grow.
If we go back 30 years, there was a negligible percentage of the
citizens of Markham who were visible minorities. Today it is
about half. Thirty years ago there were 135 Chinese people,
today there are 43,000. More than half of the people of Markham
are new Canadians, people who were not born in the country.
As one such as myself with a relatively Caucasian or WASP
background from Bay Street or McGill, it was a distinct highlight
of the campaign to have the opportunity to meet so many new
Canadians in their places of worship and in their homes during
door to door canvassing.
One event sticks out in my mind as something I will never
forget. While canvassing on a street with mainly new Canadians
one evening, I noticed that as soon as they saw a Liberal sign a
smile would come to their faces and the names of Trudeau and that
of the Prime Minister would often be mentioned, both in a
positive vein.
At that point I realized, as a question of reality, that rather
than theory it truly is the Liberal Party that has traditionally
been the one to welcome people to our shores from all parts of
the world irrespective of culture, religion or race.
This is increasingly the population of Markham and increasingly
that of Canada. It goes without saying that the
government will continue in that tradition. In addition, there
are measures in the throne speech and a commitment to work with
provincial governments to make it easier for the credentials of
immigrants to be accepted and for them to be integrated more
quickly into our society.
1710
[Translation]
As a Quebecer, or at least as someone who was born in Quebec and
taught at McGill University, and at the Université du Québec à
Montréal, I appreciate not only the multicultural aspect of the
Canadian way of life, but also our bilingualism or linguistic
duality.
[English]
This reflects the sense of balance which to me is the hallmark
of being a Liberal. We favour innovation and inclusion. We
favour wealth creation and growth and helping those who need
help. We favour multiculturalism and bilingualism. This sense
of balance comes naturally to Liberals, just as easily as walking
and chewing gum. However, without naming names, that ability to
walk and chew gum at the same time seems to come less naturally
to some of the other parties in the House. That is meant to be a
relatively non-partisan remark.
I come now to the second element. I said Markham is in a sense
the vanguard of multiculturalism. Now let me talk about the new
economy. Markham describes itself as the high tech centre of
Canada. Markham has more than 800 high tech firms. Whereas the
whole of the country benefits from the policies of this
government, favouring economic growth and the new economy,
nowhere will these benefits be felt more strongly than in
Markham. Let me briefly illustrate three dimensions of these.
First, there are measures to make the macro economy perform
because the macro economy has to perform for both the old and the
new economies. The Liberal government's impeccably timed and
very substantial tax cuts are just what the doctor ordered to
allow us to weather the storms that are coming from south of the
border.
Not only that, there are also budgetary measures specifically
favouring the new economy. I refer to the end of the income tax
surtax, the slashing of the capital gains inclusion rate and the
measures on stock options, all of which are specifically geared
to favour the new economy.
I also refer to structural measures contained in the throne
speech that will favour expanded research, increased
commercialization of research, increased learning and an improved
information infrastructure, all of which are essential to the new
economy.
Finally, as a specific illustration and as an economist, it does
not make sense for the new economy to be a pure unadulterated
private enterprise activity. There has to be an element of
partnership. This is perhaps my favourite example of that. In
the past year Markham attracted an IBM facility with 1,500 new
jobs, thanks in part to a $33 million federal investment. Absent
of that investment, according to IBM, it would not be somewhere
else in Canada. It would be in Ireland or Asia. The Alliance
policy, which would abandon and outlaw such partnerships, would
see such companies not locate in this country but locate
elsewhere.
In my view, Markham can be seen as a microcosm or as a vanguard
of where much of the country is headed with respect to both
multiculturalism and the new economy. In both of those two
dimensions, the progress of the town will be much aided by the
measures taken previously in the budget and more recently in the
throne speech.
1715
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will share
my time with my colleague, the member for Champlain.
I am very pleased to make my maiden speech in this House. First,
I want to congratulate you on your appointment and to mention
the election of the Speaker of this House. I also offer you my
full co-operation so that we can have respectful debates while
dealing with the business of the House in the years to come.
You have perhaps the most significant job in the House. You must
assist us so that, in our work, we respect of the rights of all
members of parliament, particularly those in the opposition. I
can assure you that I will support you to ensure that, even
though the discussions between the opposition and the government
are sometimes heated, they are never disgraceful nor
disrespectful.
I also want to take a few minutes of my maiden speech to thank
all the people in the riding of Châteauguay. I sincerely thank
them for the trust they put in me on November 27. I can assure
them that I will do my best to represent them and serve them
here in parliament. I also want to pay my respects to the
previous BQ member for Châteauguay, Maurice Godin, who, after
having served his fellow citizens and Quebec for two terms, is
enjoying a well deserved retirement with his family.
I am convinced that Mr. Godin, who is a fervent advocate of
Quebecers' interests, will come out of retirement when there is
another referendum, and that he will support Quebecers who want
to choose freely and democratically their political destiny.
The throne speech read last week was quite a disappointment. To
tell the truth, it was a bitter disappointment, for me and for
many of my colleagues and fellow citizens. I was disappointed by
the lack of a real government agenda and of any real vision of
public administration. The throne speech was full of vague and
meaningless phrases. The fact that the government has no agenda
means that it will continue steering Canada day to day, with
vague objectives in mind instead of clear goals. That this
government should ask for clarity from others is the height of
arrogance.
My colleagues in the Bloc have pinpointed some of the flaws of
the throne speech, and we will continue to do so. The main theme
of our remarks has been the lack of a real vision for the
development of the Canadian and Quebec societies.
The various measures found in the throne speech remain vague and
they lack clarity, in the areas of economic, social and cultural
development. This is not the way to get Canadians and Quebecers
interested in political life. The fact that four out of ten
voters did not find the issues discussed in the last election
campaign important enough to cast their ballot does not seem to
bother the government.
It is certainly not with this kind of government agenda, which
has absolutely no substance, that our fellow citizens will
develop a renewed interest in politics and will give new lustre
to this parliamentary institution.
I think it is important to say that the Speech from the Throne
was a great disappointment to me, in terms of this government's
vision of amateur sport. In fact, it has no vision whatsoever as
far as our amateur athletes are concerned. The vision of the Bloc
Quebecois is that amateur athletes must be our first priority.
Right now, they have to get by without any formal support.
Amateur athletes represent our country internationally, and yet
they have to fend for themselves. The Bloc Quebecois is proud of
our athletes.
Moreover, French speaking athletes have to master the English
language to be able to succeed in their sport. Nothing has
changed. This is another disappointment.
French speaking athletes have to be very tenacious, needless to
say, to persevere in their endeavour even though English remains
the only language used in many Canadian sport federations. It
seems that, once again, the Bloc Quebecois has to ensure that the
rights of Quebecers are respected by demanding that our athletes
be able to train and compete in French. All that in spite of the
fact that French is one of our country's official languages.
1720
The Bloc Quebecois filed a complaint about that with the
Commissioner of Official Languages in 1999, but nothing has
changed, which is another disappointment. Can we hope for a
follow-up on that?
I am very disappointed when I realize that English has become
the official language of amateur sport in Canada. The government
must send a clear message to our athletes by investing the funds
required to promote the use of French within Canadian sport
federations.
The government must stop being so vague when it streamlines the
budgets of the various federations and stop asking always more of
French-speaking athletes, insisting that they work in English
only if they want to succeed. Bilingualism must be a priority in
amateur sports and the government must act now.
I am also disappointed that the government has not taken a clear
position on antidoping measures. It is especially disappointing
since, as harmful as it is, doping has become more and more
frequent, something athletes need to do to win and keep winning.
Doping has also become a lucrative billion dollar business,
dashing the hopes of any athlete who refuses to use drugs.
Doping has become a lucrative business by creating a demand for
the athletes to always perform better, given all the money the
broadcasters are paying. The bottom line in this business is
profits, and to make profits, the athletes must not only win but
put on a performance worthy of being broadcast. To have athletes
push their limits is profitable, not only for the broadcasters
but also for the athletes who use performance enhancing drugs.
Such superhuman achievement tarnishes any real athletic
performance. Athletes find themselves facing quite a challenging
dilemma. The choice they have to make is a tough one, because
they do not have the support they need and there are no
guidelines to fight systematic doping in sport.
Does the government have a concrete and real antidoping policy?
No. Is there an arm's length agency to monitor and control
doping? No. The government might say it is against doping but its
commitments keep being shoved under the carpet.
And so if the commitments have been shoved under the carpet, I
ask you where are our athletes and where can they turn? I ask
you, who will respond to our athletes when they have been
irretrievably lost to the world of drugs?
We have a vicious circle already. By remaining silent in the
throne speech, this government is making very clear its lack of
desire to fight this growing tumour in the world of amateur
sport.
What is the explanation for the government's lack of a stand
with respect to our athletes? What message is the government
sending our athletes through its silence? What are its
intentions? When will it take a firm stand? Our only answer is
disappointment.
I must shorten my remarks considerably. To conclude, my
colleagues, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, can count on me,
as the youth and amateur sport critic, to criticize and unmask
the actions of the Liberal government, which is acting
increasingly as if no other level of government existed in
Canada. This arrogant attitude is especially true and verifiable
in the case of Quebec.
The Liberal government seems to forget that the people of Quebec
also put their trust in the representatives they send to the
National Assembly of Quebec and give their national government
important responsibilities. I will ensure, with my Bloc
Quebecois colleagues, that Quebec's responsibilities are
honoured. I will ensure, with the Bloc Quebecois team, that the
national government of Quebec is consulted and respected. I will
ensure, on behalf of all Quebecers, that the people of Quebec are
respected.
You can count on me to criticize every attempt to use young
people to promote Canadian unity under the cover of new policies
or programs. The public is not fooled by this sort of arrogant
and opportunistic attitude.
I will be constantly on the lookout to not miss any opportunity
to respond to Quebec's detractors in these areas. The people of
Quebec exist, whether the Prime Minister likes it or not, and
they demand the respect and recognition of this government, and
the fight, whatever they say, is not over.
1725
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I
wish to thank the constituents of Charlevoix for having put their
trust in me in 1993, in 1997, and again in 2000, electing me with
a very clear majority of 63%.
The people of Charlevoix trust the Bloc Quebecois because we
seem to be the best advocates of Quebec rights. I also want to
congratulate the hon. member for Châteauguay, who just spoke, and
congratulate his constituents on putting their trust in a Bloc
Quebecois member since 1993. I take this opportunity to offer my
best wishes to his predecessor, Maurice Godin, who is enjoying a
well-deserved retirement and who is surely watching us from his
cottage.
I want to assure the people of Châteauguay that their new member
will continue Mr. Godin's very good work.
About this famous Speech from the Throne, I want to go back to
the speech given by the revenue minister and member for
Outremont, who told us this afternoon that he was proud of his
government and of the Speech from the Throne. He said his
government is the most connected ever. But connected to what?
This government is no doubt connected to Internet, as we were
abundantly told.
But when the minister speaks of connection to the Net, he is
completely disconnected from society.
In fact, voters in Charlevoix and in Châteauguay found no
stability measures for seasonal workers in the employment
insurance system. Let us not forget that they are often people
working at minimum wage. Often they are women who are heads of
single parent families, earning low wages at a certain period of
the year. If they are seasonal workers, it is because their jobs
are seasonal.
In the speech, nothing also is said about the World March of
Women. Members will recall the 13 demands made by the women
during the World March of Women and the demonstrations that
occurred all over Quebec, in my riding, in Montreal and here in
Ottawa. The Prime Minister said: “Wait for the next
mini budget”. We waited in vain. “Wait for the election”. We
waited in vain.
The question we are asking today is this: why do we have a
throne speech that is a photocopy of the previous one? Nothing
changed before or after the election. People are even asking why
there was an election in the first place. Nothing has changed as
far as the cabinet is concerned. Nothing has changed in the
government party's agenda. The policies mentioned in the throne
speech for the next four years have not changed. Nothing also was
announced in terms of social housing. Nor was anything announced
in the area of employment insurance, as I was saying earlier.
What I would like to ask the member for Châteauguay is: does he
not think, like I do, that when the government says it is
connected to the electronic world, the fact is that it is
increasingly disconnected or out of touch with the people of
Canada and Quebec?
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.
Obviously, in a society such as ours, we must not only talk about
getting connected to the Internet. We live in a society that is
moving toward globalization and we have a choice. All of this
must be controlled.
The government had an opportunity to improve, clarify and give
more substance to the employment insurance bill, the first one
introduced in this parliament. The government lost an ideal
opportunity not to proceed in haste but rather to consider
whether it should allow young people and students not to pay any
premiums, as it is well known they will not get any benefits.
Only one out of four students receives benefits.
1730
In its employment insurance bill, the government did not deal
with people who, in ridings such as ours, in Charlevoix,
Châteauguay or Champlain, are self-employed workers. These people
cannot contribute to the employment insurance fund.
All the clauses we find discriminatory for young people, as I
just said, are also discriminatory for women. That discrimination
is reflected in an excessively high number of hours of work.
Instead of 300 hours, they have to work up to 600 hours. When
these women want to get back—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Champlain.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I apologize to
my colleague who could not finish his speech. I would have liked
to have heard the end of it. He was eloquent, but it seems that it is
my turn now.
I want to congratulate you on your being appointed Deputy
Speaker of the House. I will respect your authority. I had the
opportunity to act as deputy speaker of the National Assembly on
a temporary basis and I know it is not always easy to ensure
that the rules are adhered to.
I am very happy to be once again the member for Champlain, which
is one of the greatest ridings in Quebec and even Canada.
The riding of Champlain covers 30,000 square kilometres. It is
as big as some countries in Europe. The riding of Champlain is
extremely varied. It goes from the river all the way up north.
Its population is scattered across a territory which includes
communities such as Champlain and La Tuque.
I take this opportunity to thank all my constituents for the
trust they showed in me by re-electing me. I was an MPP from 1976
to 1984 with the team of René Lévesque.
There are also Indians in my riding, including the Attikamek,
north of La Tuque. I take this opportunity to particularly thank
them.
As everybody may know, I was elected in Champlain with a
majority of 15 votes. I am the only member whose majority has
doubled within a week since, after the recount, it went from
7 to 15 votes. It is not much, but I got all the Bloc votes.
It is wrong to say that the Bloc has lost some of its
popularity, because in my riding the Bloc vote went from 43% to
46%. If a Conservative candidate had run in Champlain, as was
the case during the last election, I would have had the same
majority as my predecessor.
A 15 vote majority shows that we are not independent here. As
members, we must devote ourselves to the people. Every time
someone tells me “Marcel, I voted for you”, I thank him and say
“Thank you, it is thanks to you that I was elected”. I had to
wait 10 days, and I was increasingly aware of how important one
vote is.
One may wonder why people did not get more involved than they
did during the last election. The answer is that the election
was not necessary. Every journalist said so. This election was
meant to allow the Prime Minister, not so much to set a record,
but to get what he wanted.
If people had felt this election was necessary, they would have
gone out and voted.
What brought me back into politics is, to a certain degree, the
arrogance of the Liberal Party, the arrogance of the government.
I believe it has given ample proof, in the past, that it ignores
Quebec, among others. And it still does. The throne speech is
another example of how it ignores us.
It continues to intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction,
as is the case in Quebec.
1735
During the last parliament, this government introduced
contemptuous and offensive bills. I am thinking of Bill C-20 for
example. I am also thinking of another bill that is coming back,
the one to amend the Young Offenders Act. They government is
always trying to interfere in areas that come under the
jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces, and by doing so,
in my opinion, it shows contempt for the people of Quebec.
I came back to politics when I was invited to do so, because I
wanted to add my voice to the voice of all the Bloc Quebecois
members who defend Quebec's interests. I want to tell this
government that one day it will have to stop laughing at the
people of Quebec. I believe in Quebec's sovereignty.
At 64 years of age, I plan to use all the energy I have left to
ensure that we achieve sovereignty as fast as we can.
There is a people in Quebec, even if the Liberal government
across the way does not acknowledge it. We are a people. We have
the right to emancipation. We have a right over our territory.
The very existence of this people is being denied. This is what
brought me back to politics, and I intend to say so as often as
I can.
As far as I am concerned, Quebec sovereignty in not against
anybody, it is for Quebec and for the people of Quebec. Our
development does not mean we have to take anything away from
others. We want everything we deserve as founding people, as a
people who had to fight to survive in the Americas, which
includes 400 millions anglophones and allophones.
European artists who come here are constantly congratulating us
for the energy we have shown in surviving as francophones in
North America. Maybe the natural wealth of Quebec is its
distinct people, which is like no other, a people which has the
right to live and the right to possess its own territory.
This people is the francophones, the Quebecers, not only the
francophones but the whole people of Quebec, all of its 7
million inhabitants, who have the right to have their own
territory.
As a Quebecer, I have had enough of seeing my government having
to beg for what it is owed. I find it insulting that to get the
money we are entitled to, money paid with our own taxes, we have
to kowtow. It is insulting to be forced to resort to see overlap
in Quebec.
Let us take, for example, the millennium scholarships. This is
our money. Education is Quebec's jurisdiction and a jurisdiction
of other provinces as well. This money belongs to us.
The government has spent millions of dollars to intrude into
Quebec's jurisdiction. Worse, Quebec has been placed under
trusteeship. A certain Jean Monty, for whom we have not voted
and who has never been elected, has been appointed to administer
the millennium scholarships.
An hon. member: Two million and a half.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Someone said two million and a half.
Such things explain why Quebec wants sovereignty. Not
sovereignty against others but for us, and possibly with others.
Having in Quebec a strong and proud people, a people that fought
for its survival and will continue to do so, does not deprive
others of anything. That will not be taken away from them.
Sovereignty is in the heart of Quebecers. There are latent
periods. The government can pass whatever legislation it wants,
raise the percentage required to reach it, but I can assure you
that one day Quebec will be sovereign.
1740
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the hon. member opposite talks about a distinct
Quebec people, does he talk about English speaking people like
me, who live in Quebec? Does he talk about aboriginal people in
northern Quebec? Does he talk about Chinese and Indian people
who live in Quebec? I wonder whether it is true that the Quebec
people is comprised of people of all origins.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, yes, Quebec belongs
to Quebecers. I believe in Mr. René
Lévesque's version. I think no one would deny Mr. Lévesque's
great intelligence and respect for democracy.
In my opinion, a Quebecer is a Quebecer, no matter which
language he or she speaks. It is someone who lives in Quebec,
who pays his or her taxes in Quebec and who has the right to
vote in Quebec. Quebecers of all origins are well treated. I
think, for instance, of English speaking people who live in
Quebec and I am proud of this. They have universities, schools,
hospitals and services. I am proud of this, and I am one of
those who would defend them.
Since the majority of people living on the Quebec territory are
French speaking, we want French to be the first official
language. This takes absolutely nothing away from the others. It
would however allow us to grow and to continue growing, in
association with the rest of Canada.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before I
respond to my colleague, the member for Champlain, I would like
to tell my Liberal colleague that the members opposite should be
careful when they talk about such sensitive issues.
The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport once said, speaking of
our former colleague, Osvaldo Nunez, a Chilean-born Canadian and
Quebecer, that immigrants with such sovereignist affiliation
ought to be deported, because they are not worthy of the
Canadian citizenship. Such comments from over there would be far
better left unsaid.
I would like to greet and congratulate my new colleague, the
member for Champlain, not only on his speech, but also on
winning his seat following a fight to the finish against a very
big Liberal organization.
His riding just like mine, which border the Prime Minister's
riding, were real targets. We had many visitors, in particular
the minister and member for Outremont and the Minister for
International Trade.
The member for Champlain won by a slight majority but
brilliantly. Already he has shown us how much he believes in
sovereignty, a cause he also served in Quebec.
Let me seize this opportunity to ask him to say a few words
about Cap-de-la-Madeleine, the main municipality in his riding,
which will be celebrating its 350th anniversary this year. I am
proud to say that my father presided over the celebrations for
the 300th anniversary, in 1951, as president of the organizing
committee. Cap-de-la-Madeleine has played a very important role in
the history of Quebec and America.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, indeed I should have mentioned in
my speech that this year will
mark the 350th anniversary of Cap-de-la-Madeleine. It is not just
one city's celebration, it is a celebration for all of us. It is
the beginning of our colony and it touches all of us on both
sides of the House.
I take this opportunity to invite people to come to
Cap-de-la-Madeleine to revisit the past and, while they are there,
they can tour the whole Mauricie area, which is the forestry
capital of Canada for 2001.
I intend to ask the member for Saint-Maurice to co-operate with us
to fund these activities.
1745
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the
opportunity to speak today to the throne speech. It is a very
important document in setting out the blueprint for the
government's mandate.
I certainly take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr.
Speaker, because I know you will bring great decorum to the
House. I appreciate very much the fact that you are in the
chair. I also indicate that I am sharing my time with the hon.
member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. We will hear from him in a
short while.
I thank the residents and constituents of Waterloo—Wellington
and show my gratitude to them in terms of my re-election. I go
on record as well and thank the Governor General, and Mr. Saul
for that matter, for the throne speech and what was contained in
it. As I said at the outset, it outlined the blueprint of the
Government of Canada over the course of its mandate.
The people spoke on November 27 and gave our government, a
government of decency, respect and integrity, another mandate
into the 21st century. As a result of that sweeping mandate we
can now govern accordingly. That is in the best interests of all
Canadians wherever they may be in this great country of ours,
north, south, east or west. It is appropriate that we proceed on
that basis, knowing that we govern on behalf of all Canadians.
I was slightly distressed when I read not long ago that the
members for Okanagan—Shuswap and Wild Rose attended a western
separatist meeting. That is offensive when we really think about
it in terms of our great country. Even more offensive was the
fact that the Leader of the Opposition did not take the time to
condemn that kind of treachery. I think he should have, but then
we are on the road to seeing the kinds of things he is prepared
to do such as spending $800,000 of taxpayer money. It is tough
to take when we hear from him time and time again about good
fiscal responsibility and good fiscal order. Here we have a
person who could have settled for $60,000 and instead spent
$800,000 when all the legal fees were added up. It is quite
remarkable. I have to say that my constituents resent the
hypocrisy contained therein.
Speaking of hypocrisy, we have the member for Edmonton North. I
was reminded not long ago of the pig buttons and pig noises that
we heard in the House, which came mostly from her; the pigs out
on the front lawn of parliament; and all the kinds of things that
took place. Here the high priestess of principle herself flip
flops and with the duplicity of only what a contortionist could
do is now back into a pension plan that she condemned so totally,
so outrageously and so egregiously. It really is, and my
constituents share this view, hard to take from that party
opposite.
Let us get to the throne speech. It is important to note that
we have set out a blueprint in keeping with the government's
commitment to the people of Canada. I re-emphasize here and now
that it emphasizes our commitment to opportunity for all. I do
not mean for a few folks, or for people in certain geographic
areas, but for everyone across the country. It underscores the
commitment of the government to work for, to build and to lead
into the new economy, and to ensure in the process that our
communities are safe and secure.
The plan of action we have set out will allow Canadian men,
women and children, for that matter, because we especially had
emphasis in that regard, the very best country we can possibly
give them. That too is in keeping with what we have said all
along, and the Canadian people quite frankly agreed with us.
As a result of the great endorsement on election day we are
proud to proceed on the achievements we made in the first two
mandates. Even more important, we intend to fulfil the
commitments we made in our election platform and proceed in that
manner with opportunity for all.
1750
The overriding goal is to secure Canada's place as one of the
most innovative nations in the world. Why settle for second best
when we can take charge and widen the circle of social and
economic inclusion? In this way all Canadians can benefit from
the economic rewards that are flowing and will continue to flow,
and can share in the great future that is ours for the taking.
Since taking office in 1993 we have worked hard step by step,
sometimes more incremental than other times, but we have worked
consistently. We have worked hard to build a strong economy and
a solid social foundation so that Canada can enjoy excellence and
prosperity and an even higher quality of life.
Our plan is simply to create a very smart, focused and practical
plan that ensures a bright future for all Canadians. We want to
create and share opportunity for everyone who can partake. We
want to include everyone in this great endeavour and leave no one
behind.
The Prime Minister, cabinet and our caucus have repeatedly said
that in the process we will make Canada the most innovative and
entrepreneurial nation in the world, a land of endless
opportunity for the best and brightest, not only to stay here but
to be attracted here as a result of new investments, ventures,
ideas and talent.
If we do this, and I am convinced we will, can and must, we will
enhance our unmatched quality of life by building a more
inclusive society, one in which all share the opportunities I
have spoken of and in which no Canadian is left behind. In such
a society we all work together.
The plan for our third mandate is to build a world leading
Canadian economy driven by ideas and talent. We plan to create a
more inclusive society where there is quality health service and
where children get the right start in life. All of that will be
available to individuals and families who can enjoy strong, safe
and secure communities.
We plan to ensure a clean, healthy environment for Canadians. We
need more and more to redouble our efforts in this area to
preserve what is ours by nature and what we need to do as good
stewards of the land, the water and the air.
Finally, we plan to enhance our voice in the world and our
shared sense of citizenship, something that is envied around the
world.
As Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General I would like
to emphasize the feeling of safety in our communities and its
importance to Canadians wherever they live. Feeling secure in
our homes, our neighbourhoods, our communities and our streets is
a fundamental right for all Canadians. Taking action to protect
this fundamental obligation of government is very important. We
have lived up to this obligation over the last number of years
with what I believe to be a firm hand and innovative solutions.
We have taken a balanced approach, which is very important. It
underscores the commitment of the government to ensure that it
always proceeds in a balanced way. As a result, it is fair to
say that Canadians have confidence in what the government is
doing.
Let me review some of the things we have done. We have
tightened up rules for early parole hearings. We have made it
possible to obtain DNA samples from suspects of crime involving
physical violence. We have cracked down on child prostitution
and child sex tourism. We have introduced amendments to the
criminal code that will strengthen the voice of victims of crime
in the justice system. These are all important things.
Let us take as an example the national strategy of community
safety and crime prevention and the money we have pumped into it
to ensure that prevention is the order of the day. Let us look
at the innovative youth justice strategy that we will soon
reintroduce in terms of the Young Offenders Act. The act will be
reworked for the benefit of all Canadians, and especially for our
young people, to ensure not only prevention and consequences but
rehabilitation as well.
The government's anti-smuggling initiative has resulted in
17,000 smuggling related charges in excess of $113 million and
another $118 million in evaded taxes and duties.
1755
We as a government have taken the measures and will be taking
the measures that will ensure safety and security for all
Canadians. It is very important because at the end of the day
Canadians wherever they live in Canada will feel much better
knowing that we on this side of the House will continue to fight
for them and will continue to ensure their safety and security.
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, permit me a moment to congratulate you on your
appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House and to extend my
congratulations to the Speaker on his election as well.
[Translation]
It is with both pride and humility that I rise for the first
time in this historic place as member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
The voters in my riding put their trust in me. I have already
promised them and I promise them again today that I will work
hard for them day in and day out.
[English]
The riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is almost a microcosm of
our country. As I found out in the last campaign it is
geographically vast, almost evenly divided between French and English
speakers, and is a mixture of rural and urban communities.
I am not the first member of my family to serve this riding. My
father was the member for Westmorland—Kent for 12 years.
Standing in the House today I am more conscious than ever of the
big shoes I have to fill.
[Translation]
And it is with a great deal of emotion that I realize that I
occupy the same seat that my father did for 12 years or so
in this House. I thank all my family, particularly my mother, my
father and my sister, Geneviève.
[English]
My father is not the only one of my family to serve in the
House. My great-great-grandfather, George Elliott Casey, was
elected in 1872 at 22 years of age. Like me, he was the youngest
member of his caucus at that time.
I would be remiss if I did not mention another of my
predecessors as member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. The Prime
Minister served my riding from 1990 to 1993. During part of that
time I worked for the then leader of the opposition in his
office. I had graduated from law school and had been called to
the New Brunswick bar. The Prime Minister gave me the
opportunity to see how our government works up close. I used to
watch from up there in the gallery. I must say the view from
down here is considerably better.
[Translation]
I will never forget the opportunity given to me by the Prime
Minister. If I am here today, it is mainly thanks to him.
[English]
I also wish to make mention of the hon. member for
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, the Minister of Labour. She holds
the riding next to mine. Over the past few years she has been a
good friend, a staunch ally and a mentor, both publicly and
privately. Her 30 year commitment to her community and her
commitment to social justice and economic development stand as an
inspiration to all of us.
[Translation]
I also thank the Minister of Labour for her help during my
campaign.
[English]
The campaign was perhaps a bit longer for me than for other hon.
members. I had hoped to be here in 1997. I had campaigned to be
here then and I fought hard, but I came in second. I am a little
late, but better late than never.
[Translation]
Obviously, my deepest gratitude goes to my constituents. The
election campaign was an opportunity to get to know their
generosity and warmth.
1800
[English]
I saw again in the last election how francophones and
anglophones work together for the common good. I met and spoke
to the decent, hard working people who work in our factories, who
fish off our coast and who work the land as farmers.
[Translation]
I met with students, seniors, teachers and nurses, and I was
impressed by their dedication to their community.
[English]
A major concern in my riding had to do with the changes that
were made to the employment insurance system, changes that
unjustly penalize workers in seasonal industries, many of whom
live in my riding.
I am enormously gratified that the government has introduced
Bill C-2 to restore fairness to the EI system.
[Translation]
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister made a
commitment to proceed swiftly with these improvements, and he
has kept his word by making this legislation the first bill
introduced in this Parliament.
It should be emphasized that the
proposed changes will be retroactive to October 1, 2000.
[English]
A promise was made and a promise has been kept. It is what the
people of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac expected and it is what they
deserve.
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is also the birthplace of College St.
Joseph, the precursor to the Université de Moncton and also the
home of Mount Allison University which, for the last 10 years,
has been ranked as the number one undergraduate university in
Canada.
My riding is a place of wonderful opportunities but it also
suffers from many of the problems that have long plagued Atlantic
Canada: seasonal employment, resource dependent industries and an
unacceptable level of young people leaving the region to pursue
jobs elsewhere.
We Atlantic Canadians know that the real brain drain is not from
Canada to the United States, but from rural Canada to urban
Canada and from Atlantic Canada to central and western Canada.
My friend, a leading academic on regional development, Dr.
Donald Savoie, once told me that in Atlantic Canada we have three
economies: a seasonal resource based economy largely in rural
areas, an urban economy slowly and encouragingly transforming
itself to new technologies and to a new economy, and some areas
where virtually no functioning economy exists at all.
[Translation]
We know that we have to solve these problems ourselves, but we
also know that we need a federal commitment.
[English]
Our government knows this and has committed $700 million to the
Atlantic investment partnership, a fund that will help keep our
young people from having to seek jobs elsewhere.
[Translation]
These major investments will help our young people build a
future for themselves here at home.
[English]
The Atlantic region has also seen over the past year a crisis in
the fishery. The integration of native fishermen into the
commercial fishery has been difficult to say the least.
Behind the headlines, however, is a story of co-operation and
goodwill on both sides. This is the result of the tremendous
efforts of fishermen, both native and non-native, and the strong
leadership of the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The
minister's steady hand and commitment to conservation has earned
him the confidence of all stakeholders. People of goodwill
support the minister's efforts to enact a set of conservation
rules that will apply equally to all fishermen.
[Translation]
The Maritime Fishermen's Union leadership, particularly its
president Ron Cormier, deserves our support and congratulations.
[English]
I did not arrive here in the class of 1997 as I had hoped. The
class of 2000 comes to the House at a time of tremendous
opportunity.
[Translation]
For the first time in a generation we are not faced with
deficits dictating the economic policy of our country.
1805
[English]
The throne speech tells us that the national government is
committed to sharing the wealth and opportunities of the nation
with all Canadians. The national government can be a positive
force in the lives of all Canadians.
I believe that this parliament will be remembered by future
generations as marking a turning point.
[Translation]
More than 30 years ago the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau inspired
Canadians by challenging them to build a just society.
[English]
I feel that I have, in this parliament and in serving in this
government, the chance to dream of a Canada of even greater
achievement, of an activist and prudent government investing in
Atlantic Canada and bringing the wealth and prosperity of the
last few years to every region; the chance to dream of the end to
the threat of dissolution, when francophones and anglophones in
all parts of the country can work together as harmoniously as in
my riding; and the chance for all Canadians, particularly the
people of Atlantic Canada, to once again dream of a just society.
I am here to share in that process and to serve this House and
this government as we work together to continue building what is
surely the greatest country in the world.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Liberal member for an
excellent speech that went right to the heart of all of us who
really feel a strong sense that this is a country that is united
and united in its sense of compassion in all corners of the
country.
He made reference to the proposed changes to employment
insurance. He said that that the changes would have quite an
impact on his riding. For the benefit of all Canadians, I wonder
if he could elaborate on that a little bit.
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments and his good wishes. The changes to employment
insurance that were made a number of years ago had some positive
elements, for example, the conversion of weeks to hours as a
method of qualifying for benefits.
In New Brunswick alone, 87% of the people work more than a 35
hour week. With the changes that the government made, all those
weeks now go toward qualifying for employment insurance benefits.
We on this side believe in incentives for work but we do not
believe in punishing people who work in seasonal industries.
[Translation]
My colleague, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, has often
told me, and he is right, that in Canada there are no seasonal
workers, only seasonal industries.
[English]
A fundamental difference that we must understand is that there
are no seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada. There are seasonal
industries such as the fishery, tourism and agriculture. These
industries have been unjustly affected by the intensity rule.
It was a very important measure that the Prime Minister
undertook when he visited my colleague's riding during the
election in Belledune in northern New Brunswick. He made it
clear at that time that the changes which had been introduced in
parliament before the election to eliminate the intensity rule
would be reintroduced as a priority.
The Prime Minister kept that promise. Bill C-2 was the first
substantive piece of legislation introduced in this parliament
and the changes, as the Prime Minister had committed, will be
retroactive to October 1, 2000.
This was an important undertaking for the people in my riding. I
hope, with the co-operation of other members of the House, that
the legislation will pass quickly.
[Translation]
People in my riding are looking forward to these changes coming
into effect. I intend to vote and to encourage the government so
that these changes become law as soon as possible.
1810
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here in the 37th
parliament and to make my first speech. I will be dealing
primarily with agriculture as it pertains to the Speech from the
Throne, and my reply to it.
Certainly in the time that I have I will not have time to talk
exhaustively about all the issues but I will deal with some of
them. I would also like to share my time with the member for
South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.
First, I am pleased that I had the support of my constituents of
Selkirk—Interlake. I intend to repay them with diligence and
hard work while I am down here.
I will deal with the Speech from the Throne in a positive way.
The farm groups and farmers across the country have given many
good suggestions to the agriculture minister and the government.
I will go into some of those suggestions in a moment.
The farm community has had a reaction to the fact that
agricultural issues were not dealt with in the throne speech nor
by subsequent Liberal members during debate.
Bruce Johnstone, a writer for the Regina Leader Post,
summed up how the farmers feel about the throne speech. He said
that it set a new low for “vacuity, fatuity, banality and
inanity”. He went on to say:
The government will help Canada's agricultural sector move beyond
crisis management—leading to more genuine diversification and
value-added growth, new investments and employment, better land
use, and high standards of environmental stewardship and food
safety.
He also pointed out that all the Liberals had to offer were
empty election promises of more farm aid bromides about the need
to diversify and add value and a lot of hot air. He concluded by
quoting another author. He said, and I have heard the same from
farmers in Ontario and in the west, “This high-sounding rhetoric
is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing”.
Unfortunately, that is exactly how the farmers feel about the
throne speech. Agriculture is having a real income crisis. It
absolutely needs an immediate injection of additional cash over
and above the farm safety net programs. Farmers are asking for
that because the farm net safety program of AIDA, agriculture
income disaster assistance, left out so many farmers with little
or no assistance whatsoever. Farmers, whose family income from
the farm is well below the $20,000 mark, are actually living in
poverty.
Some of the groups that have come to Ottawa to protest and put
forward suggestions have had meetings with the agriculture
minister, but I would like to reiterate some of the things that
have been said so that it gets recorded in the House of Commons.
I will start off by reporting first on the farmers from a town
in my area called Beausejour. They told me that their backs were
finally against the wall and that they had done their best. They
said that they had done everything by way of diversification and
efficiency but that they wanted me to report to the government
that they needed a program which would deliver aid quickly,
efficiently and without a big administrative expense. Their
request, which was in the neighbourhood of $50 an acre, was what
they felt they needed. I would like that passed along to the
agriculture minister. I am not talking party policy here, but I
am telling the House what farmers out there are saying.
The western barley growers is another good example of a farm
group that has been in contact with the agriculture minister.
They say that there are several areas of opportunity for
government to assist agriculture without direct subsidies.
A lot of these things were put forward by the Canadian Alliance
also: removal of the excise tax on fuel used by producers in off
road use; removal of the excise tax on fuel used by the railways
to haul grain; review of the Grain Transportation Act to ensure
that the cost savings, which were envisioned by the Estey
commission, were actually delivered to producers; review of user
fees; and a review of government regulations to ensure that only
those which are required to market Canada's agriculture
production remain in force.
1815
The Ontario corn producers have asked for money over and above
the current safety net commitment, to be administered by the
provinces. Once again, safety net programs have failed them. The
grain growers of Canada are asking for an immediate infusion of
public funds to restore equity between levels of direct income
supports for grain and oilseed producers in Canada versus those
in the United States. This is an issue of parity. They estimate
that would work out to between $1.5 billion to $2 billion
nationally.
That is a large sum, but let us remember that we all have to
eat. It is in Canada's national interest that we have a viable
agriculture and are able for the most part to supply ourselves
with the majority of food we eat.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has requested $900
million in additional farm aid over the next three years. Once
again it has identified that the agricultural policies the
Liberal government has brought out over the past seven years have
failed farmers in Ontario and across the country and need to be
addressed in an emergency fashion, as opposed to the long term,
efficient, effective program that should have been put in place
by the government in these last seven years.
While these requests sound like a lot of money, once again I say
that they are for emergency use.
The Saskatchewan rally group was here. That group was also
talking in terms of $25 to $80 an acre. It is now talking about
a plan similar to the one in the province of Quebec, where the
cost of production is actually the basis on which farm support is
provided. While that would be a lot of money across the country,
we cannot have farmers producing food and working like serfs and
slaves for the whole country.
In my own province, Keystone Agricultural Producers had its
annual meeting, which I was happy to attend, and came up with a
suggestion. Those producers said that they have identified to
the government that a 1% food tax should be looked at. That is
another suggestion the government could look at. They also made
a suggestion for alternate land use services. That would be a
20% land set-aside over nine years, with payments being made for
the land that is set aside.
Over the years, besides the immediate cash injection and the
long term safety net program, the Canadian Alliance has talked
about tax reduction. We have talked about harmonizing with the
United States in regard to the use of chemicals so that there is
no interference in trade with our big trading partners.
There are many things the government could do. The
suggestions have all been put before the government. It is the
duty and it is the responsibility of the government to address
this crisis in agriculture income, part of which was of the
government's making, and it is the government's fault for having
let it occur.
I hope the agriculture minister and the Prime Minister listen to
farmers and farm groups and deal with this issue before spring
seeding.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows very well that
one of the reasons why the benefits got out so slowly in the AIDA
program is that the terms of dispensing those benefits were
determined by the provinces. It was a shared program. The
provinces did not want to put up the money any faster than they
could help.
Second, all the member can really talk about is spending money.
It is amazing that the party opposite is willing to spend
billions on a problem. When the member talks about $80 an acre,
he is talking about farms of 10,000 acres as an average. That is
$80,000 a farm.
We know there is a crisis in the west. We know there is a
crisis in Ontario, even in my own riding. The real reason for it
is the unfair subsidies that are occurring in the United States.
The member opposite did not even mention that. He knows that is
the root of the problem.
1820
In this past week, our Prime Minister, when talking to the
President of the United States, said to the president that he has
to do something about these unfair subsidies because he needs our
energy, so he has to fix the farm crisis. That is a better fix
than simply asking for more and more money. We have to do
something with the Americans and we have the Prime Minister who
has the credibility to do that something.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I will quickly reply.
Finally the Prime Minister has taken up the suggestion that I put
forward to the 36th parliament, which was for the Liberals to get
off their Liberal butts, talk to our partners there and get rid
of the subsidies that are causing the distortion of production.
The proof is in Hansard. We could have the clerk bring it
forward right now and I could prove that. The Prime Minister has
finally taken my advice.
The last thing I will say is in regard to the AIDA
administration and is a strange fact. Some provinces administer
the AIDA program and process the applications by themselves and
in some places the federal government does it. Where the federal
government is doing it, in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan for
example, the applications are processed more slowly and the
payouts are much lower. Where the provinces are administering
the program, it is done much more quickly and the farmers get
their money more quickly, so what the member said is not too
accurate.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the
opportunity to share some thoughts with the Chamber. We have
decided that the theme of today from the official opposition is
regional interests. As a member from British Columbia, I am
delighted to bring some of the concerns that British Columbia has
with the direction that the government is planning to take and
has shown in the throne speech.
I will be addressing the omissions from the throne speech, the
things that it did not address. There are a number of concerns
that British Columbians have. One of the main concerns is the
high level of taxation, both on a personal level and a business
level, which prevents us from being competitive with our American
partners.
British Columbia's economy is very much a partnership with the
United States, as much as it is with Canada, so the high level of
taxation that interferes with our relationship is certainly
something we are concerned about. The brain drain that is
happening, the loss of our medical people to the United States
because of taxation reasons, all of these are concerns.
Another area of great concern to us is the low Canadian dollar.
It affects each and every one of us, not just people in British
Columbia. Part of the reason gas prices are so high is that the
gas is bought and sold in American dollars so we automatically
are paying half again as much as our American counterparts who
are buying it. The low Canadian dollar causes people in my
constituency and in British Columbia great concern and we see
nothing from the government that indicates it plans to do
anything about it.
There is the fact that for whatever reasons, and I will not go
into what the reasons might be, we in western Canada and
particularly in British Columbia feel that there is no support
from the federal government. We have urban transit issues that
need to be addressed and we do not seem to be getting any support
from the federal government for that kind of program. We have
trade issues that are very much a concern, softwood lumber being
the most recent, and we do not see a commitment from the federal
government to represent the interests of our region in these
negotiations.
There is something as simple as the trade centre. When Toronto
wanted to redevelop its harbour to make it more aesthetically
pleasing and to offer something to the community with their trade
and convention centre, the federal government was there to assist
them. However, when Vancouver wants to develop a trade and
convention centre to improve its harbour, the federal government
is not there.
1825
We wonder why there is this inequity? Why is it that a city in
the east with the same type of project gets the support and a
city in the west does not?
Of all these issues, the one that causes us the gravest concern
is the government's lack of respect for the people of British
Columbia. It is indicated in many ways. Some of them are very
apparent, some are not. That lack of respect also plays out here
in that British Columbia is under represented in the House of
Commons. Our population deserves a greater representation in the
House.
We are concerned that there is a lack of understanding that
Canada has changed its dimensions since Confederation in 1867. It
is not okay to leave things the way they are. It is not okay to
continue to not respect the fact that there has been a massive
change in the population in this country. It is not okay to
continue to have British Columbia under represented, not only in
the House but in the other place.
British Columbia was recognized by the House a number of years
ago as a distinct region. Canada now has five distinct regions
as recognized by the House of Commons. However, that is not
taken any further than a piece of paper in Hansard. One of
the smaller Atlantic provinces has 10 members in the Senate and
British Columbia, the third largest province, has six
representatives.
A province which is recognized as a unique and a distinct
region, different from the rest of the country, has six members,
while Atlantic Canada has thirty-two members, as a distinct
region. Ontario has 24 members as a distinct region, as do the
province of Quebec and the prairie provinces as distinct regions.
There is something wrong when British Columbia, the third largest
province, is shown such disregard for its true place in
Confederation, our true place in Canada.
There is a lack of respect for the changes that have taken
place. The country is different now, some 130 years later, than
it was in the beginning. We need to recognize there is a
different dimension. We have a very multicultural community on
the west coast which is not recognized by government policies.
There has to be a willingness for the members of Confederation to
sit down and start looking at what is appropriate going into the
21st century.
British Columbians want to see a willingness to accept the fact
that British Columbia is the third largest province, that is
unique and that it has a lot to offer Canada as far as ideas and
participation. There should be more interest shown by the
federal government to include British Columbians in what happens
in the country. We feel that not only through distance but
through attitude there is an unwillingness of the government to
recognize the contributions of people in British Columbia.
I hope that its omission in the Speech from the Throne was not
deliberate. I hope the Liberal government will be willing over
the next for our five years, a mandate given to it by the people
of Canada, to show the people of British Columbia that it truly
wants our participation, that it truly recognizes our place in
Canada and that it will seriously look after the inequities of
representation in both the House of Commons and in the Senate.
British Columbians would like to see signs of willingness by the
government, not just talk, to recognize and acknowledge British
Columbians as equals in Confederation. When that happens we will
feel that we are a respected member of Canada.
In the Speech from the Throne that was not apparent and was
missing. I hope that efforts will be made by the government
in the very near future to show British Columbians that it was an
omission, that it was not aware of some of these considerations
and concerns and that it is sorry and will do something about it.
I am hoping it was only a big mistake. I hope there will be
signs in the future days ahead that British Columbians can feel
respected and wanted members of this confederation.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands
adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)