37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 010
CONTENTS
Friday, February 9, 2001
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of debate on address in reply
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1010
1015
1020
1025
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1030
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1035
1040
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1045
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1050
1055
| Mr. John Cannis |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| SOUTH EASTHOPE TOWNSHIP
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
1100
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
| EATING DISORDER AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| WINTERLUDE 2001
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
1105
| HEART MONTH
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| WHITE CANE WEEK
|
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| GOVERNMENT ON LINE
|
| Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| PALESTINIANS
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
1110
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| DIABETES
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1120
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1125
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1130
| EQUALIZATION PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1135
| HEATING FUEL REBATE
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HEATING FUEL REBATE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1140
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1145
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| EQUALIZATION PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| GUN CONTROL
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1150
| Mr. John Maloney |
| OIL HEATING PRICES
|
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1155
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1200
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. David Anderson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1205
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1210
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Ethics Counsellor
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
|
| Bill C-255. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1215
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-256. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-257. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
|
| Bill C-258. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Motion
|
1220
| PETITIONS
|
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Herbs and Vitamins
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Trade
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| GST
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Parental Rights
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1225
| Mr. John Cannis |
1230
1235
| Mr. Mark Assad |
1240
1245
1250
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1255
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1300
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1305
1310
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1315
| Mr. John Williams |
1320
1325
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1330
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1335
1340
1345
1350
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1355
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Richard Harris |
1400
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1405
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1410
1415
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 010
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 9, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[Translation]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from February 7 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. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to make a few comments on the throne speech, the
general orientation of the government and my own initiatives,
those which I had the opportunity to present to the voters of
Ottawa—Vanier in the last general election and which comprise the
mandate I received from them.
First, I think it is appropriate to do as all my colleagues have
done and thank the people of Ottawa—Vanier for the trust they
have placed in me for the third time. This was the third
election in the riding within six years. Two general elections
and one byelection within six years is a pretty heavy task. In
this connection, I believe I have a duty as well to thank all
the people who provided me with active support in those three
campaigns, the volunteers who play an essential part in the
democratic process of this country.
This year we are making a special effort to spotlight
volunteerism, and it is very important to keep in mind that
democracy depends in large part on volunteers. Without the
volunteers in all ridings of this country, in all parties, this
country would not have the successful democracy that it enjoys.
I wish to particularly thank those who helped me in this
campaign.
[English]
As well, I take this opportunity to congratulate my adversaries
in the last campaign. They were honourable people. All the
candidates from all parties, including myself, whether they were
major parties or those that were perhaps less well known, were
honourable people with exemplary conduct. I was quite proud to
be part of the process in Ottawa—Vanier.
[Translation]
In the past two weeks, I have had some difficult moments,
personally. There were deaths everyone has heard about, because
the events were very public and, in some cases, very
controversial. In each instance, people I know were involved.
This morning, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the
contribution these people have made.
The first instance was a tragedy. It was the case of Catherine
MacLean, who died suddenly as the result of a road accident,
when she was struck by a car driven by a Russian diplomat. We
must continue to press on this side of the House, as must all
parties, for the recodification, if I can put it that way, of
the Vienna convention on diplomatic immunity.
I have said it before, and I repeat it again. I doubt very much
that the concept of diplomatic immunity was created to enable
people to circumvent the law of host countries, as appears to be
the case here. We heard there were other deplorable incidents,
as the matter came up in the House this week. I therefore
strongly urge the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Government
of Canada to seize the opportunities presented to them to update
the Vienna convention, which is some 40 years old, to ensure the
full effect of the law is felt, especially in the case of tragic
events such as we have seen.
1010
I would also like to extend my best wishes for a full recovery
to Catherine Doré, who remains in hospital. She was with Ms.
MacLean on that fateful Saturday afternoon walk.
[English]
Second, there was the funeral earlier this week of Carol Anne
Letheren, president of the Canadian Olympic committee. I had
occasion to work with her in the preparation of the file for the
modernization of the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame. She was of
great help to me on that project. She was a great lady. Again
this was a life cut short, and it is a great tragedy. I express
my deep regret to the members of her family.
A colleague of ours will be buried tomorrow in St. Boniface.
David Iftody died in an unusual way, and again this was a life
cut short. David was, dare I say it, a card game buddy. We had
good times. He was also a parliamentary secretary when I was. We
helped each other out. We supported each other. We had good
arguments. It is an incredible tragedy that a man of that age in
such fine form and good spirits, with much more to contribute,
would disappear from us. I hope to be able to attend that
funeral tomorrow to pay my respects to the members of his family.
[Translation]
The last person I want to mention is Mr. Charpentier. As we are
speaking, his funeral is being held here in Ottawa. Mr.
Charpentier died this week at the age of 103. His was a full,
extraordinary life in the service of his country, his community
and his fellow citizens.
I had the honour of supporting the efforts of Pierre Bergeron,
the editor of the daily Le Droit, when the Assemblée
parlementaire de la francophonie awarded the Ordre de la Pléiade
to Mr. Charpentier, when he turned 100. The ceremony took place
in the newsroom of Le Droit, for which Mr. Charpentier had
worked.
I am anxious to read the book that a friend, François-Xavier
Simard, is writing on Mr. Charpentier's life. It should be
released in the coming year.
I am taking this opportunity to refer to the lives of these four
people, whom I got to know, if only a little bit, but who
nevertheless had an influence on my work here as a
parliamentarian.
[English]
We have a renewed mandate based on a commitment called the red
book, which was made available widely in print form and even more
widely in electronic form during the last general election. I of
course campaigned on it, as did all my colleagues on this side of
the House, and all those candidates who did not succeed did
present that option to the Canadian electorate.
That option has been retained as the one favoured for the future
orientation of our country. This is the sixth day of debate on
the Speech from the Throne, which was in great part a reflection
of that campaign pledge. We have heard numerous comments. I
will not go into detail on the major items of priority. As we
all know, they deal with health, the necessity of innovation,
lowering taxes and debt, education and early childhood
development. There are many other items such as our environment
and our parks. These have all been talked about. They are
widely known.
I will highlight a few that have perhaps not been dealt with in
the same detail. I will also highlight five actions that I
presented to the electorate of Ottawa—Vanier which I think mesh
quite well with what is in the Speech from the Throne and are of
importance not only to the people in Ottawa—Vanier but to those
within this region and in eastern Ontario and western Quebec.
The first of these is the need for a ring road and bridges
crossing our river into western Quebec. This is important for a
number of reasons.
1015
[Translation]
Building a ring road around the national capital region is very
important to ensure balanced economic development. We all know
that the western part of our region is growing rapidly. Before
long, the road network for Ottawa and the region will no longer
be adequate because of that growth and will no longer meet the
needs of the population.
There is only one main east-west highway, known as the Queensway.
There is a need for a ring road, which would branch off from the
Queensway west of Ottawa, continue south of Ottawa's
international airport and reconnect with the provincial road
system to the east of the city.
Later on, two bridges would be built and this ring road could be
completed in western Quebec. This would truly ensure balanced
growth in our region, much of it probably centred within the
bounds of this ring road. We could thus protect our
agricultural heritage, something we must not neglect. In
addition, we must make sure that the three airports in our
region, the ones in Ottawa, Gatineau and Carp, are connected to this
ring road.
All of this would help to get the huge trucks out of the
downtown core in the nation's capital.
I think that any self-respecting city in North America, Europe or
wherever has this concept of a ring road to allow heavy truck
traffic to bypass the downtown area, which is not the case now
in Ottawa.
We must not forget the safety aspect. In recent years, a few
trucks have spilled their cargoes on the highway that runs
through the downtown core of the nation's capital. Fortunately,
these cargoes were not hazardous and contained no toxic
substances. One would really have to be irresponsible to think
that there will be no accidents or ecological or other disasters
that might pose a threat to the public in this region in the
future. It is important that these hazardous goods be
transported outside the downtown area, ideally on a ring road.
That was my first point.
The second is the Rockcliffe military base.
[English]
The Rockcliffe airbase is a 330 acre parcel of land which is in
the heart of the riding. It is a glorious location. There is an
opportunity here for public good.
A few years ago the Department of National Defence declared it
surplus to its needs. There has been an ongoing process of
preparing it to be sold. I have indicated repeatedly, with the
support of my community, that I am opposed to the disposal of
that land for building a residential subdivision. We have an
opportunity, because of the proximity of the Aviation Museum and
the National Research Council which is contiguous to this piece
of land, to create something of much more importance to the
economic development of the east end of the city. That is one
thing I wish to focus a lot of effort on during this mandate.
A third project which has been under some preparation by a
number of groups, such as the Rideau Valley Conservation
Authority and the Kingston economic development officers, is the
cleanup of the Rideau River from one end to the other. It is a
rather massive project and is one which will require co-operation
among the Government of Canada, the government of Ontario and
many of the municipalities along the Rideau system.
We all know the importance of clean water and having a water
system that is alive. We know the importance of having
ecological biodiversity, a safe water supply and an area that can
also be used for recreational purposes.
The scope of the project is now pretty well established. Over
the next number of years, I hope that we would see co-operation
in a project, which could well take a decade but is of some
importance and significance to eastern Ontario and the entire St.
Lawrence and Ottawa River system.
1020
[Translation]
Fourth, we have linguistic duality. Respect for that duality
must begin here in the capital of Canada. I believe it is
absolutely essential for this capital city to reflect the duality of
Canada, and for it to officially recognize both English and French.
The municipal council will have the responsibility of
determining how this will be done, but I trust that when
application is made to the government of Ontario, when it is
informed of the wishes of the people of this city, this being a
local decision, it will agree to recognize the benefits of the use
of both languages in this capital.
This recognition and respect of linguistic duality does not stop
there. It must be present throughout the federal
administration. I am most relieved to see that the government's
intention was set out very explicitly in the Speech from the
Throne. I hope to be able to contribute, through work in the
House and in its committees, to the implementation of that
desire to ensure that there will be a place for French
everywhere in Canada and a place as well for English-speaking
citizens everywhere in Canada.
This is an absolutely vital initiative, for it relates to the
very essence of our country.
It is fundamental and essential to the future of this country.
Once again, let me say how relieved I am to see that the
government intends to address this.
[English]
The other item I had mentioned flows totally into the
government's initiatives in terms of research and development and
innovation. I believe we must strive to foster a better
scientific culture in the country. It is without doubt that we
have various areas of science that will be impacting on society
in a major way.
We are already seeing on a daily basis developments in the field
of genetics. With all its potential and with all of its dark
side, government must have the ability to establish a framework
within which we can all feel comfortable, yet pursue knowledge
and the positive use of that knowledge. That is just one field.
It is the same in the field of nanotechnology. Last year alone
the American government put $500 million into the institute for
nanotechnology. We have yet to really move on those lines. It
is an incredibly important technology in all fields, not just
medicine, and I sense that sometimes we lag in that.
The same thing can be said for artificial intelligence. I am
not trying to be funny or anything, but there are accelerating
developments in that field. It will have a significant impact on
all of our lives in the way we conduct ourselves, in the way we
interact, in the way we do business and perhaps in the way
democracy works. Yet sometimes I sense that the population of
Canada is not engaged in those fields and is not aware of the
importance of what is coming at us. It behooves us all to try to
foster a greater scientific culture and perhaps use some of the
mechanisms of the House.
I had hoped at some point that we might see a full-fledged
standing committee on science and technology. I would be
encouraged if we started with a subcommittee of industry.
However, in summary, the whole notion of the scientific culture
and the importance of science and technology to our society
cannot be underestimated.
Those are some of the elements I had hoped to work on. I put
them forward to my electorate and I feel comfortable that I have
a mandate to work on those.
I wish to point out that a provincial colleague, Brian Coburn,
the member for the riding next door to me, was elevated to the
cabinet of Ontario as minister of agriculture. I am very happy
to see that because on some of these projects we will be working
together on in great co-operation, the ring road in particular. I
want to take this opportunity to congratulate my friend Brian for
his appointment yesterday to the Ontario cabinet.
With all of the commitments in the red book being put forward in
the Speech from the Throne, with these additional ones and with
the need to address the housing situation in our community, we
have a lot of work to do in the next years.
I pledge to my constituents, as I did on the Saturday morning of
January 27, 2001 when I was sworn in front of 400 of them,
that I will do the best I can to serve them faithfully. I thank
them very much for this opportunity.
1025
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Excuse me for interrupting
the debate at this point. I have a motion that I think you
will find there is unanimous consent for and that all
parties in the House are interested in having passed. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Address in Reply
to the Speech from the Throne, all questions necessary to dispose
of the main motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed
requested and deferred to the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders on Tuesday, February 13, 2001.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the
member on his re-election and on his remarks this morning.
One phrase that he used, with which I would certainly be in
agreement, is the need for creating a greater scientific culture,
starting right in the House. We do not make the effort that we
should to bring science to bear on many of the issues we are
confronted with.
I would ask the member, in light of the interest in creating a
scientific culture, would he support the government creating a
specific ministry of science and technology, rather than having
that buried in the industry department? Would he support the
creation of a separate standing committee to deal with science
and technology issues? Would he support the idea of a chief
scientist who was accountable to parliament, somewhat in the same
way as the auditor general?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on this
side of the House know that I support the notion of a standing
committee on science and technology. There is no doubt about
that.
I have had debates with some of our colleagues. I believe that
the notion of the creation of new committees might have been
broached during discussions between the House leaders. I am
not absolutely certain, however, because I am not privy to those
discussions.
I would hope that somehow someone in the House would see fit to
create a standing committee on science and technology. From that
could flow debates on whether or not a science officer or a chief
scientist would be required and how to structure it, if that was
the consensus emerging from the committee. Also flowing from
that could be how we conduct research, how we attribute budgets,
how we do not seem to have enough cohesion in the approach
between departments and how the rate of innovation is important
to our economic well-being and, therefore, our own personal
well-being.
I would absolutely support that. I talked to my colleagues
about it in the recent weeks. I would hope that some day sooner
than later we would see a permanent standing committee for
science and technology in the House of Commons, as we see it in
many jurisdictions around the world.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I too listened with interest to the member's speech. I
noticed that about 85% of his speech had to do with municipal
government. Then, he talked peripherally about the values in the
House.
He mentioned one thing that really intrigued me. When he talked
about drinking water, he threw in the word ecodiversity. I was
rather confused. My idea of drinking water is that there is not
too much ecodiversity in it. I would rather it be pure water. He
may want to check the record of what he said and maybe rethink
his position on that.
I have one question for the member. We feel in the House that
members of parliament are too marginalized. Does he have any
comment on the government's very tepid statement in the throne
speech on improving the way in which members of parliament can do
their work? I would like his comment on that.
1030
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, biodiversity is an
essential component to the health of a river system. If we want
to have good, clean drinking water we must have rivers that are
alive and that have a great deal of biodiversity in them. That
is the case in the Rideau River. It is actually getting better.
More species seem to be recovering and re-establishing themselves
in the river, which leads to clean water, believe it or not.
I am not a biologist. Therefore I will not get caught up in all
the details. I cannot get caught up in them because I do not
know them. There is no doubt that a dead water system will not
produce clean, drinkable water. We need a river system that is
alive and has biodiversity so that it can regenerate itself.
I have not commented, either in the House or publicly, on the
debates regarding parliamentary reform and so forth. Sometimes
some of the criticism is a reflection of a mindset. I have asked
to be here, as all my colleagues have. I fought to be here. No
system is perfect. All systems can stand some improvements. I
have chosen not to be miserable. I have chosen to work within
the system to try to improve it but to use the mechanisms at
hand. The one I have chosen to use the most is the committee
system.
Colleagues who have sat with me on certain committees know that
I have had no difficulty supporting amendments or motions from
opposition members, based on their merits, not on party
affiliation. We have changed government legislation at committee
at least on two occasions significantly and the changes have been
approved in the House.
There can be improvements as my colleague suggests, but I
disagree with the statement that the system does not work. My
experience has been the opposite. If we choose to use the
devices, the services, and the resources available to members of
parliament, we can effect change. I did not address that issue
because it is not uppermost in my mind. I would rather get
things done as opposed to whining.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on the address in reply to the government's
Speech from the Throne.
First off, I would like to thank the voters in
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for the trust they have placed in me once
again, by electing me for a third mandate. I will try to
represent them with all the vigour and dignity the job requires.
I have nine comments to make on the throne speech. That means I
have less than a minute per comment. I will try to do so
quickly, but these are things I consider vital.
The throne speech has once again set out the general policies
the government intends to follow in its dealings with Quebec and
with the citizens of this country.
First off, there still was no recognition of the federal
government's flagrant tax imbalance with Quebec and the other
provinces in Canada. The money is in Ottawa. The surpluses
expected this year will exceed $20 billion, and the needs in
health care, education and other areas are to be found in Quebec
and the other provinces. There is no concern about striking a
tax balance in Canada. That is most disappointing.
We would have preferred to have the Minister of Finance
recognize the mistakes of the past and, acknowledge that when he
lowered income taxes he targeted first and foremost the very
high end incomes, so much so that in the latest two budgets,
people earning over $250,000 in Canada, probably not most
taxpayers, received a $9,000 tax cut this year, whereas families
earning about $40,000 received a $300 tax cut.
1035
This is outrageous, particularly since the anticipated surpluses
for the coming years could have been used to provide immediate
relief to families with an income of $40,000 or less,
particularly single parent families with two dependent children.
With that money, these families might not have had to pay any
federal tax and the government would have created a balance in
society, instead of granting tax reductions that primarily
benefit the millionaires in this country.
We were also very disappointed not to find anything for the
unemployed who, over the years, have been hit very hard by the
government. Considering that only 43% of the unemployed are covered by the
new employment insurance program, one would have expected the
government to make adjustments and use the annual surpluses of
$6 billion to $7 billion to come up with a much improved program
for the jobless.
We are not talking about cosmetic changes such as those proposed
in the bill, which only use $500 million per year, out of the
surpluses of $7 billion, and which give to the federal
government the power required to control the fund's surpluses,
to legitimize the robbery of the money in these surpluses that
has been taking place over the past four years.
Third, we would have liked the government to recognize the
consensus in Quebec on parental leave and to transfer the
necessary funding to the government of Quebec, so that it can
implement its parental leave policy, which is much more generous
and universal than the federal government's policy.
Fourth, we see in the throne speech the government's perpetual
desire for confrontation with Quebec. For example, there is the
new citizens' council on the quality of health care provided by
the Government of Quebec. It is unacceptable that the federal
government tell the Quebec government what to do in the health
field when this is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
It is always this policy of confrontation which drives the
federal government in its relations with the government of
Quebec.
Fifth, we would have liked to see mention in the throne speech
of the fact that Quebec has been enforcing the Young Offenders
Act the way it was intended. Quebec is a success story with
respect to the reintegration of young offenders into society.
The success rate it achieves with its approach is the envy of
many. It would have been nice to see this acknowledged in the
throne speech.
If the minister really has the courage she claims to have to
impose a new young offenders policy, she should have imposed the
policy being used in Quebec throughout Canada, instead of the
brutal policy of sending 14 year olds to prison.
Mr. Speaker, if it were your son or daughter who made a mistake
and was liable to be charged under the new legislation
introduced by the minister, with the support of the Canadian
Alliance, I think that you would stop and think twice before
giving this bill your support.
We would have liked to have seen that consensus respected, and
this contemptuous treatment of Quebec and young Quebecers
avoided.
Sixth, once again we find unacceptable intrusions into the
sector of education and early childhood education, to fuel this
confrontation with Quebec.
Seventh, we would have expected the government, with more than
20 criminal investigations on its back relating to presumed
fraud, particularly within Human Resources Development Canada,
to have addressed an important issue in its throne speech:
government ethics. Let it agree to carry out its red book
promise to have an ethics counsellor, one who is appointed by
parliament, answerable to parliament and guided by rules
defined by parliament.
Instead, we still have an ethics counsellor who reports to the
PMO, who says what the Prime Minister wants to hear, because the
Prime Minister is the one paying him.
When it comes to government scandal, to undue pressure from
ministers or the Prime Minister on crown corporations, when the
ethics counsellor tells us there is no problem, he cannot be
believed. Why can we not believe him? Because he is on the
Prime Minister's payroll. One does not bite the hand that feeds
one.
1040
Will this matter of transparency be one of the fundamental
questions for this elitist government once and for all or will
it be sidestepped again? Like the House leader of the
government said yesterday in the House, will we again be told
“We are a government with an incredible record of honesty and
integrity”. There has to be some reason for twenty criminal
investigations, because such investigations are not carried out
for no reason.
We would also have liked to see an announcement of measures to
properly deal with cyclical fuel crises. We would have liked to
see the government show a bit more compassion for people like
the independent truckers who have to deal at various times
throughout the year with the major oil companies and the way
they set prices.
Let us not beat about the bush. The government should stop
telling us there is no proof of collusion between major oil
companies. One simply has to walk around and look at the prices
posted by major oil companies at service stations to realize
there is collusion.
The Competition Act is full of loopholes. It must be
strengthened. It must have teeth so that major oil companies can
be confronted about their actions in the areas of gas and
heating oil.
It is time the government gave some teeth to that act, teeth as
sharp as those of the sharks called oil companies. In other
words, it is time the government assume its responsibilities in
that area.
The cheque of $125 did not solve anything. It merely eased the
plight of the poor.
At least they got that, because when it comes to income tax and
social transfers, this government has made huge cuts in recent
years. At least they got that cheque.
However, mistakes were made and we cannot accept that some
inmates received $125 for heating costs.
The government did not solve anything with that. Oil prices are
still rising quickly and so are heating oil bills. We would
have liked to see the government take that into consideration.
I will conclude by saying that Canada is being built without
Quebec. It is absolutely shameful to see that while the summit
of the Americas is going to be held in our national capital of
Quebec City, our province is not given a place of choice.
Quebecers have pride and at some point they will express it.
Forty five per cent of those who took part in the latest poll
support sovereignty without a referendum campaign. This is a
significant increase in the support for sovereignty. It means
that at the next referendum, Quebecers will decide to leave a
country that has no room for them, a Canada that is being built
without Quebec and without Quebecers. I can assure the House you that
Quebecers will make that decision.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate you on your appointment.
I take this opportunity to respond to my hon. colleague, whose
remarks were interesting in some ways and less so in others. It
was interesting when he dealt with the economy, but less so when
he started to talk again about Quebec's sovereignty and
independence.
As members know, the last referendum was not the first one in
Quebec. It was the second or the third. The question has been
widely debated, and each time Quebecers came out in favour of
the Canadian federation.
I cannot understand. When are we going to stop talking about
this issue and deal with the important issues for Quebecers, the
economic issues?
I would like my hon. colleague to tell me whether or not the
economic situation of Quebecers is much better now than it was
ten years ago.
The federal government has already given to the provinces,
Quebec included, a great deal of responsibility in several
areas. What does my colleague want from the federal government
for his province to get Quebec off its back once and for all?
You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that Quebecers are quite
happy with our way of governing. They are very satisfied with
the Canadian situation. They are also quite proud of the
Canadian nation and of their French Canadian heritage. Could my
colleague answer all these questions?
1045
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, in case I forgot to mention it, I
will be sharing my time with the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
When are we going to stop talking about
sovereignty? Never. So long as it is not a fact, we will keep
talking about it.
He had better hold on to his hat, as my colleague from Roberval
would say, because in the coming months we are going to be
talking sovereignty more than ever. He has not understood that
Quebecers constitute a people and that the throne speech
contains no reference to the existence of a people and a nation
in Quebec.
Quebecers are a people.
Although people readily speak of a Canadian people, we are not
among them. Let him make no mistake. The sovereignty option
had climbed in this morning's poll, without anyone talking about
it. Does the member know what the percentage was prior to the latest
referendum, in 1995, six months before the referendum? There
was no talk of sovereignty. It was 37% or 38% tops. After the
referendum campaign, it rose to about 50%. We lost by 50,000
votes in the latest referendum. We are at 45% now, and there is
no talk of it. Give that a little thought.
Quebecers are proud. They are not crazy. They can see how
Canada is being built. They can see that Quebec is being left
on the fringe in this building activity. They can also see how
incredibly arrogant the government is, that it marches right
into Quebec's jurisdictions and that it is destabilizing
Quebec's public finances.
People should not imagine, and I think it is important to point
this out, that it is easy to manage Quebec's finances when the
federal government first slashes transfer payments and then
leaves us in a state of perpetual uncertainty. We do not know
what it is going to do in the coming years. Now we are
looking at a throne speech and upcoming bills that show not a
shred of respect for provincial jurisdiction.
How is it possible for two independent bodies to run the same
sector effectively? Do we want to sit still while the
federal government takes Quebecers for a ride in sectors such as
education? Are we going to allow three-quarters of the Canadian
population, which lives outside Quebec and is primarily
English-speaking, to decide the kind of exams French-speaking
students from Quebec should have to write to get into elementary
school?
There is a problem somewhere. Over the years we defined the
separation of powers and the jurisdictions to be respected.
However
the federal government is not keeping to its part of the
bargain. It is more arrogant than ever. The member is
asking me what it will take to shut Quebec up? We are not going
to beg the federal government for anything.
The day that Quebecers decide to become a sovereign nation, we
will stop handing over the $33 billion in taxes we now pay to the
federal government. We will manage this money ourselves and
will not get down on our knees to ask the federal government for
anything.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take
this opportunity to congratulate you on your new
responsibilities. I want to thank voters in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve
for putting their trust in me for the third consecutive time. I
will do my best to live up to the responsibility they gave me.
Also, I would like to congratulate all the new members of the
House, who will undoubtedly work very hard to serve their fellow
citizens.
I will expand on what our colleague the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has said. The Speech from the Throne is
disappointing, especially for what it does not say. It is
interesting to note that as the government is embarking on its
third mandate, two main characteristics come to mind to describe
it. First, there is this very contemporary will that would certainly
be a source of embarrassment for the likes of Lester B. Pearson,
André Laurendeau and other nationalists who believed Quebec was
a province unlike the others.
It is rather incredible. The new Liberal members, those from
Quebec who sit on the government benches, are going to be faced
with a real challenge. I do not doubt they wish to serve Quebec
just as I do. However, they will have to say once and for all
whether they are comfortable with the idea that Quebec is a
province just like the others and that when we talk about
Quebec, it is the same as if we were talking about Prince Edward
Island or Newfoundland. Are they comfortable with this logic
imposed through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
which considers that all provinces are equal in fact and in law?
1050
We call this the ideology of egalitarianism. However, what is
interesting is that this cannot be possible. We cannot say on
the one hand that we wish to have a strong French speaking
Quebec in North America and, on the other hand that Quebec is a
province like the others.
We cannot on the one hand say that there is a Quebec model
with the Mouvement Desjardins, with a social safety net that
cannot be found outside Quebec and on the other hand maintain
that Quebec is a province like the others.
We cannot on the one hand vote on a bill in 1997 that
allegedly gives Quebec a veto and that recognizes Quebec as a
distinct society and on the other hand deprive Quebec of its
full powers in immigration.
I am one of those who believe that in the coming years the
sovereignist movement, a democratic movement that has deep roots
in the Quebec society, will go on. I remind the House that each
time the citizens of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve have had the
opportunity to do so, they have voted for sovereignty. It is the
people of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, whom I am pleased to represent
here, who for the first time elected a sovereignist member to
the national assembly, Robert Burns.
In the coming years, Quebecers will have to face a truth test.
This identity confusion being maintained by the federal
government cannot go on indefinitely. As I said, Canada is a
great country for Canadians. I am convinced we have friends
everywhere in Canada and that for those living in English Canada
that country deserves to be defended.
However this cannot be the case for a Quebecer. We cannot accept
that a province like Quebec, which has its own legal system, a
language different from that of the majority, its own history and a
desire to live together all these things being the attributes of
a nation under international law, to be reduced to the status of an
ordinary province.
The government could have recognized the specificity of Quebec
in the Speech from the Throne.
I see new government members who have been democratically
elected. It is quite acceptable in democracy for people to
choose between the two main constitutional options: the
federalist option and the sovereignist option. The issue must
always be settled by the voters, democratically.
Now, why does this government keep saying that Quebec is a
distinct society while this statement is never backed up by
concrete initiatives? For instance, in the case of parental
leave, why is it that the government continues to ignore one of
the strongest consensuses in Quebec society? Women's
federations, management, unions and consumer associations all
agree that there should be only one parental leave system and
that it would be easier for the national assembly to improve
this system.
As an aside, let me remind hon. members of a letter that the
Canadian Conference of Bishops sent to those beginning their
third term, as well those beginning their first one. The letter
pointed out that during the last campaign the Liberal
government indicated that 1.33 million Canadian children, one in
five, were living in poverty.
There is no wizardry involved here. If there are children living
in poverty, it is because there are families living in poverty.
Of course, one way to fight poverty is to increase the parents'
disposable income to ensure that those who are not in the
workforce can access it and that single parents who want to
benefit from a parental leave plan can do so, and be assured
that they have the best plan possible.
1055
I hope we can count on the new Quebec MPs on the government side
to support one of the most solid consensuses in Quebec society,
a consensus on the necessity for the federal government to enter
into negotiations to ensure that Quebec national assembly be in
charge of parental leave.
Let me say that during my third term I will work on various
issues, and that the issue of poverty will always be on my
agenda.
I am not forgetting that this is the seventh successive year of
economic growth.
As parliamentarians, we must realize that economic growth and
job creation no longer go hand in hand. Things are not as they
were in the 1950s. Economic growth does not mean that every
person capable of working can get a job.
This is why over the next few months we, as parliamentarians,
will have to be extremely ingenious and courageous in terms of
the social policies we want to put forward and the means we want
to use to fight poverty.
In a few days, I will introduce an anti-poverty bill aimed at
giving to the Canadian Human Rights Commission a new mandate in
this area.
In closing, I want to mention that, in a few weeks, we will be
celebrating the tenth anniversary of the report tabled in the
national assembly by the Bélanger-Campeau commission.
Members will recall that this commission has a special status
since, even when the federal Department of Intergovernmental
Affairs alludes to it, it recognizes its status as a constituent
assembly.
For the first time in Quebec history, the national assembly
recognized, through the Bélanger-Campeau commission, its
inalienable right to make a partnership offer to English Canada
and to achieve sovereignty.
As members of the House of Commons, it will be incumbent upon
us on this tenth anniversary to recognize the non-negotiable
right of the national assembly to make a partnership offer to
the rest of Canada and to lead us toward sovereignty, if that is
the wish of a majority of Quebecers.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, will work toward that in full
compliance with the democratic principles that have always
motivated us.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not have a chance to
congratulate you on your new duties so I take this opportunity to
do that.
I listened very carefully to the member. He talked about seven
years of continuous economic growth. I was very happy to hear
him acknowledging that. He also talked about providing jobs and
opportunities.
Could he comment on how we work in the House of Commons in terms
labour training programs that we were more than happy to transfer
the to the provinces because they knew what programs they needed
in their respective provinces. Was that not a good move on the
federal government's part?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, could I reserve my answer for
after question period, since we do not have much time and I will
need to elaborate on that? If the Chair could give me three or
four minutes after question period, I would be most grateful.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 11 a.m., we will now proceed to
statements by members. Of course the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will have the opportunity to answer this
question and possibly others after oral question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SOUTH EASTHOPE TOWNSHIP
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to
announce that on February 18, 2001, a book launching of South
Easthope Township will take place in my riding of
Perth—Middlesex.
The book, entitled Country Roads: The Story of South
Easthope, is the product of hard work. It took the committee
of this project almost four years to collect information about
South Easthope, and their hard work and dedication has produced
an excellent publication. This publication is a quality
hardbound book of about 800 pages, with 1,300 photos and it tells
the lives of the people who make up South Easthope.
1100
I congratulate co-chairpersons Lester Wilker and Wilma McCraig,
and the editor of the book, Jim Hagerty, for their hard work and
dedication. The hard work of farmers, business people, teachers,
clergy and residents should also be commended.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the farmers of eastern Saskatchewan are a long way
from traditional ports. The port of Churchill is approximately
800 miles from most delivery points in my riding.
Mr. Justice Estey recommended that competent third parties have
access to CP and CN rail systems. Implementing this
recommendation would mean that the farmers of eastern
Saskatchewan would benefit by having access to the port of
Churchill at much reduced freight rates.
Canadian farmers are suffering severely from circumstances
beyond their control while the government misses yet another
opportunity to help our producers by implementing this
recommendation.
I therefore urge the transportation minister to give back to
farmers some real control over their industry by opening up the
rail lines. Let us help our farmers help themselves by giving
them the choice and the opportunity to reduce their costs.
* * *
EATING DISORDER AWARENESS WEEK
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that
February 11 to February 17 is Eating Disorder Awareness Week.
The goal this year is to reduce the prevalence of anorexia,
bulimia, extreme dieting and body image problems through a public
education program emphasizing the impact of social factors on
these disorders.
During the week, information will be provided to Canadians to
dispel myths and direct them to appropriate resources. These
messages are consistent with Canada's food guide to healthy
eating, Canada's physical guide to healthy active living and
Health Canada's vitality program, which continue to help
Canadians make healthy lifestyle choices.
I congratulate the National Eating Disorder Information Centre
for its work on raising awareness of this very serious health
concern.
* * *
[Translation]
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1995, parliament passed a resolution proclaiming February Black
History Month.
This annual celebration grew in popularity during the 1960s, as
blacks in Canada became increasingly aware of their contribution
to Canadian society with the growth of the civil rights movement
in the United States.
The Mathieu Da Costa awards program shows the importance the
government places on Black History Month.
Historically recognized as the first black person to settle in
Canada, Mathieu Da Costa helped the Mi'kmaq and the first
French explorers understand each other, thanks to his skill as
an interpreter.
The awards program is aimed at encouraging primary and secondary
school students, aged 9 to 19, to explore the contributions
persons of various cultural and racial origins have made to
Canada's development.
In this, Black History Month, I hope celebrations are lively and
I offer my thanks for their contribution to Canada's culture.
* * *
[English]
WINTERLUDE 2001
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, having worked in the Alberta oil
patch I can attest to the indomitable character and determination
of the many workers who toil on the rigs of Kenting, Brelco,
Nabors and many more. These men and women work in all types of
weather, far from the comfort of family, friends and home. It is
cold, lonely work on remote, isolated frontier land to bring
warmth to Canada's homes.
Today on Parliament Hill, three Edmontonians are charged with
the task of carving Alberta's character and spirit into snow.
William Purnel, Kelly Davies and Shane Lewandowski are proudly
representing Alberta in the Winterlude 2001 snow sculpture
competition. Their sculpture, Going Steady, embodies the
industrial spirit of all Alberta workers, a spirit represented by
members of parliament who too come from all walks of working
pasts.
I wish our artists the best of luck and thank them for a
wonderful effort.
* * *
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence waterway plays a vital role in servicing
the marine transportation needs of North America's mining, steel,
pulp and paper, agriculture and construction industries in the
movement of over 250 million tonnes of raw material, finished and
semi-finished goods and products to domestic and international
markets in a cost efficient, safe and environmentally friendly
mode.
The waterway is a major component of Canada's transportation
network, being a critical link between east and west, between
Canada and the United States, between supply and production, and
between potential and prosperity. The waterway's importance
extends beyond the Atlantic coast to the western shores of Lake
Superior, impacting communities in all regions and people in all
walks of life, including those in my riding of Erie—Lincoln.
I challenge all levels of government to work in partnership in
the development of a strategic plan to improve the
competitiveness and viability of this world class marine trade
route.
* * *
1105
[Translation]
HEART MONTH
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, February is
Heart Month, the month in which heart foundation volunteers call
at people's homes across the country to collect money in support
of research into heart disease.
This month is dear to my heart because, like thousands of
others, I too have lost someone dear to heart disease.
In a few days it will be the fifth anniversary of the death of
my husband Michel, who died of one of these diseases.
This is why my children, Julie and Patrick, and I are asking the
people of Quebec and Canada from the bottom of our heart to be
generous when a volunteer from the heart foundation calls at
their door.
Michel, you will always have your special place within our
hearts.
* * *
[English]
WHITE CANE WEEK
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the many volunteers and
supporters of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and
to the nearly 100,000 Canadians who are visually impaired.
Since 1947 the first week of February has been designated White
Cane Week. During this week the CNIB and its volunteers and
supporters across the country conduct programs to raise public
awareness about the challenges of blind and visually impaired
Canadians as they strive to function independently in a sighted
world.
Today the CNIB must respond to an increasing demand for its
services as Canadians live longer and experience age related
vision loss.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating members of the CNIB
for their achievements and in extending our best wishes for a
successful White Cane Week.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister
visits China, in part to promote democracy in that country. On
Tuesday, B.C. Senator Ray Perrault retired, giving the Prime
Minister a golden opportunity to practise democracy at home.
A replacement senator could easily be elected through B.C.'s
senatorial selection act, which encourages the election of
senators. This senate vote could be held in conjunction with
B.C.'s upcoming provincial election, which must be held by the
end of May.
To prove his commitment to democracy, the Prime Minister needs
only to tell British Columbians that he will appoint the senator
they elect. Respecting democracy at home will clearly make him
more worthy to talk about democracy abroad.
With the mechanism in place and an electoral window on the
horizon, there seems to be no reason why B.C.'s next senator
cannot be elected.
Surely democracy in Canada should come before democracy in
China. I hope the Prime Minister takes this chance to show that
he agrees.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT ON LINE
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 2, the Prime Minister launched the Government of
Canada's redesigned website.
The purpose of this site is to help Canadians surf the Net and
thus inform and empower themselves.
The site was designed to provide Canadians with easier access to
the services and information they need.
Members of the business community, in Canada and elsewhere, will
also find the site useful because of the information it contains
on Canada's political, economic, social and cultural climate.
As the Prime Minister said, the government on line initiative
provides Canadians with electronic access to government
services, as reaffirmed in the Speech from the Throne.
The purpose of this project is nothing less than making Canada
the most connected nation in the world.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
recent poll in the Vancouver Sun is yet more evidence that
Vancouverites are ready to embrace significant change in drug
policy reform. It is long overdue.
When I first rose in the House in 1997, I spoke to the Minister
of Health and told him about the devastation, pain and impact on
crime and safety that are the result of Canada's drug laws. I
also spoke about the health crisis in my riding in Vancouver
East.
After nearly four years of stalling and wrangling, it is time to
take the volumes of studies and expert opinions and reform
Canada's drug policies. The Vancouver agreement and the mayor's
framework for action are a start, but I believe we need to go
further if we are to save lives, reduce crime and improve the
health of the community.
In August 1998, I introduced a motion in the House of Commons
calling on the government to set up clinical trials for a heroin
prescription program. I implore the Minister of Health and the
Minister of Justice to listen to the people of Vancouver and take
the lead in changing Canada's drug strategy by bringing in heroin
trials, safe injection sites and decriminalization for
possession.
* * *
PALESTINIANS
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few days
ago some members of the House met with Professor Halper from
Ben-Gurion University in Israel, co-ordinator of the Israeli
committee against house demolitions, and with Salim Sharamweh, a
Palestinian working alongside Professor Halper.
Their description of the occupation in the West Bank and the
demolition of Palestinian homes was very poignant and disturbing.
1110
The day prior they had a radio interview with the CBC that was
very informative, especially in light of the latest election in
Israel.
Many of the media in Ottawa would not grant an interview. The
Ottawa Citizen went so far as to say that it was simply not
a priority. I say to the Ottawa Citizen, the leading
newspaper in this capital, shame. This refusal denotes an
attitude of bias by ignoring the plight of the Palestinians. It
is the obligation of the Ottawa Citizen to give its readers
a complete picture of the crisis in the occupied territory.
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his
speech on Tuesday, the Conservative-Independent-Liberal member for
Chicoutimi—Le Fjord told us that he was looking out for his
region and that that was why he had gone over to the Liberal
Party, a party he did not hesitate to openly criticize barely
six months ago.
He attacked the Government of Quebec, which he accused of
stifling regional development in the Saguenay region. This is
nothing but demagoguery. Here are a few facts.
In the case of road infrastructures alone, the provincial
government collected $37.5 million in gasoline taxes and then
turned around and put $30 million of that back into roads in the
Saguenay region—a return of 80%.
Last year, the federal government collected $35 million in excise
taxes on gasoline and did not reinvest a single cent.
The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord should know that there is no
one blinder than someone who refuses to see. Once again, he has
picked the wrong side to sit on. The people of the Saguenay
region know who is really looking out for them—
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
* * *
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib): Mr. Speaker,
I want to congratulate you and wish you good luck in your new
duties.
The Liberal Speech from the Throne proposes a project that will
make Canada a country rich in possibilities, a country where
excellence is acknowledged, a country in which everyone can
participate fully in the economy and in society.
We are going to focus our efforts on ensuring that everyone
benefits from the fruits of our economy. The unemployment rate
is at its lowest, there is strong growth and workers are
prepared to respond to the requirements of globalization within
the context of a knowledge-based economy.
All Canadians can be proud of the country they have built
together.
We are going to build a future in which all of us, from the
weakest to the strongest, have access to the programs and
services they require.
These are some of the salient points of the intentions expressed
in the latest Speech from the Throne.
* * *
[English]
HOCKEY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the many dedicated
volunteers and sponsors in my riding who organized and hosted the
hugely successful world under 17 hockey challenge in New Glasgow,
Nova Scotia.
The tournament took place over the Christmas holidays and
featured the best players in the world from Russia, Germany, the
Czech Republic, the U.S. and Finland. Canada was represented by
five regional teams. I make special mention of locals Gary
Matheson and Glen Frazee of Pictou County, who played for Team
Atlantic.
The success of this tournament was due to the enthusiasm of
local volunteers and sponsors and the dedication of the local
volunteer organizing committee. I congratulate committee chair
Elaine Flynn and vice chairs John Lynn and Stu Rath, as well as
the Pictou County Regional Development Commission and Sport Nova
Scotia for their support.
The exceptional planning and event management of these
individuals and organizations allowed us to host a super event
that provided our region with great sporting events and economic
spinoffs.
In the championship game, Team U.S.A. captured the gold in a
thrilling 5:4 win over Team Pacific before 3,000 fans. I extend
a hearty congratulations to those involved. It was a world class
tournament hosted by a world class town.
* * *
DIABETES
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Sunday,
February 11, will be the 79th anniversary of the discovery of
insulin by Canadians Frederick Banting, Charles Best, James
Collip and James MacLeod.
In 1923 Frederick Banting was awarded the Nobel prize in
physiology or medicine and was knighted in 1934 for his
discovery.
Insulin is used in the treatment of diabetes and is credited
with saving millions of lives. Over two million Canadians live
with diabetes. This would not be possible without the discovery
made by these great Canadians. To them we extend our thanks.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, trade and investment are great forces for change and
prosperity, but these forces alone are not enough.
Increasing trade flows to China will do nothing to promote
prosperity if its people are not allowed basic human rights.
1115
Canadians from across the country have pleaded with the Prime
Minister to use this trade mission to China as an opportunity to
raise the issue of human rights. The Netherlands cancelled its
participation in an official visit to China in protest over the
Falun Gong issue.
Trade and human rights do not have to be mutually exclusive. The
Prime Minister has promised to raise human rights issues at every
stop on this trade mission. The official opposition will hold
him to that promise.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the ethics counsellor met with the Prime
Minister to discuss changing the federal conflict of interest
code to prevent the Prime Minister from lobbying heads of crown
corporations.
Under these new suggested rules, the intense pressure that the
Prime Minister put on the president of the Business Development
Bank in 1997, a person by the way whose job depended on the whim
of the Prime Minister, would now clearly be unethical. However,
if it is unethical now, why was it not unethical then?
Is this change of heart not really a tacit admission that what
the Prime Minister did was wrong?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to reject the premise of the hon. member's
question. As I understand it, the ethics commissioner, Mr.
Wilson, made some proposals, only, to the Prime Minister for his
consideration.
The Prime Minister has joined with business people from all over
Canada on the team Canada mission to China. He has not had a
chance to consider these proposals. I am sure he will do so and
reach conclusions on them.
As I understand it, the hon. member is completely wrong when he
says that Mr. Wilson has stated a final conclusion as to what
changes should be made in the rules. The Prime Minister will be
considering Mr. Wilson's ideas in this regard.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, he has not come to a conclusion because the Prime
Minister has not told him what to say yet.
During the last election the ethics counsellor claimed that the
Prime Minister was not in conflict when he forced the Business
Development Bank to lend $600,000 to the Auberge Grand-Mère. The
ethics counsellor took as an authority the B.C. conflict
commissioner's report, yet he deliberately left out the portion
of that report that prohibited ministers from lobbying agencies
of the crown. Now he has suddenly had a revelation.
Was the ethics counsellor not simply a convenient political tool
used by the Prime Minister during the last federal election
campaign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to reject the unwarranted slur of the Alliance
Party on the ethics counsellor.
The appointment of Mr. Wilson was the subject of consultation
with the previous Reform Party and the second opposition party. I
understand the opposition members spoke publicly in praise of Mr.
Wilson, so there is no basis for that unwarranted slur on him now
just because he has not turned into a tame tabby cat for the
opposition.
The premise of the question is wrong. The ethics counsellor did
not find that the Prime Minister did anything wrong. It was just
the opposite. He said the Prime Minister was doing what other
people do as MPs in carrying out their jobs.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, even the so-called ethics counsellor, who is by the way
another person who owes his job to the Prime Minister—he is
there at the whim of the Prime Minister—is now suggesting
changes to the conflict of interest rules that would officially
make the Prime Minister's actions improper.
On next Tuesday every member in the House will have an
opportunity to fix this mess by voting in favour of an
independent ethics commissioner who reports to parliament, not to
the Prime Minister. This will be a fulfilment of the red book
promise. It is exactly verbatim the promise made by the Liberal
Party during the election campaign. It is lifted verbatim. It
is exactly what the Liberals promised.
Will the Prime Minister allow his members to vote for a red book
promise, lifted from his book, or will he tell them—
The Deputy Speaker: The Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, back in 1995 the Reform, the party now called the
Alliance Party, said about Mr. Wilson: “The person in the
position right now is an honourable person. He is a man of
integrity. He is a man that can be trusted”.
Nothing has changed in that regard. The nature of the
appointment and the reporting mechanism was known at the time
these words of praise and endorsement were stated for the ethics
counsellor.
This Prime Minister and this government are the first in the
history of Canada to appoint an ethics counsellor to give advice
to MPs and ministers on matters of ethics connected with their
work.
1120
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, let us go over the facts again. The Prime Minister
pressured the president of the Business Development Bank, a man
directly dependent upon him for his job, to give a loan to a
hotel next to a golf course in which the Prime Minister held an
interest.
This is clearly inappropriate. The Prime Minister insists he
did nothing wrong, even though the ethics counsellor now says the
rules must be changed. Why did the Prime Minister still not
recognize that what he was doing was in fact wrong?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's facts are wrong. The Prime Minister
did not pressure the president of the Business Development Bank.
I understand he made representations equivalent to what members
of all parties do in carrying out their work as MPs.
I do not think it is correct to say that the ethics counsellor
now says that what the Prime Minister did at the time was wrong.
He has made proposals for consideration of changes in the rules
eventually. The ethics counsellor categorically ruled. The
opposition has said he was a man of integrity when he was
appointed, and he is still a man of integrity. This man of
integrity ruled that the Prime Minister did nothing wrong.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the weakness of the ethics counsellor highlights the
ethical weakness of the government.
First the ethics counsellor is forced to exonerate the Prime
Minister's inappropriate behaviour, and only when the Prime
Minister is ready is the ethics counsellor now allowed to discuss
changing the rules.
When will the government create an independent ethics
commissioner, like the provinces already have, who can demand a
higher standard of behaviour from the Prime Minister and the
government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong when he says that the ethics
counsellor was forced to give his ruling. That is totally wrong.
The spokesman for the then Reform Party said “The person in the
position right now is an honourable person. He is a man of
integrity. He is a man that can be trusted”. That was a fact
in 1995 and it is a fact today. On that fact the hon. member on
behalf of his party is wrong.
They are casting an unwarranted personal slur on a person of
integrity. They should apologize and withdraw that slur.
* * *
[Translation]
TRADE
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
government has recently imposed an embargo on Brazilian beef, on
the grounds that there is a risk of contamination with mad cow
disease.
Could the government tell us whether there are scientific grounds
for this embargo, and if so, what they are?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will try to be quick. For over two
years North American countries have asked other countries that
export beef to provide and fill out a questionnaire on how they
monitor animals and feed products that come from the European
Union where there is mad cow disease. Brazil had not provided
that information to us.
When the information came forward from the FAO on January 25 we
raised it again with Brazil. It has provided us with some
information. We have not had time yet, but we will review that
as quickly as possible to maintain food safety for Canadians.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
government's decision is based on scientific grounds, how can
the minister explain that two Health Canada experts state that
there are no scientific grounds and that the decision to ban
beef imports is in fact nothing more than a reprisal against
Brazil?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday and the day before the very
same party across the way was asking for greater food safety and
pointing out some of the reasons why it thought that should be
the case. We will be as cautious as we possibly can.
Brazil will provide us with all the information. As I speak
right now, officials from Canada, the United States and Mexico
are reviewing the information they have. There will be a team of
Canadian food inspection officials in Brazil next week to review
that to see if the monitoring and enforcement there ensure that
the meat products from that country are safe. If so, we will
resume trade immediately.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the dispute opposing Bombardier and Embrair, the WTO largely
supported Canada's view, thus allowing our country to implement
retaliatory measures against Brazil, while still complying with
WTO rules.
Does the government realize that if Canada's decision to ban
Brazilian beef is not based on scientific facts, it is
tantamount to doing to Brazil what Canada accused that country
of doing to Bombardier, that is not to comply with international
trade rules?
1125
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that this has nothing to
do with trade. This has everything to do with the safety of the
Canadian food supply.
Scientists will be reviewing the information when Brazil
provides that information to us. When it completes that, and
even before it has provided all of that, our scientists are
reviewing it and will be in Brazil to review it with Brazilian
officials as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
if this has nothing to do with trade, does the government
realize that Canada's decision could not only intensify a trade
war between our country and Brazil, but could also jeopardize
current negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. Is
it his position that we let this product into Canada before the
scientists review it? If that is the case, it is not our
position.
We will do whatever is necessary, with our scientists and with
our review, to maintain food safety of Canada.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, still on
the subject of agriculture, provincial agriculture ministers are
meeting today in Regina. For the first time ever they have
chosen to meet alone and not extend an invitation to the federal
minister.
With agenda items including the crying need for additional
federal assistance and even questioning the role of the federal
government in agriculture, it is obvious that provincial
ministers decided to exclude Ottawa because of the enormous
frustration they feel.
Could the minister inform the House when he will be announcing a
long term safety net package that will finally provide some solid
assistance to farm families right across Canada?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not get into a debate with the
hon. member, but I think provincial ministers of agriculture have
met before without the federal minister present. They have every
right to do so. I am looking forward to the comments they send
to me after the meeting they are having today.
The government has clearly indicated that it recognizes the
support that agriculture needs. As we have found resources we
have added considerably in the last three and a half years. There
is 85% more in the safety net envelope than there was three and a
half years ago.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
that farmers, provincial ministers of agriculture and even
members of the House are frustrated and embarrassed that the
minister and the Prime Minister's only solution to our
agricultural crisis is to go hectoring and lecturing across the
world about the level of subsidies offered to farmers in other
countries. That may be a strategy, but it certainly is not a
solution to the farm crisis we have at home.
Is the minister prepared to offer at least an immediate federal
cash injection so that farmers will be able to plant crops this
spring?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we have been there to
assist farmers before and we will be there to assist farmers as
we find resources to do so.
I do not know whether the hon. member has personally or not, but
I know some of his colleagues and many of our colleagues across
the way have asked me and my colleagues why we were not having
discussions with those in the European Union and in the United
States, such as the one the Prime Minister had.
The first issue he discussed with President Bush when they met
earlier this week was what the high level of subsidies in the
United States was doing to harm Canadian farmers.
* * *
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry. Premier John Hamm
was in Ottawa for several days this week lobbying several
ministers to get a change in the royalty formula because the
federal government takes the vast majority of gas and oil
royalties from offshore resources.
The industry now has come onside and agrees with the province of
Nova Scotia that Nova Scotia should get a higher ratio of these
royalties because it would allow it to increase productivity and
efficiency.
Will the government start negotiations now with the province of
Nova Scotia to amend this formula to give Nova Scotia a fair
share of the royalties?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, under the pertinent legislation pertaining to offshore
accords there is a provision that requires the Government of
Canada to pay to the offshore provinces the amount of royalty
that accrues to the Government of Canada, just as if those
resources were onshore in some other provinces.
In fact we have done that with $50 million dollars over the last
number of years. Plus there is a special arrangement with
respect to equalization offset which has totalled $32 million
over the last number of years. That money has indeed been paid
to Nova Scotia.
* * *
1130
EQUALIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is not good enough to say that the equalization formula cannot be
changed or adjusted unless the provinces agree.
The federal government has already adjusted the clawback
provision for Newfoundland's Hibernia project. The Minister of
Finance gave every indication during the St. John's West
byelection that an adjustment could be made to the equalization
formulas.
Will the Minister of Finance be clear as to whether the former
premier of Newfoundland, now Canada's Minister of Industry,
raised our hopes in vain on this issue?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would remind the hon. member that even at the
time of the cutbacks by the federal government in 1995, the
equalization program was one of the very few that was not cut. In
fact equalization today is at an historic high.
The fact is that the equalization program has always been under
review. We sign five year agreements and immediately upon
signing, the officials begin to take a look at where they are
going. That is a process that is ongoing.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has confirmed
that for the past two decades the federal government has
permitted massive employment insurance fraud by farm workers and
their employers in B.C.'s Fraser Valley.
For 20 years, Canadian taxpayers have seen their hard earned tax
dollars being illegally pocketed by a small group of criminals.
Despite all the resources that the government has, it continues
to allow that to occur.
Will the government please explain to Canadians why it continues
to allow their hard earned tax dollars to be used illegally?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that this
government does not let anyone act illegally in this country.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is being used illegally.
The government has been aware over its duration that the abuse of
EI is occurring and it has done very little to stop it.
As a matter of fact two years ago the Liberal member for
Brampton West—Mississauga travelled to British Columbia to
accuse the EI investigators of harassing and intimidating farm
workers. She actually interfered in the EI investigation that
was going on.
Why is the Liberal government allowing the criminal use of EI
money, Canadian taxpayer money, to continue?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, the government
does not allow illegal use, but if there is a problem, employment
insurance is investigated and can be handed to Revenue Canada if
there is a problem.
* * *
[Translation]
TRADE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning two top level scientists from Health Canada said that
the decision to ban imports of Brazilian beef had more to do
with politics than with scientific facts. If the issue had been
food safety, we would have supported that measure without any
reservations.
Could the minister assure us that what is going on with Brazilian
beef is not the beginning of a trade war against Brazil and
Latin America in general, a war that could jeopardize the
efforts of Quebec, of businesses in Quebec and in the rest of
Canada to penetrate Latin America's export market?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, as the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has already said, Canada's
position is very clear. There is absolutely no link whatsoever
between the beef ban and the dispute over airplanes with Brazil.
May I remind the House that the WTO found that Brazil had failed
to live up to the WTO rules.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
WTO issued a ruling that is favourable to Canada. Why did the
government opt for such a political solution on imports of
Brazilian beef, thus jeopardizing the efforts of businesses in
Quebec and Canada to penetrate that market?
I am asking the minister responsible and the government to sit
down immediately with Brazilian authorities, not next week, right
now, to settle this dispute which could degenerate into something
major.
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny that this has
anything to do with trade and everything to do with the safety of
the food system and the food coming into Canada.
1135
If the hon. member is interested in getting the facts, rather
than what somebody puts in the paper, he should go down to room
130-S at 12.30 today and listen to the true facts from the
scientists from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health
Canada.
* * *
HEATING FUEL REBATE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the government just spent $1.3 billion to cushion the
high cost of heating fuel for low income Canadians. The problem
is that a large portion of that money has gone to people who do
not pay heating bills because they are renters and tenants and it
is the landlord who pays the heating bill.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he stand up
and apologize to Canadians for blowing $1.3 billion of taxpayer
money by giving it to people who do not pay the heating bills, or
was it just another election ploy to buy votes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I understand the hon. member's question, he is asking
the government to apologize, at a time of rising fuel prices, for
giving $1.3 billion to 11 million Canadians, giving this money to
low income Canadians, Canadians who have to pay rising fuel
prices. The answer is that we will not apologize.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my constituents have no
problem seeing through the Liberal government's vote buying
schemes. Unfortunately, they are now forced to choose between
heating or eating.
The heating fuel rebates have gone to everyone but the people
who actually pay the bills. When will the government offer a
program that is about heating cost relief and not politics?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that the governments of Alberta and
Saskatchewan are following the federal government's lead.
The question really is, since federal governments and provincial
governments understand the necessity of helping low income
Canadians at a time of need, why cannot the Alliance.
* * *
[Translation]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
context of yesterday's debate on the promise in the Liberal
Party's red book to create a position of ethics counsellor
accountable to the House, the government House leader said,
“honesty and integrity must be maintained in our
political institution”.
Could the government House leader explain how, despite the
creation of the position of ethics counsellor, with the Prime
Minister appointing the counsellor to oversee the application of
the code of ethics established by the Prime Minister and to
report to the Prime Minister, this government is the focus of no
fewer than 20 police investigations? It is an utterly shameful state
of affairs.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the shameful part is the gratuitous
allegation by the hon. member opposite.
He must know that it is the Prime Minister who has raised this
whole issue of public integrity. It was he who contributed so
much to improving things, who appointed the first ethics
counsellor, who improved the Lobbyists Registration Act. It was
he who tightened the rules, continues to head a government of
integrity and is a man of integrity himself.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is an attack.
When will this government understand that any change to the
imperfect system we have now will be simply cosmetic, so long as
the ethics counsellor is not appointed by the House, accountable
to the House and does not follow a code of ethics drafted by
parliament?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member added that the
government was being investigated. Members will see this
in Hansard.
However, the truth is totally different, if I may put it that
way. No one in this government, to my knowledge, is being
investigated. If the hon. member thinks this is otherwise,
let him say so outside the House and name the minister under
investigation.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: We will go. That does not bother us.
* * *
[English]
HEATING FUEL REBATE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the administration of this energy rebate system is a total
Liberal disaster. Most people paying the high bills are not
getting the rebate and thousands who do not pay for energy are
getting these cheques from the government.
Prisoners are getting the rebates. We have records of students
on student visas who are getting energy rebates. Thousands of
people who have never paid a heating bill in their life are
getting the cheques but those who are paying the high bills are
not.
1140
Why does the government not simply administer this through the
utility company billings so that the rebates are targeted to the
people who are actually incurring the costs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of the government's move was to provide low
income Canadians with the rebate, low income Canadians who were
least capable of handling rising fuel costs or in fact the rising
cost of living.
We made it very clear. We wanted to move quickly and we took
the most efficient way of doing so. We have done exactly what
the government of Alberta has done.
We understand, and we said at the time that there would be
flaws, but the fact is that those flaws are minuscule, albeit
important, we are not denying that and our officials are looking
at it. However, what is really important is that the money get—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government did not take the most
efficient way of helping gas consumers.
Considering Canada's climate and frigid temperatures for many
months each year, heating our homes in the winter is as essential
as food and clothing.
Basing the heating expense relief program on data from 1999,
with no reference to current heating bills, was an irresponsible
way to distribute almost $1.4 billion. If the government wanted
to help people with rising heating costs it could have
implemented a system that would have actually helped consumers
rather than leaving the billpayers out in the cold.
Will the government eliminate the GST from all home heating
fuels?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we did take by far the most efficient and quickest way
of providing these cheques to low income Canadians, exactly the
same way and for exactly the same reason that the government of
Alberta utilized the same mechanism.
The fact is that the purpose of this rebate was to provide the
money to low income Canadians, low income Canadians who, among
other things, were suffering from rising fuel prices.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister for International Cooperation.
[English]
After a catastrophic drought and 20 years of conflict in the
region, community coping mechanisms in Afghanistan are totally
exhausted now. Huge numbers of people have been displaced and
organizations are struggling to meet basic human life
requirements.
The United Nations has asked for international assistance. I
ask today: What is Canada doing to assist Afghanistan?
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 8 the minister responsible for the Canadian
International Development Agency announced $1.3 million in
response to the current crisis, to provide immediate relief
supplies to international displaced persons, including blankets,
plastic sheets, clothes and tents, and to help address the most
urgent humanitarian needs of Afghan refugees through various UN
agencies.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
the past week the finance minister's office has been flooded with
thousands of letters and e-mails from Canadians who want to know
when the minister will develop a national housing strategy based
on the recommendations that he produced in his own report 10
years ago when he was in opposition.
Has the minister taken heed of those letters, and especially the
fact that Canadians are calling on him and the government to go
beyond crisis management and to implement recommendations that
will bring us a national housing strategy? Does the minister
even believe in his own report that he wrote 10 years ago? When
will he develop a national housing strategy?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government does have a national housing strategy. I will
highlight some of the elements for the member.
We provide $1.9 billion annually in housing assistance to
640,000 low income households. Through mortgage loan insurance,
housing research and home renovation programs, we are improving
housing supply and conditions for Canadians. We also provided
$753 million to address homelessness. The Speech from the Throne
also included aboriginal housing and affordable rental housing
provisions.
Yes, Canada does have a national housing strategy.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if
the government believes that is a national housing strategy then
that is pathetic.
Everyone is calling for a national housing strategy: the
Canadian Federation of Municipalities, the Toronto Board of
Trade, national housing groups and even 85% of Canadians in a
recent Maclean's poll.
People are really sick to death of the piecemeal announcements
that we have been hearing. It is really an insult to the gravity
of the problem.
I ask again: When will the government get the picture, move
beyond crisis management and implement a national housing supply
program and a national program that will actually build
affordable housing for Canadians?
1145
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
housing is a very complex issue. It requires a comprehensive
solution, including dealing with the homelessness as well as
affordable housing and aboriginal housing.
The member should note that in the Speech from the Throne the
government indicated that it was moving forward with plans to
stimulate the creation of new affordable rental housing. It is a
government priority and the government will be announcing such
initiatives in the near future.
* * *
EQUALIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
In responding earlier to my colleague, he talked about the
changes to equalization. However, it is really the clawback
arrangement that concerns us. When Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and
other provinces develop their resources, most of the royalties
from those resources go to the federal government and we are left
with very little. If we could keep our royalties until we
reached the Canadian average, we would be a contributor.
Would the minister look at that? What we need is fairness. We
certainly do not need another snow job in Newfoundland.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, under the arrangements that exist in the accords act,
the royalties that accrue to the Government of Canada are
transmitted to the offshore provinces. Obviously that has to be
taken into account in the equalization formula.
To help offset that there is an equalization offset. The
royalties over the last number of years have amounted to about
$50 million. The equalization offset in the case of Nova Scotia
has amounted to about $32 million.
What the hon. gentleman really is discussing here is a long term
change in equalization. As the Minister of Finance has indicated
that is always under review—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for South Shore.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, what the
hon. minister has not told the House is that equalization for the
government members on that side of the House means that for every
dollar of revenue from the offshore to Nova Scotia, 19 cents
stays in the province of Nova Scotia and 81 cents goes to the
Government of Canada.
Does the minister want to stand in this place and try to tell
anyone that that is equalization?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that equalization is based
on the respective fiscal capacities of individual provinces.
There are seven such recipient provinces. If we are going to
treat them fairly, each among themselves, then we must do so on
the basis of their respective fiscal capacities. That is what
equalization does. That is why as the country evolves,
equalization evolves. It is constantly under review.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in April 1995 the justice minister
promised parliament that the gun registration scheme would run a
deficit of only $2.2 million over five years. The actual deficit
was 150 times as much, at $300 million. We were promised that
user fees would cover the entire cost of the program.
The justice minister has been stonewalling investigators from
the Office of the Information Commissioner since last August.
Hundreds of pages of registry documents have been declared
cabinet secrets. What is the government hiding? Exactly how
much has the gun registry cost to date?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians overwhelmingly support the Canadian firearms system.
We cannot look at this without looking at costs and benefits.
Over the last five years this has cost Canadians about $2 per
head. That is very inexpensive when we are looking at public
safety. We also have to look at the benefits. We are now
administering the program and saving roughly $30 million that the
police otherwise would have spent in the administration.
This is good legislation. Why is the hon. member and his party
trying to undermine this legislation?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of
the Treasury Board.
Sources inside the justice department told us last August that
the gun registry budget for this fiscal year was $260 million
alone. That would put the total cost of the registry at more
than $585 million, half a billion dollars more than the original
estimate.
Will the President of the Treasury Board explain why there are
only two oversight committees in Treasury Board, and why both of
them have to do with firearms? Why have these expenditures not
come to parliament for approval.
1150
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the total costs over the last five years are roughly $327
million. This includes the $85 million set up cost.
When the system is fully implemented, we will be looking at
roughly $60 million per year to administer it. The cost of the
fees will pay for that.
* * *
[Translation]
OIL HEATING PRICES
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few weeks
before the election was called, the government decided to send
out $125 rebate cheques, supposedly to offset the increase in the
price of heating oil for needy Canadians. It is obvious that
this hastily thought up scheme to get more votes has done
nothing to improve matters.
My question for the Minister of Finance is this: Does the
minister realize that, far from being a lasting solution, his
vote getting scheme had no other purpose than to portray him as
sympathetic to voters, especially those in the greatest need?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of the program was to help the needy with a cheque of
$125 per individual and $250 per family, for a total of
$1.3 billion. It has been quite a success, with 11 million
Canadians receiving cheques. This is a great help right now.
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, nothing
has been resolved. The situation is still the same. When is
the government going to abandon its short term approach and come
up with a genuine policy on competition?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I
understand the member's question correctly, he is saying that we
should not have taken quick action. I do not agree. There were
increases in the cost of heating oil and it was important for
the government to come to the immediate assistance of these
families. That is what it did.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last April the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
travelled to Fuzhou province in China. She met with high ranking
government officials. We have every reason to believe that the
minister met with PLA General Fhang Wei who has since been
indicted by the U.S. department of justice for people smuggling.
Will the minister or someone over there confirm that she did not
brief General Wei about our national security measures?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that allegation has been
thoroughly verified by Canadian officials. I can report to the
House that it was wrong and has been proven to be
unsubstantiated.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I do not believe that is the case at all. I have in my
possession a memo from the Privy Council which clearly stated
“In Fuzhou the minister met with senior local officials,
possibly including senior Chinese security official, Mr. Fhang
Wei”.
The RCMP has not investigated this matter. It notified me that
it would not. This guy was later indicted by the U.S. for people
smuggling. When the government's own security and intelligence
secretariat acknowledges—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to want to
answer his own question, but perhaps the House would like the
government to answer it.
He has made an accusation that an official has received
information from a Canadian minister which was cabinet
confidential or possibly even a state secret. I can tell him
that his accusation is factually incorrect. It was verified, and
it is wrong and unsubstantiated.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Persistent
organic pollutants are of significant concern for all Canadians
but especially for Canada's northern aboriginal people as the
long range atmospheric transport of these pollutants has led to
contamination of traditional foods.
What is Canada doing to protect the environment and the health
of Canadians from persistent organic pollutants?
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada played a pivotal role
in the United Nations environment program convention on POPs,
successfully completed last December in Johannesburg.
1155
This agreement will reduce significantly or eliminate foreign
sources of this pollutant that impact the health and environment
of Canadians, particularly in our Arctic. As well, Canada
invested $20 million in budget 2000 to help developing countries
reduce or eliminate the release of POPs.
Canada has already banned or severely restricted production, use
and release of these pollutants in our environment.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Drumheller institution in my riding is home to
rapists, murderers and various other criminals convicted of
serious violent offences.
Correctional officers in this prison are not permitted to carry
handcuffs. I ask the solicitor general to provide the rationale
on why federal prison guards are not allowed to carry handcuffs.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our staff is well trained and
experienced, but an example of why they do not carry handcuffs is
that when offenders or prisoners have had handcuffs on they have
used them as a weapon to attack the guard.
Safety is always the number one issue for our employees in
Correctional Service Canada.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we should take them away from our police officers as
well then.
Drumheller guards were bitten, head-butted and kicked while
attempting to restrain two intoxicated prisoners in the prison
corridors because another guard had to go to the main control
office, locate a key, open a restraining locker and retrieve the
handcuffs they needed.
Quite obviously the policy of Correction Service Canada is
putting our federal prison guards at serious risk of injury. Why
will the solicitor general not immediately revoke the directive
that forbids correctional officers from carrying handcuffs before
more guards are seriously harmed?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is simply why we have to be cautious
in our correctional institutions. We have some violent people in
these institutions. What we have to do is protect our staff. We
do not let them carry weapons because it could cause a problem of
security for the staff within our institution. It just makes
sense.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
January 6, Haroun M'Barek was deported to Tunisia after having
been denied the right of asylum in Canada, a right he had been
claiming since 1994.
Upon his arrival in Tunisia, he was arrested, tortured and
incarcerated, after being sentenced to 12 years in prison by a
tribunal in his country.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In light of
such a disturbing situation regarding the assessment of the
risks involved when the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration sends people back home, will the minister pledge to
delegate an observer to look at how Mr. M'Barek appeal is
processed?
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
knows that we cannot comment publicly on the details of a case.
Obviously, refugee status claimants in Canada undergo a fair
determination process. If the hon. member's allegations are
true, the department will certainly look at the case.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice just reintroduced
legislation on youth justice. Already some are saying that it
will hinder how the provinces can deal with youth justice under
their own jurisdiction.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
tell us if this is true, or does the legislation actually help
the provinces do the job better?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me assure the House and this member that Bill C-7, the
criminal youth justice act, provides sufficient flexibility for
the provinces to properly administer our youth justice system.
The legislation provides a fairer and more effective approach.
Our objectives are to prevent youth crime. Our objectives are to
ensure that there are meaningful consequences. Our objectives
are to ensure that there are reintegration and rehabilitation.
This is a very balanced approach. It is an approach that will
suit Canada very well and that will suit our young people very
well.
* * *
1200
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that the ethics counsellor
has told journalists today that he will propose guidelines
respecting crown corporations.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the ethics
counsellor has discussed those guidelines with the government?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister further tell the House whether,
once received, those guidelines will be tabled directly in the
House so there can be a full discussion as to the appropriate
guidelines to be attached to crown corporations?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can confirm, as I already have to other questioners
from the opposition, that the ethics counsellor met with the
Prime Minister on this matter. The ethics counsellor has given
some proposals. The Prime Minister will be studying them and
will reply further on them in due course.
When the leader of the Conservatives was on his feet earlier in
question period he did not explain why he was down on his knees
before the Alliance House leader. I did not know things had
fallen to such a low state that he had to plead for survival on
the floor of the House on his knees before the Alliance House
leader. Perhaps he can explain—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government's response to the
agricultural crisis continues to be disastrous. The government
promised $1.7 billion to support farmers. To date only 52% of
that money has been delivered and some of it is now being clawed
back from producers.
Today the price of nitrogen fertilizer has hit an all time high,
more than doubling in the last two years. Farmers need help
immediately.
Will the agriculture minister finally get the message and
deliver the money promised to farmers before seeding?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member and everyone
that the $1.6 billion that was promised to farmers through the
programs that we have to support them as a result of the 1998-99
business year, will all be paid out.
Over 2,000 applications are being dealt with every week. The
money will be paid out. As I said before in the House today, and
as the government and I continue to say, we have been there for
farmers and we are not done yet. We know they need more support.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to raise a matter of privilege, relating to an incident that has
just occurred during Oral Question Period.
It seems to me that this was something serious. As an
opposition MP, with a duty to monitor the actions of this
government, I questioned it on a number of investigations in
which it is involved.
In his response, the leader of the government raised doubts, in
my opinion, as to my integrity and professionalism, and
threatened me with legal proceedings as an individual.
I would like to ask for some direction from the Chair. As an opposition
MP, am I forced to keep in mind that, when we rise to demand an
accounting from the government and if the matter happens to be
a sensitive one involving investigations, we will be gagged,
denied our right to speak and met with a barefaced threat of
legal proceedings? The government House leader invited me to
repeat my words outside the House.
In my opinion it is the role of the opposition to raise
questions.
Perhaps those questions may not please the government, but since
we are a responsible opposition, because in our souls and our
consciences we consider it our duty to ensure that the
government is answerable for its actions when there is an
investigation, I consider this totally inappropriate and
unacceptable and I feel that my privileges as a parliamentarian
have been breached.
On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to inform you that we are
going to ask questions concerning the investigations involving
the government.
My expectation is that, out of a sense of responsibility and
respect of the duties of parliamentarians, the government House
leader will rise in his place and apologize to me, for I have
been injured in my responsibilities, in my duties and in the
way I represent the people of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in this
House.
1205
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I also want to address the question of privilege raised by the
hon. member and express my support for what he just said.
As a parliamentarian, I too was surprised and even shocked by
the comments of the government House leader. Hon. members know
that what the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was referring to
has often been covered. On a number of occasions, the media have
covered some 20 investigations that are being conducted in
Quebec on a number of grants, particularly some granted by Human
Resources Development Canada.
I fail to see how, today, a member who raises this issue in the
House can be the object of a barely veiled threat on the part of
the government House leader, who dared him to repeat the same
comments outside the House, thus implying that the federal
government would go so far as to sue the member for something
said here and repeated outside the House. This is an issue that
is widely known, an issue that has been reported by the media
and that has been the subject of statements outside this House.
I also find it quite unacceptable to see the government starting
to resort to the very dangerous habit of daring opposition
members to repeat outside the House what they say here, so that
the government can sue them.
I respectfully submit to the Chair that our privileges as
parliamentarians have been, if not violated, at least seriously
threatened by what the government House leader just did.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious that all members have the same privileges and are
entitled to express their views as they see fit in the House.
What the government House leader did was to point out that a
premise in the question was fundamentally inaccurate, and this
is something the Canadian public needs to know, that is that the
government is not under investigation. The fact that certain
grants are under investigation does not mean the government
is under investigation.
All the government House leader did was say that if the members
opposite have any proof that the government is under
investigation, which is not now the case, they should step
outside the House and say so publicly to all Canadians. This is
an entirely legitimate attitude.
The Government of Canada is not under investigation.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, that is not true. I would like
some direction from the Chair.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair examines all these issues very
seriously. I would not want to see this turn into a debate.
The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will be examined seriously, as it deserves
to be. First, I must allow the hon. government House leader to
reply, I hope at the earliest opportunity.
We will then be able to proceed with this question of privilege.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am greatly
comforted to know that you will give this matter all the
attention it requires. You have my full confidence and that of
my colleagues as well.
However, I would like you to also consider the fact that when
the deputy government whip rose, he asked us to make a
distinction. When he rose in his place and said that the
government was not under investigation, he was calling
ministerial responsibility into question.
I hope you will take into account in your reflections that
we cannot make a distinction—
1210
The Deputy Speaker: Once again, I would point out to the House
that we are engaging in a debate, which I am going to end.
The question of privilege is still before the Chair, and we shall
continue with this matter after we hear the minister.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to information flowing from both
the Prime Minister on Wednesday and from the Deputy Prime
Minister during today's question period.
There appears to be a contradiction on a very important matter
and the possibility that there may be misinformation before the
House with respect to the matter.
The Prime Minister chose to leave the House with the impression
on Wednesday that he had not received the ethics counsellor's
recommendations concerning ministerial conduct with respect to
the heads of crown corporations.
Today we learned from the Deputy Prime Minister that there has
been a meeting between the Prime Minister and the ethics
counsellor on this issue, a meeting which was also reported in
various newspapers around the country today.
The meeting would have included briefing notes or notes that
were in the Prime Minister's possession prior to Wednesday's
question period.
I fully acknowledge that you are not in the chair
to judge the truthfulness of answers, but there is an expectation
that no member of the House, particularly the Prime Minister,
will mislead the House on issues that go to the very heart of
ethical standards.
The Deputy Speaker: I have great difficulty when members
use words such as mislead. I would ask the member to be very
judicious in his remarks and see if we cannot wrap this up.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I expect I will keep
within the parameters. What I said very clearly was that there
is an expectation that members will not mislead the House.
I am asking you to examine the statements in
Hansard made by the Prime Minister on Wednesday and by the
Deputy Prime Minister today. I ask you to encourage the
government to make full statements on the issue of ethics in
order to give everyone an opportunity to remove the cloud that
hangs over the Prime Minister on this matter.
I direct your attention, on this point of order to
page 378 of Marleau and Montpetit which states:
During “Statements by Ministers”, Ministers are expected to
make brief and factual statements on government policy or
announcements of national interest.
I strongly urge the Chair to look at the matter in this context.
These words are clear. They are a direction to the cabinet and
to the Prime Minister. I ask and encourage you to look at this
matter as it appears in Hansard and to have the Prime
Minister make a full statement to the House if necessary.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member would know, and I
imagine the entire House would know, how much respect I have for
all colleagues, particularly those with whom I have worked
closely over the years, one being the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I say respectfully that it puts
the Chair in a very awkward and even difficult situation. I do
not believe that the Chair, in all its wisdom, could possibly be
expected to reconcile the differences that arise from answers to
questions between members on either side of the House. I submit,
therefore, that this is not a point of order.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-255, an act to
amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (trafficking in a
controlled drug or substance within five hundred metres of an
elementary school or a high school).
1215
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill that would,
if passed, set mandatory
minimum sentences for those convicted of trafficking in drugs
within 500 metres of an elementary school or high school.
Children and drugs are a problem in every corner of this country,
urban and rural. This bill is only one of many measures that are
required to deter and punish those who would profit from selling
illegal drugs to our children. I call upon all members of the
House to support this important initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-256, an act to amend the
Young Offenders Act and to amend certain other acts in
consequence thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill introduced before this
parliament that would pertain directly to the existing Young
Offenders Act and would lower the age of criminal accountability,
from the current status of 12 to 10.
This bill would in fact allow a provision similar to the current
transfer provisions that can bring a youth into adult court and
would apply to a child being brought into youth court. This is
obviously consistent with the government's intention to have
early intervention to allow there to be criminal accountability
at the younger age of 10.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-257, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (attempting to disarm a peace officer).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this a criminal code amendment that would
create a specific criminal offence for disarming a police
officer. This is an issue that is certainly being closely
watched and monitored by police and peace officers across the
country. It would create a specific offence, with sanctions
attached, for any attempts made by any individual to take away a
weapon or an instrument that the police officers use for the
protection of society.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-258, an act to
amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a related
and consequential amendment to another act (protection of spouses
whose life is in danger).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I reintroduce my private member's bill,
which I call the new
identities act. Prior to the premature election call, this bill
had passed second reading and was before the justice committee.
We have seen a disturbing trend in Canada whereby stalking and
domestic violence are on the rise. If passed, this bill will
serve to formally protect those persons whose lives are in danger
because of acts committed by a spouse, former spouse, common law
spouse or former common law spouse by bringing them into the
witness protection system.
We as parliamentarians have the obligation to do everything we
can to help these people. I hope members from all sides of the
House will give this bill the non-partisan support it deserves.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.) moved:
That the associate membership of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs be as follows: Bill Blaikie, Barry
Breitkreuz and Marcel Proulx.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1220
[English]
PETITIONS
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today to present three petitions.
The first petition has a number of signatories from across
Vancouver who are very concerned about the state of our health
care system and are particularly interested in calling on
parliament to stop for profit hospitals and restore full federal
funding for health care.
HERBS AND VITAMINS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition has been signed by close to 2,000 petitioners
from the Vancouver area who are very concerned about any
proposals to create a third category status for herbs and
vitamins. This has been a very major issue in terms of access by
consumers.
The petitioners request parliament to reject the third category
status for herbs and therefore reject the Codex proposal.
TRADE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition that I am very pleased to present today has been
signed by petitioners who are very concerned about Canada's trade
policy and the fact that health care, education and culture are
issues that are being debated within a trade liberalization
agenda.
The petitioners call on parliament to ensure that health care,
education and culture are completely carved out of WTO
agreements. They say that we must build an alternative model of
globalization that will protect the rights of workers and the
environment, provide for cultural diversity and provide for
governments to act in the public interest.
GST
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have several petitions that I would like to table this
morning.
The first petition urges parliament to remove the GST from
books, magazines and newspapers.
PARENTAL RIGHTS
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition has been signed by several people in
the province of Alberta and in my riding.
The petitioners request parliament to affirm the duty of parents
to responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience and beliefs, and to retain section 43 of Canada's
criminal code.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition deals with the issue of the death
penalty.
The petitioners call upon parliament to pass legislation within
the next electoral period that would support an amendment to the
criminal code that would allow for persons convicted of first
degree premeditated murder to receive the death penalty.
BILL C-23
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the last two petitions both deal with Bill C-23.
Fifty-seven petitioners request that parliament withdraw Bill
C-23, affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in
legislation and to ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique
institution.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to
Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the
opening of the session.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before question period my colleague was asking me to remind the
House that an agreement on
manpower training was reached between the national assembly and
the House of Commons, and it is true.
Let me remind him also that it took 20 years of repeated
requests by successive governments of Quebec to reach that
agreement.
I hope all members will recognize that the national
assembly, which has an integrated policy for those who are not
on the labour market, was finally able to take over manpower
training. Lucien Bouchard's government has an excellent track
record in this area.
I hope the hon. member will not jump too quickly to a conclusion
and start to believe that, since the government of Quebec and
the House of Commons were able to reach an agreement, that Canadian
federalism is a flexible and collaborative system, because we,
on this side of the House, do not agree with that.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I will read to the member from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve a few paragraphs from the recent Léger
poll in Quebec and then ask him a question.
1225
The latest poll by Léger Marketing says that three-quarters of
Quebec residents see themselves as Canadians and not just
Quebecers. According to the poll, more than half the respondents
oppose Mr. Landry's plan to have the Quebec government actually
promote sovereignty. Further, only about 15% say they want to
see the total independence of Quebec.
Mr. Léger added that the poll certainly shows that Quebecers do
not want a referendum and do not want the government spending
their money to promote sovereignty. It found that 55.3% of
decided voters would vote against sovereignty, even if it were
accompanied with an offer of a partnership with the rest of
Canada.
On the other hand, the pollster said, there is considerable
demand for change in Quebec's role in Canada, with only 20%
saying they would be satisfied with the status quo. Quebecers,
said the pollster, “are rejecting the two most radical options,
sovereignty and the status quo”. The bottom line, said Mr.
Léger, is that Quebecers “want to remain a part of Canada, even
though 45% say they would vote for sovereignty. The problem is
that they are not satisfied with either the status quo or with
the proposal for sovereignty”.
When are the Bloc members, who profess to be democrats, going to
start representing the will of a majority of Quebecers and start
looking for a third way, between sovereignty and the status quo
federalism of the current Prime Minister?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I wish a speedy recovery to my
colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
In Quebec, the popularity of the sovereignist option goes up and
down. In 1993 and 1994, it went up as high as 67%. That is
democracy, and we accept that.
I am the member for a riding that has been supporting Quebec
sovereignty since 1970. We have always advanced our option
through democratic means, and we will continue to do so.
The difference between the hon. member for Calgary Southwest and
me is that I think the renewal of federalism is an
impossible task. The hon. member wants to be responsive to
Quebec, and that is positive. I know he is a sincere man.
I hope we can count on him to recognize that Quebecers have the
right to choose their own future. Sovereignty is one of the
choices that can be made, and we will continue to promote this
option in the most democratic ways.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam Chair,
I want to advise you of two things. First, I will be sharing my
time with the member for Gatineau. Second, and just as
important, I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Madam
Speaker, on your new responsibilities. I am confident, from the
way you have worked in the past with colleagues from all parts of
this Chamber, that you will treat us very fairly.
I am actually very glad that as we close the debate I have the
opportunity to respond after listening to what has gone on since
the throne speech. Before I do that, I want to take this
opportunity, my first opportunity after the election, to express
my gratitude and my appreciation to my constituents of
Scarborough Centre, who for the third time decided, in their
wisdom, to show their confidence in me through their vote and
permit me to be here to carry their voice to Ottawa.
At the same time I would like to thank my campaign team and the
many volunteers. I want to point out with respect to volunteers
that we are celebrating the International Year of Volunteers this
year. I was blessed to have volunteers from all parts of our
society. It was a thrill for me to see both the young and the
old participate, especially the young, who came to offer their
knowledge and whatever time they had. I say a great big thank
you to them.
I also say a great big thank you to my family: my wife Mary, my
three children, Irene, who is now married to my new son-in-law
Tony, and my sons Paul and Daniel, who participated as well. The
family closeness we have gives me the opportunity to be here and
speak on behalf of my constituents.
I have listened to the debate over the past little while and to
question period and I am not going to go into a lot of the
details of what the throne speech had to say, because we have
heard it over and over again.
1230
I want to talk a bit about what was discussed during the debate.
All hon. members did not strictly focus on what was said in the
debate, for example the points the throne speech brought forward
in terms of what we are to do during this session and some of the
programs we are to support: the youth programs, the health
programs, research and innovation, et cetera.
Before the election call we went to the people of Canada and
made a statement. We said that should we be re-elected these
were the things we would like to do and these were the programs
we would want to implement.
In my view we put our necks on the line. Canadians had clear
choices to make. They knew what the Liberal team, headed by the
Prime Minister, was planning to do over the next mandate. If
they were not pleased with those proposals, they could have voted
us out. However they chose not to do so. If anything, the
results speak for themselves. They chose to return the
government and the Prime Minister with an even bigger majority
than we had in 1997, almost equal to the majority we had in 1993.
What does that tell us? It tells us that during our statements
on programs and in debates with candidates in the election in my
view there no ambiguity in what we had to say. We were telling
Canadians, because it was of great concern at that time, what
would happen to the system we all cherish, the system that
separates us from most other countries: our national health care
system.
We said that the government would stand firm to make sure that
all Canadians, no matter where they find themselves, no matter in
what part of the country, would be protected.
Also prior to the election we made a commitment. We had an
agreement with the provinces. All the provinces came on board
and agreed to the transfers that will now be implemented. I was
very pleased to have had the opportunity to talk about that
commitment.
I was very pleased in the last election, and I want to do it
again, to turn the clock back. In order to appreciate where we
are today, we have to think and realize where we came from. It
was very appropriate then, and I believe it is now, to reflect
back for a moment.
In 1993, when we assumed government, unfortunately we inherited
a mess. The country was in a mess, sadly to say, but I am
pleased to say that we have turned it around. We had a deficit
of over $42 billion that was out of control. We had a debt that
was rising continuously and we had no control over it.
We had an unemployment rate of 11.4% or 11.5%. The youth were
discouraged, not knowing what tomorrow had in store for them.
Seniors did not know whether or not their pensions were secure.
The list went on.
Reference has often been made to red book one, “Creating
Opportunities”. In 1993 we went to the people with that book.
We put down in writing, and it was unprecedented at the time,
what we intended to do should we be elected, so that people could
come back to us in a year or three or five years to keep us to
our promises.
One commitment which has been raised over the last week or so
during the debate was the so-called GST. I take this opportunity
to read from the red book, because the media clips that were
picked up printed only half of a paragraph or a comment.
Opposition members, as is their privilege to do so, will only say
what they want to say but not complete the sentence.
I will read exactly what was said on page 22:
A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that
generates equivalent revenues, is fair to consumers and to small
business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes
federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.
1235
The heritage minister might have changed her position on
something, but she did the honourable thing. When she was told
to resign, she did so. She went back to the people, and the
people at that time had an opportunity not to return her but they
chose to do so.
Members from the then Reform Party, today's Alliance Party, made
some provocative statements with respect to members' compensation
and pensions. They said never. Last night I was watching my
good friend Mike Duffy interview the Reform Party member for
Medicine Hat.
Mr. John Williams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order to point out that the Reform Party is not a party in the
House. It is the Canadian Alliance. He should withdraw that
reference and refer to us as the Canadian Alliance.
Mr. John Cannis: Madam Speaker, I withdraw what I said.
The then Reform Party is today called the Alliance. I will state
what I was asked during the election. The member has taken me
off track what I wanted to say. Maybe I can put it on record
right now.
Those members go out during the election and make statements
that they are a new party. If they are prepared to say that they
were then the Reform Party and have simply changed names, I could
understand. I have every right to refer to what it was called
then and to what it is called today. I am sure the hon. member
will agree with me on that.
Nevertheless, I was referring to an interview that took place of
the member for Medicine Hat last night by my good friend Mike
Duffy. I appreciate Mike Duffy is an astute reporter and asks
the right questions. The member for Medicine Hat had difficulty.
He said that he talked to his executive committee before the
election. I challenge him to read in Quorum today where it
states that the executive did not know:
The president of Solberg's constituency association said
Wednesday he was unhappy with the decisions of Solberg and Grey.
“They've done what I call a popular politician's manoeuvre”.
It is a populace party. I am concerned right now with the talk
out west that has to do with separatism. Animosity and concern
exist. There is talk coming out of B.C. from the new Alberta
separatist party.
That is the issue that upsets me as a Canadian. Instead of
reaching out, there is a task force that will look into it. I am
concerned that the task force might provoke emotions. We are
trying to bring the country together, but in the end we will have
done nothing but maybe split it further apart. One comment made
by the 10 West Group was: Why are Canadians not like Americans?
We do not hear the state of California, Texas or New York saying
they will separate, every time they get upset and do not agree
with Washington. Maybe that is the difference. Maybe we should
just take the word out of the Canadian vocabulary.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Madam Speaker, before I deal
with the throne speech, I would like to thank most sincerely my
constituents in Gatineau for putting their trust in me once
again.
I am deeply grateful for the trust they have given me in
the last election. They know I am always there to serve them, no
matter what their problems are. They will always be welcome, and
I hope to be able to always meet their aspirations and help them
with their representations.
1240
I would like to congratulate the member for Kingston and the
Islands on his being elected as Speaker of the House. It is
quite an accomplishment on his part, and I have no doubt that
his role in the House will be a competent one, thanks to his
extensive knowledge of the procedure and the fairness of his
rulings.
I would also like to congratulate the member for Ahuntsic on her
being appointed Acting Speaker of the House. I know the member
for Ahuntsic greatly enjoys being part of the action in the
House, and I am very happy for her that she has the opportunity
to serve in such a sought after position.
During the last election campaign, a number of issues were
raised regarding the national capital region, particularly on
the Quebec side of the Outaouais region, which I have the
pleasure and the honour to represent as the member for Gatineau.
The national capital region, on the Quebec side, is the most
bilingual region in Canada, and we are very proud of that. Over
the years, we have played a major role in the Public Service of
Canada because of our ability to speak both official languages.
With the new economy, we realize how important it is for both
sides of the river to co-operate. I call it “dialogue across the
river”. For several years now, we have been witnessing the
astounding boom of the high tech sector all across the world,
especially in Canada, in the U.S and in Europe. We have been
fortunate to benefit from the development of the high tech
sector in the national capital region.
We have great strengths on the Quebec side.
I met with a group of high tech industry representatives and I
told them I was looking for co-operation from both sides of the
river to ensure continued progress and development in that
sector.
This is extremely important for our young people who graduate
from colleges and universities, so that they can find work in
this new economy.
In the months and years to come, the region's economy will
depend on the development and expansion of high tech, which is
not only very important but is also creating an unprecedented
prosperity level. That is why co-operation between governments on
both sides of the river is so important. We have to ensure
continued expansion.
This brings me to what was discussed in the last election, that
is the significance of infrastructures in this region in terms
of roads or bridges across the Ottawa river.
There is clearly a need for strong co-operation between both
provinces and the National Capital Commission, which plays a
very important role in the development of our region.
The Gréber Report provided for the building of a new bridge over
the Ottawa River. The building of such a structure at a certain
place has been planned for 25 years. However recently some members
of the new Ottawa city council appear to be hesitating.
1245
We are looking closely at the issue. After having planned for 25
years the building of a bridge a given corridor, we must admit
that progress and politics are two different things. We want
progress to continue, but we cannot have progress without
planning.
In the last 25 years, something has been planned, which should
be respected. If there are policy considerations, I believe it
is incumbent upon us to conclude that they ought to be put aside
and to think about what is best for the whole national capital
region of our country.
I would like to point out that if Canadians have put their
confidence in the Liberal Party, it was probably for a number of
reasons. One thing that characterizes the Liberal Party of
Canada is the fact that we are always conscious of the fact that
there are people in difficulty in our society, and these are the
weakest members of our society.
We have always tried to find solutions, such as social policies,
to help them. That is what we did last fall with the rebates
designed to counterbalance the higher than expected increase in
the price of heating oil. This was but one of the measures we
took. All this is to say that we have always been conscious of
the most disadvantaged in our society.
During the campaign, we also noticed that the health issue was
extremely important in the minds of people.
This is why the government decided to invest massively, more
than $20 billion, in our health care system, to make sure that
all Canadians, regardless of social standard, have access to the
medical care they need.
It is also extremely important to ensure that research
continues. We know that research is forms the basis for progress
in years to come. The importance of research in all areas, to
allow us to position ourselves in the new world economy, can
therefore not be overemphasized.
This reminds me of when the former French President François
Mitterand was re-elected. At the beginning of his second mandate,
someone asked him this question:
“Mr. President, what do you think the most important issue of
your second mandate will be?” Without hesitation, former
President Mitterand replied “I wish for all French citizens to
be able to have access to education and to be the best educated
people in the world, or among the best”.
I am convinced that the Liberal government has as I do, the same
aspirations for all Canadians, namely invest more in our
education system to allow each and every Canadian to have the
best advancement opportunities. This can be accomplished through
education. There is no other way to succeed in this world. There
is no other way to be part of the new economy. There can be no
progress without the highest possible level of education.
I realize that my time is up.
I thank the House for allowing me to say a few words. During the
weeks and months to come, I will talk again about those
important issues, not only on behalf of my riding but also on
behalf of our Canadian fellow citizens.
* * *
1250
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Earlier today, I believe that two members of the Bloc Quebecois
raised a point of order, perhaps even a question of privilege.
At that time, the Chair said it would not intervene until such
time as I also had an opportunity to add a few words prior to
the Chair's reaching its decision. I see that the Bloc whip is
with us, and I believe he is one of the members who spoke a
little while ago.
First, I want to take a moment to inform the Chair that I find
it totally unacceptable that someone in the House can say that
the government is under investigation when no minister of this
government as far as I know, is under any investigation. I do not
even know of any public servant involved in the matters in
question who might be under investigation, far less that the
government is under more than one investigation.
Second, if I understand correctly, the members across the way
have said that it was unacceptable for me to issue a challenge to
them to repeat this comment outside the House. Of course,
anyone familiar with Beauchesne's knows that this is a position
that has been advanced on a number of past occasions in
parliament.
If the members across the way have the right to make accusations
that prove false, here in the House, then I certainly have as
much right to challenge them to repeat those accusations outside
the House where they could be subject to the rigours of the
existing justice system.
Finally, I wish to add that certain candidates of that same
party on the other side of the floor made similar accusations
during the election campaign. A former member of parliament
from that party was served with a lawyer's letter during the
campaign. From then on, he stopped repeating the accusation.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am very grateful the House leader set out his point
of view for us. If you will permit me, I would like, in a few
minutes and without wasting the House's time, to respond or at
least correct certain impressions the government House leader
may have left.
First, it should be pointed out that my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was referring to the twenty or so
investigations of grants by Human Resources Development Canada.
They are a matter of fact. This is not rambling. These are not
gratuitous allegations. They are not wild imaginings of any
sort. They are a matter of fact and have been reported in the
media. This is all the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was
referring to.
That said, the government House leader can indeed get on his
high horse and tell us we can say it outside. What that
means and this is the basis for the question of privilege of the
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, is that to say it outside
implies as he mentioned earlier: repeat it outside and the
government could initiate proceedings.
It means that a member could go outside—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Would the hon. member please
conclude his remarks, as this is not a debate.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I am arguing on the merits
and not debating.
Therefore, this means, to all intents and purposes, that the
government is threatening MPs with proceedings, if necessary, if
it does not like what is said here in the House and could be
repeated outside. That is in direct contravention of the rights
and privileges of parliamentarians in this House, especially
those of the opposition.
1255
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): As this question of
privilege was raised while the Deputy Speaker was in the Chair,
and as he has already indicated to the House his intention to
return with a ruling once he has heard the government House
leader, we will continue with the debate on the motion before
the House at the moment.
* * *
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed 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. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the speech by the Liberal member, who
raised two main issues.
He referred to the throne speech, but he also talked about
health and education. His speech was pretty low keyed. Anyone
listening to him who does not know much about politics could
have thought “This is a reasonable man. He is talking about
health and education in the House of Commons”.
I know that the member represents a Quebec riding. As a
Quebecer, and also as an experienced and very knowledgeable
member of parliament, he should understand that he is addressing
two sensitive issues. I would like to ask him a very simple
question.
Is he aware that health and education are two areas under
exclusive provincial jurisdiction and that Quebecers are more
than a tad touchy when it comes to these issues?
When he says that education is a must to be successful in life,
should he not find the fortitude, and I would appreciate an answer
to this question, to say “The federal government must quickly
restore its transfer payments to the provinces to the 1995 level
and provide additional funds and then make up for inflation”. He
could mention that.
What the member seems to be saying is that his government will
be interfering directly in areas under provincial jurisdiction.
Of course, I cannot really blame him because, unfortunately, the
throne speech seems to indicate that there are no provincial
governments in this country and that Quebec does not exist. I
would like his comments on this.
Mr. Mark Assad: Madam Speaker, of course, I am aware that health
and education come under provincial jurisdiction.
Here is what I said: during the election, the health issue was
constantly raised. Indeed, the provinces were certainly very
happy to get the funds invested in this area by the federal
government. The investment was a very major one for the health
system, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
We all know that the federal government made a huge investment
in education. Universities need this money for research.
I even quoted the former French president to say that, even if
the area comes under provincial jurisdiction, it is extremely
important not only for Quebec, but also for all provinces and
all Canadians. We all live together in the same country and our
purpose is to move ahead together, not separately.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I did
not appreciate the answer from my Liberal colleague.
The Liberal members always refer to the last campaign. I think
they have not understood, or did not want to understand, what
was said during the last campaign.
We were saying that the government should restore transfer
payments to the provinces for health, education and social
services to the 1995 level. Right now, in 2001, that has not
been done. The crumbs given by the government is money that
belongs to the provinces in the first place and all the
provincial ministers are asking for it.
I think they should stop repeating what they said during the
campaign, as it has no connection with what was done in Canada
since 1995. I would like to hear the Liberal member talk about
the true facts, to hear him tell the truth.
1300
Mr. Mark Assad: Madam Speaker, rest assured that the Bloc
Quebecois are not the only ones telling the truth.
I would like to say to my hon. colleague that the people of
Quebec understood clearly what we said during the last election
campaign, as evidenced by the fact that we gained ten seats.
They understood clearly; the Bloc members are the ones who do not
understand.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my
colleague from St. Albert. It is an honour and a privilege for
me to rise today to give my third maiden speech.
I take the opportunity at the outset to thank my constituents,
the people of Prince George—Peace River, for again entrusting me
with the task of representing their interests here in the House
of Commons and elsewhere. I made a pledge when I first ran in
1988 to represent my constituents to Ottawa and never to
represent Ottawa to my constituents. Today I recommit to abide
by that promise.
I wish I had enough time to thank the dozens of people who
worked on my campaign adequately, not just in the last campaign
but over four successive ones. If I were to start naming the
individuals who were so instrumental in my being here today, it
would take the entire 10 minutes or more.
The throne speech was a shining example of a government devoid
of ideas, reticent of the realities its citizens face, and
committed to doing the bare minimum in order to remain in power.
That simply is not good enough. Canadians deserve more from
their government and we in the Canadian Alliance are demanding it
on their behalf.
At the beginning of the 37th parliament I am pleased to have
been reappointed the chief opposition transportation critic. As a
critic my job is not only to critique the actions and policies of
the government but to provide an alternate vision for
transportation to meet the economic and safety needs of
Canadians.
I am not fluent in vague, so it has been very difficult for me
to decipher what, if anything, of substance was contained in the
throne speech. Since the government has left the entire speech
open to interpretation, I will discuss the Canadian Alliance
vision and its plan to meet Canada's actual transportation needs.
I will not discuss rail or grain transportation, as my colleagues
from Prince Albert and Selkirk—Interlake have either already
done so or will do so in the near future.
There is no question that the new economy is an engine of growth
for Canada. That does not mean, however, that Canada's
traditional resource based industry should be abandoned in the
process. The throne speech was all about the information highway
and nothing about the Trans-Canada Highway.
The best way to promote innovation, growth and development in
all parts of our economy is to establish an efficient
transportation infrastructure system that will meet the needs of
large industry, small business, e-business, agriculture and
natural resource extraction.
The Internet and e-commerce require the ability to get products
to the consumer faster. People go online and point and click in
order to get immediate gratification, but we must be able to
physically deliver products and services faster to meet the
demands.
There is a commercial on television which sums up the
government's approach to the new economy. The commercial shows a
roomful of techies talking about their new business and all the
innovative Internet functions it can perform, until one of them
asks “What about delivery?” The fact that they needed to get
their product to the consumer had escaped them. So too has it
escaped the government.
To date the government has all but ignored our deteriorating
infrastructure. Canada's highways, ports and airports are
falling apart while we pay multiple levels of taxes and user fees
which stuff the general revenue's piggy bank.
Taxes are an investment in society. Canadians deserve a return
on their investment. They deserve safe roads and affordable air
travel, and they should not have to pay more for it.
I recommend that the government spend money, not new money, but
reinvest the money collected from the transportation sector back
into that sector.
1305
The very thought of so-called dedicated revenues sends shivers
down spines in the finance minister's office because it limits
political choices the government can make about spending. The
improvement of our infrastructure is vital to our future
prosperity, and as such funding should be dedicated.
The United States, our greatest trading partner and competitor,
is way ahead of us in this area. In 1998 the U.S. passed the
transportation and equity act for the 21st century. That bill
invests $217.9 billion over six years into infrastructure, a
large portion of which is for roads connecting its borders to
Canada and Mexico. That bill legislatively guarantees that a
minimum of 90.5% of federal fuel tax receipts from each state
will be returned to that state. That is foresight. That is what
we need from our government.
The federal government brings in about $5 billion a year from
fuel taxes and last year reinvested less than $200 million in
roads. That is only 4%. The Americans spend 90%. We spend less
than 5%.
NAFTA has augmented the amount of goods that cross our borders
daily. It is essential that the trade corridors through which
the economic lifeblood of our country flows be as efficient as
possible. We must reinvest in trade corridor initiatives that
will improve just in time manufacturing and the other demands of
the new economy. Why was there no mention of this in the throne
speech?
Recently President Clinton signed the rails to resources act
aimed at creating a rail link between Alaska and the lower 48
states through Prince George. A second phase would involve a 90
kilometre tunnel under the Bering Strait. Phase one of this
initiative is a tremendous opportunity for Canada, and in
particular for northern British Columbia. The city of Prince
George in my riding would benefit from the increased hub traffic.
I have spoken to Mayor Colin Kinsley and the Prince George city
council about this prospect and they are excited about the
potential for growth. Of course, the port of Prince Rupert would
also benefit from the increased volume as it is presently
underutilized.
The U.S. has set aside $5 million for feasibility studies. All
that is required is Canada's agreement to study the project. I
believe it would be a huge mistake and an enormous lost
opportunity to refuse to consider the proposal.
Not only is there a vision needed for the future but a plan for
fixing the mistakes of the past. When Transport Canada was still
in the business of running airports, it lost upward of $300
million a year. As a result of divestiture rents collected from
the 26 major airports it currently collects $220 million a year,
and this will grow to half a billion dollars a year.
This profit is gathered through fuel taxes, ticket taxes,
airport leases and the GST, resulting in consumers and smaller
airports bearing higher costs. As operating costs and hubs
increase, so too does the cost of tickets to and from smaller
destinations. This has reduced the number of people able to fly
and reduced the amount of tourist dollars spent in local
economies. However, the airport user fees are only one of the
problems facing Canada's airline industry.
Airline restructuring is creating chaos for the travelling
public and is hurting the tourism industry. Government is
supposed to protect consumer interests. It has had many options
to avoid the present monopoly, including increasing foreign
ownership limits for our airlines to better access capital.
Instead it chose the wait and see approach, and what have we
seen? We have seen a decline in competition, a reduction in
service, lost jobs and an increase in fares.
What of the emerging airlines? The government must do all it
can to ensure that the emerging airlines are unencumbered in
their ability to expand while protected from predatory practices.
It was encouraging to see the announced merger of Canada 3000
and Royal Air. This is a baby step closer to creating
competition in Canada. The emerging airlines are succeeding in
spite of the government's policies rather than as a result of
them.
One such policy, the CARS 308 issue, is indicative of the
differences in approach between the government and the Canadian
Alliance, and indeed of the problems inherent in the government's
approach to business.
1310
In 1995 Transport Canada began negotiating the divestiture of
its regional airports. Local airport authorities feel the
federal government negotiated in bad faith when it removed the
most costly elements of the airport's onsite and fire rescue
service.
After the vast majority of agreements were signed, ironically
the government decided it was necessary once more to have onsite
fire and rescue, at the airports' expense of course. The fact
that the regulations do not augment the safety of travellers and
will break the financial backs of some airports seems to be of
little or no consequence to the minister.
Obviously I could go on at great length pointing out the failure
of the throne speech as it relates to transportation.
Unfortunately, as many critics in the Canadian Alliance have
found, there is insufficient time to do a proper job. In the
days and weeks and months to come I am sure we will be looking at
these areas in greater detail.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, actually I found myself agreeing with
much of what the member opposite was saying because I too believe
that the federal government should be engaged in developing
Canada's infrastructure. I do agree with him that we should be
looking at improving the highway systems in the land, because of
course it benefits all Canadians.
Will he not agree with me also that the development of roads and
that kind of infrastructure is 100% a provincial responsibility,
and that when the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois say
that the federal government should not intrude into areas of
provincial responsibility, is there not a contradiction when he
says, and I agree, that certainly the federal government should
intrude in areas of provincial responsibility when it is the
matter of transportation and infrastructure?
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, there is no contradiction
whatsoever. I have had private conversations with the hon.
member, and he often cites as success, or what he deems as
success, the past infrastructure programs that have been set up
by the Liberal government.
We have often questioned some of the projects the government has
targeted, whether it was building bocce courts or canoe museums
rather than investing that money in road infrastructure or water
and sewer projects. Some of it was targeted for that and rightly
so.
If the member was listening to the thrust of my presentation, he
would know I was saying that in the United States the vast
majority of money from fuel revenues goes back to the states.
Those states then decide how to spend the money on road
infrastructure. I do not see a contradiction.
My party and I advocate the dedication of that revenue back to
the provinces. Yes, it is primarily their responsibility, but I
see no need for the federal government not to be involved at
least in some form of negotiation with the provinces so that we
have a truly national road system that is supported by taxation
from both levels of government.
Rather than shrugging their shoulders and saying that they will
continue to collect all the money from the fuel tax revenue which
flows into the general revenues piggy bank and is used however
they see fit, and rather than the finance minister constantly
coming up with new programs in which he doles out money for photo
ops for ministers, it should flow back to the provinces to be
used for real infrastructure to meet the needs of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to what the hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River had to say. I have two brief questions
to ask him.
Since before the election, the federal government, through the
finance minister, has not stopped taking great pride in the $125
they gave to the neediest people. It is now telling us that its
generosity cost $1.3 billion.
We have known for some time that about half of that money went
to people that do not pay for heating oil, to inmates and even
to deceased people. Does the member not find that this
government is a grand master in the art of painting a pretty
picture?
1315
Here is what I mean. As the member was saying earlier, we know
that the government is collecting $10.6 billion in excise tax on
gasoline. The cost of the measure it has announced is $1.3
billion.
Does the member not think that, with its surplus, the government
is just pretending to be generous, seeing that it has not
lowered the price of heating oil?
In my area, I still receive phone calls from elderly people
saying “The price of heating oil has not gone down yet. Last
year, it cost me $600. This year, it will cost me $1,200”. This
means that the government is painting a bright picture.
What has it done for independent truckers with regard to the
price of diesel fuel? Over the last year, there has been a 40%
increase in the price of diesel fuel. I would like my colleague
from the Canadian Alliance to tell me what the government should
have done and what it should do, rather than painting a bright
picture.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, I know my time is limited.
I will try and address the questions that my hon. colleague from
the Bloc raised.
Obviously, what she points out is very true. There is some very
poor planning in programs that the Liberal government has brought
forward. What we have advocated on this issue all along, and it
was in a lot of the questions in today's question period, is that
the government should be reducing the levels of taxation, thereby
providing relief to all the people faced with these high heating
bills and high energy costs.
One of the things the government could do immediately would be
to eliminate the GST on home heating fuel. This would be generic
to everyone and affect everyone's bottom line. I agree with my
hon. colleague from the Bloc, there is a very poor program.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate. Let me also
thank the constituents of St. Albert for returning me as their
member of parliament. They decided not to choose John Williams
from the NDP, who was also a candidate in my riding, as the
candidate, but they got the other John Williams. It led to an
interesting little election.
I have to compliment and thank the people who worked so hard on
my election. I think of Janet Bailey, my campaign chairman,
Charlie Schroeder, who was my assistant campaign chairman, and
Marlene and Tom Patterson who ran my sub-office in the city of
Spruce Grove.
Today, I want to focus on waste, mismanagement, incompetence and
everything else that we find in government. Just before the
election the auditor general tabled a report. He tabled another
report this week. I will quote from the auditor general's report
because these points should be on the record. Regarding the
stewardship of public funds he said that they deserve increased
attention. I have, as the President of the Treasury Board knows,
been trying to elevate the awareness of these things to
challenging the spending of this government in parliament.
I refer to pages 7 and 8 of the forward of the report of the
auditor general. In that he said:
But shortcomings of the sort revealed at HRDC—vague and
inconsistently applied eligibility criteria, breaches of
authority, absence of appropriate control and accountability
framework—are by no means exclusive to one program or one
department. We observed shortcomings of a similar nature (though
of a lesser magnitude) in our 1996 audit of the Canada
Infrastructure Works program, our 1997 audit of The Atlantic
Groundfish Strategy and our 1998 audit of grant and contributions
programs at Industry Canada and the Department of Heritage.
Talking about Canadians, he went on to say:
Frankly, I share their frustration. It is discouraging to
witness new incidents of waste and mismanagement crop up
hydra-like after older ones have been discovered and dispatched.
In my 10 years as Auditor General, I have seen significant
improvements...often under the pressure of fiscal constraints.
But progress has been too slow—
1320
It has been far too slow and seems to go on and on.
As we all know, the auditor general is retiring on March 31. He
has been tabling reports for 10 years with little or no sign that
the government wants to take these things seriously. For
example, we had the billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC. At
Heritage Canada, 19% of the files have not been subject to due
diligence. A further 30% of files were rated as borderline
acceptable. That is in paragraph 33.283 in chapter 33 of his
report.
It just seems that the government does not care until such time
as somebody points these things out and really slaps the
government on the side of the head to get it to do something.
Page 3411 of his report deals with HRDC and the employment
insurance fraud which has been going on for many years. For many
years HRDC and CCRA officials have been aware of suspected
fraudulent practices related to the false record of employment
forms and no action has been taken. How can this be?
Think of social insurance numbers which were introduced back in
the early sixties.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was away from the Chamber momentarily but I thought
that when I left we were debating the Speech from the Throne. The
debate I am hearing is on the auditor general's report. Is this
relevant to the debate?
Mr. John Williams: Madam Speaker, money is always
relevant and the waste and mismanagement of it is always
relevant.
Let us talk about the waste and mismanagement of money that the
government outlined in the throne speech, and how it is going to
spend it. The problem is that it spends it with abandon,
carelessly, without proper control and proper diligence. That is
why I am talking about waste and mismanagement in the context of
the throne speech. It is relevant and always will be.
I was talking about social insurance numbers which were
introduced in the early sixties back in the days before we had
sophisticated computers. We now have sophisticated programs to
send cheques out to everybody.
However, back in those days an income tax number, social
insurance number, was basically a file at Revenue Canada. If
anyone had a file with Revenue Canada it basically meant he or
she had to pay money. Now if we have file with Revenue Canada,
it usually means a cheque in the mail. We talked about it this
week. The Minister of Finance has sent out $125 to all people
who do not qualify for the heating oil rebate, including my
own son. Guess who pays the utility bill in my home? It is not
him.
Concerning the social insurance numbers, one person got 76
social insurance numbers and was getting 76 child tax benefit
cheques in the mail every month. The government never reviewed
the management of social insurance numbers for 30 years, until
the auditor general pointed it out. Then it decided that maybe
it should do something about it. He does say in the report that
the government is doing something, but only after 30 years.
We have treasury board which is not exempt. Let me quote what
he says about the treasury board. He said:
I think he is referring to what we call the performance reports.
Treasury board writes all these rules but it does not police
them. It sends them out to the deputy ministers and departments
who just say “Well, that's okay”. They do what they want
because treasury board does not hold them accountable. Until
such time as treasury board starts policing its own rules for
departments, we will to continue to find taxpayers' money being
wasted every time we turn around.
Money was wasted deliberately by the Minister of Finance. He
sent out $1.3 billion of cheques out in the mail which were
approved, by the way, under special warrant because parliament
was not sitting.
I hope the President of the Treasury Board is going to be making
a report to us soon because without parliament's approval the
government should not be spending any money unless it is urgent.
I am not exactly sure that my son really needed that $125 right
away. Some may, but there are hundreds of thousands of people
who live in apartments.
1325
Yesterday an MP told me that one of his constituents who chops
his own wood got a cheque for about $600. That was for he and
his family members. It did not cost him a nickel for his heating,
but he got a cheque in the mail. We find these programs, at an
election time, very susceptible. This should have been a better
defined program. It should have been targeted to the people who
really need it. We acknowledge that there are people who need
it. There are people who have difficulty paying these utility
bills as the rates go right through the roof because the
provincial and federal governments have not properly managed the
production of energy for the country.
Now the consumer has to pay for government's mistakes. The
government sends out cheques but to the wrong people, and others
still have a hard time. We would hope that the government would
listen to Canadians and ensure that their money is well spent.
The other day I pointed out the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle.
Now we have the Minister of Health and his problems with the
Fontaine native health treatment centre in Manitoba. After years
of knowing that there were problems, he has finally decided to
have a forensic audit after $30 million went down the drain.
There were cruises in the Caribbean and deputy ministers going to
Hawaii courtesy of the taxpayer. Only after it became a public
issue did the government say that it got caught and that it
better do something about it. That is no way to run a household.
It certainly is no way to run a business and by far no way to
run a country.
I would hope that since we are into a new parliament and we now
have a throne speech that the government will take its
responsibilities seriously and ensure that if it is going to
spend taxpayers' money, that it spends it wisely and well.
Yesterday, the Minister of Justice yesterday said that public
business is a public trust. I would hope the government will
live up to that, starting today.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wonder if the people in St.
Albert actually made a mistake and sent the wrong person to
Ottawa. Perhaps they were as confused as the member for St.
Albert is today.
The members opposite talked about the heating oil rebate program.
We could have had people filling in forms. The members opposite
love filling in forms. The people would have then had their
cheques by next winter. That would have been a reasonable option
according to the member.
The Alliance Party put a motion in the House just before the
election calling for a reduction in the excise tax on gasoline.
A comparable amount to the $1.3 billion would have been maybe a
cent a litre. Of course that money would have gone to the oil
companies. I assume then that when the member says there are
people in need, he actually meant the oil companies because a
litre of gas goes up and down a cent in one afternoon. We knew
that a cent a litre would go straight to the oil companies and
not to Canadians. That was the proposition the Alliance
Party brought to the floor.
One of the members opposite also talked about the fact that half
of the people who are getting the cheques do not need them.
Eleven million Canadians are getting them, so a half of 11
million would be 5.5 million Canadians, low income Canadians who
do not need heat or who do not have to pay for heat. In some other
provinces they might have very generous landlords who do not pass
on their costs
Could the member for St. Albert confirm to the House if he
really feels the rebate should have gone to the oil companies in
line with the Alliance's proposition before the election was
called?
1330
Mr. John Williams: Madam Speaker, this is the typical
logic that we get from Liberals. They call themselves the
government. We all know that half the price of gasoline is tax.
If they were to reduce the excise tax by one cent, five cents or
ten cents, surely as a government they could police it too and
ensure that the consumer received it and not the oil companies.
It is that simple. They are the government.
For the hon. member to say that the oil companies would grab the
extra cents demonstrates the incompetence of the government in
the House.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify something
with the member for St. Albert. The fundamental problem with the
energy rebate was that it was a thrown together, knee-jerk
reaction because of an imminent federal election.
If they fail to plan, to set targets or to work with accurate
information and simply throw money out in a shotgun approach to
buy votes, they are bound to find out in many cases that the
people who were not supposed to receive the money or did not
qualify to receive it are getting it. That is the fundamental
flaw of the plan.
I am sure the member for St. Albert will agree that a
conservative thinking government can be shown to be clearly more
caring than a Liberal government. A conservative thinking
government gives out government money for specific projects to
help people. It targets the funds specifically to people who
need it, instead of the shotgun approach the Liberal government
uses where it throws the money out there and hopes the people who
need it get it. In the meantime a lot of people who simply want
it get it.
I think I have made my point about what type of government would
be a more caring government for Canadians. Perhaps the member
for St. Albert could confirm that.
Mr. John Williams: Madam Speaker, we all know that the
government cares about the government and does not care much
about anybody else. That is a fundamental fact.
The member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley is right. The
government's big announcement the week before the election was
that it would send cheques out to Canadians to help them with
their home heating bills.
Good stuff, but they did not tell people, as they were going to
the polls to vote for a government that was to send them a
cheque, that some of them would not get one. The Liberals sent
cheques out to a few people, the wrong people and say they
fulfilled their election promise. If Canadians had known the
real facts based on that announcement, that they would not get a
cheque, I doubt very much they would have returned the
government.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am going to dedicate my remarks
primarily to the issue of private members' business.
I am also delighted to follow the member for St. Albert so that
I can also put on the record some of my observations about that
fuel rebate before I go into the main text of my speech.
I would point out to the member for St. Albert that I have an
older single woman in her eighties living in the village who lost
her husband many years ago. She lives in my village. She lives
in an Insulbrick house. Her total income is about $12,000 a
year. It is only old age security. If the government had not
acted as fast as possible on that fuel rebate, she would have
felt the cold.
Moreover, low income Canadians who do not pay for their own home
heating fuel, who are tenants of landlords, also benefit from
this because, as the Liberal member mentioned, what happens with
landlords is when the fuel price goes up they pass on the cost to
their tenants.
1335
When those tenants are low income tenants, they are going to
feel that pinch. My view is that the government did exactly the
right thing. It did away with all the potential red tape that
would have come from the conservative proposals we heard
opposite. What it did was it got it out as fast as possible.
Obviously it was imperfect but at least 80% or 90% of Canadians
who needed that rebate, whether they needed it directly or
indirectly, did benefit.
Let us just get it straight. If the government did act in a
compassionate fashion, and if it had taken the course that was
proposed by the Canadian Alliance, then the people like the one
that I just mentioned, people who want to live alone but live
independently and have small means, they would have suffered. I
can tell you, Madam Speaker, the snow is deep in Ontario as
well as out west and as well as on the east coast.
I really want to dedicate my remarks to the issue of private
members' business. This is relevant to the Speech from the
Throne because at various times during the speeches the issue of
opportunities for MPs has come up and whether or not backbench
MPs in particular and opposition MPs can have a meaningful
legislative impact on the House.
I think what has been missing from the debate is the opposition
has tended to suggest that there have been no attempts at reform,
no attempts at expanding the opportunities of backbench MPs.
Well in fact, precisely the opposite has occurred.
I would like, for the benefit of Canadians, to just give a
little history of private members' business since 1993 when the
Liberals came to power after the Conservatives. If the House
will recall, we came back with quite a large majority.
Theoretically, when a government has a large majority, it can do
whatever it pleases in the sense that it really can afford to
ignore the backbench, but in fact, this government did not.
At the very outset, this government, at least as far as its own
members were concerned, decreed that all private members'
business would be subject to free votes on this side. As a
government, we cannot dictate to what opposition leaders say to
their own MPs, but on this side from 1993 onward it was free
votes.
Second, the government invited, not initially willingly, but
after a little while the government invited private members'
business from this side, as a matter of fact, from anyone, of
more substance.
Prior to 1993, ordinarily a private member's bill would deal
with an extremely non-controversial, even trivial topic,
something that the government did not have to worry about, such
as a name change or things that cost the government no money,
that would have no potential negative political impact.
One of the things that changed after 1993 was that the
government showed a willingness to accept private members' bills
that dealt with more substance. Indeed, we started out in that
line and there were some notable successes.
I remind the House on all sides that—
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have been listening very carefully to the Liberal
member from the beginning, and what he is saying has absolutely
nothing to do with the Speech from the Throne. I fail to see the
connection—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I wish to remind hon.
members that there is a lot of leeway in terms of the type of
debate that takes place during the response and the motion to the
throne speech on both sides of the House.
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, actually I am sure the
member knew that quite well, but there is some hesitancy on the
other side of the House to want to acknowledge that in fact we
have advanced the opportunities of backbench MPs and we have
advanced private members' business.
There seems to be a theme of the criticism coming from the
opposition that it wants to demean the opportunities of being a
member of parliament. It wants to demean the fact of members of
parliament having all kinds of opportunities. The very
opportunity to speak in this place is an enormous opportunity
that other Canadians do not have.
1340
Coming back to my theme, and it is relevant to the Speech from
the Throne because the throne speech is all about where
parliament is going in the near term, where I will lead in my
speech is to the fact that indeed there is going to be a new
incentive and new efforts to expand private members' business.
Let me return to the history because it is very important to
understand that expanding private members' business and having
free votes is not as easy as it seems. In theory it seems great;
in fact it is very difficult.
As the members on the opposite side will know only too well in
the matter of free votes, it took them years before their leaders
would allow them to have free votes on private members' business.
We could see that on this side because they always voted in
unison on private members' business, always in unison, and surely
there would be some dissent on that side, one or two, but no, it
was always the same.
On this side of course there were MPs who would support
opposition private members' bills, and opposition private
members' bills actually did pass. I remember there was one from
the Bloc Quebecois dealing with the medical use of marijuana.
That was an opposition private member's bill and it passed.
It received support from the backbench MPs here. It had nothing
to do with the cabinet. It had everything to do with the
backbench MPs on this side recognizing that an opposition MP had
an excellent bill and that it should be supported, and it was
supported.
On this side of the House I remember a Liberal member introduced
a private member's bill that determined that those who would
deliberately circumvent the Access to Information Act should be
subject to a fine and even jail term. That succeeded. It was
riding of Brampton West—Mississauga and that was a major step
forward.
That did not occur prior to 1990. It just did not simply
happen. The opposition, particularly the Canadian Alliance alias
the Reform or however we say it, has never been willing to
recognize that because it is not in its interest.
Private members' business and free votes brings with it
significant problems. Also, introducing private members' bills
that have real substance brings in significant problems. The
reality is that individual members do not have the resources of
government or even the resources of an opposition party to do the
kind of due diligence on a weighty subject pertaining to private
members' business that perhaps has to be done.
What happens and what we have found on all sides of the House is
that the member may advance a very important private member's
initiative and the government and the bureaucracy may genuinely
find problems that have not been considered.
We wind up with a situation where the government knows that the
bill has a very negative impact that the member is not
considering. So the government is opposed on the advice of the
bureaucracy in the Department of Justice.
Yet the backbench MPs on this side not considering it in the
kind of depth that the government is considering the issue and
the opposition MPs wanting to encourage a private member's
initiative on this side or that side, what happens in the end is
that the private member's bill, and several have actually done
this, can get through the whole process because it is free votes
on this side and get through third reading and actually go on to
the Senate and be fundamentally flawed.
This was a problem that those of us on this side who were very
interested in private members' business did not anticipate. The
Senate on a couple of occasions blocked private members' bills
that had passed this House. This is a very significant step
because the Senate is not entitled to block a government bill. It
can return a government bill to the House for amendment but it
cannot actually stop it. The Senate has actually blocked private
members' bills.
I would say that what we are looking at here is a very important
opportunity for the Senate because I think it is very important
to give private members lots of opportunity to bring in bills of
significance and substance; but there has to be a check
somewhere. Somebody has to do the kind of due diligence that the
member himself cannot do and that other members are unlikely to
do.
This is another reality about private members' business. When a
private member submits a bill, and it is in second reading debate
and then it comes to second reading vote, often members want to
support that bill on all sides of the House simply because they
want to support a private member.
They want to support initiatives that come from backbench MPs, be
they on this side or that side. What happens is then private
members' legislation can escape through the House of Commons and
it may not be as well thought out as it should be.
1345
So what I hope in the future is that we will see significant
activity on the part of the Senate in examining private members'
legislation that reaches the Senate so that the bills, if they do
get royal assent, are really bills that will help Canadians and
are of value to the nation.
In the free votes I was mentioning that is a problem too,
because the fact of the matter is that many members do not study
the private members' legislation in the same way as they might
government legislation, and in fact the reality, when it comes to
party discipline or free votes, is that many MPs on both sides of
the House do not usually look in detail at any legislation, be it
government legislation or private members' legislation.
Therefore, when it comes to a free vote situation then it
becomes incumbent upon the MPs to examine the bills in great
detail and often they do not. That is the reality, and they
probably never shall. Somewhere along the line, if private
members' legislation is going to be a useful addition to
parliamentary life, we have to make sure that legislation is
examined in depth.
We had a problem on this side when it came to free votes.
Because the members are not always reading the private members'
legislation or considering the full impact, what was happening
was that the backbench MPs on this side, when a private member's
bill—even though it is a free vote—was being voted on after
second reading, would watch the members stand along the front
benches. And because they had not read the legislation and
because people want to generally be on side with their
leadership, they would take their cue from the front benches.
What you would see was everyone standing at the two benches here,
and then everyone on the back benches. To address this problem
the subcommittee on private members' business held consultations
with backbench MPs that went over several years and issued a
report, first a report just before the 1997 election and then a
final report after the election.
Thanks to the guidance of the chairman of that committee, the
member for Mississauga Centre, a number of very, very important
recommendations to improve private members' business were made in
that report and subsequently adopted by the government. One of
those recommendations, which is now the practice of the House and
which led to a change in the standing order, is the idea that
when the House is voting on a private member's bill the Speaker
will count the votes from the back benches forward.
So any Canadian watching a private members' vote will see that
the vote is counted from behind. That way, the true backbench
MPs do not have the opportunity to take the cue from the front
bench. Indeed, it has encouraged them to pay more attention to
private members' legislation and it gives the opportunity to the
member who has the bill, be it an opposition member or a
government member, to actually solicit support.
That has been an enormous step forward in private members'
business, just an enormous step forward. I think, if I remember
correctly, because I was involved as a witness before the
committee, that idea in fact was the idea of the member for
Mississauga Centre. I think she has significantly changed
parliamentary life just by that one change to the standing order.
That report had other innovations as well. One of the great
problems with private members' business is the fact that in order
to have one's bill advanced for debate in the House it goes into
a kind of lottery. In fact, every now and then, about three
times a year, the Commons clerical staff literally put their
hands into a hat and draw 30 names of members of parliament. If
those members of parliament have motions or private members'
bills submitted at first reading, then those bills can go forward
and be debated in the House.
1350
Madam Speaker, I have to tell you that I have put in a number of
private members' bills over the years and I have never been
picked in that lottery in six years—six years, Madam Speaker.
The mathematics, the statistics, of that process are such that
with 301 MPs it is possible to never be picked for 10 years.
So another innovation that was brought in by the subcommittee on
private members' business was the concept of a member of
parliament getting the support of 100 members of parliament from
all sides of the House. Actually what it breaks down to is 100
members from at least 3 parties, in which 2 of those parties
would have at least 10 members supporting the bill. It is a
little complicated, but the point is that the member could show
broad support from the backbench MPs. It could buy his bill
support to bypass the lottery and go directly on the order paper.
That innovation, I think, was a superb innovation because it at
least reduces the element of chance. Or to say it another way,
it makes it not a factor of chance alone to advance a significant
bill. I think that was a very important innovation.
However, in practice it did not work very well. It had a lot of
problems because a lot of members found it very difficult,
because when they were given a list asking for the support, and
the idea was to write their signature, they were torn between
whether they should sign it because the bill was good or whether
they should sign it because they liked the member who had the
legislation.
It is the old story when we have free votes. For free votes, be
it signing your signature to something that is going directly
onto the order paper or whether it is a free vote on the actual
vote going through the House, the problem is that if we do not do
our due diligence we might decide that we want to support the
legislation simply because we like the member who is putting it
forward or because the member is on our side or whatever else.
I guess the jury is still out on that process. I do believe
that the subcommittee for private members' business, which has
been re-struck just recently, is going to reconsider that matter
and see whether there is a way of amending that bit of
legislation to make it work a little better.
I should mention, that I am happy to report to
the House that the chairman of the subcommittee on private
members' business is the member for Mississauga Centre, so can I
expect her to give due attention to improving private members'
business in every way, including this.
Finally, there is another problem with private members'
legislation that I have not so far touched upon. One of the
advantages that the government has when it introduces legislation
is that the government has all the power of government and the
bureaucracy to fight off the special interests that attack
legislation. Any bill that is presented before the House, if it
has any substance at all, is going to be the subject of attack
from special interest groups, because the reality in society is
that there are always those who support and there are always
those who are against. So in the species at risk bill that is
coming up right now, you can be very, very sure that there is
going to be an enormous pressure that will come forward from
various special interest groups.
So it was, with a private member's bill that I
put forward on reforming the Access to Information Act last year.
It was defeated in this House, a bill that would have advanced
transparency of government. It was defeated in this House by
opposition members. It was defeated primarily by the Bloc
Quebecois and primarily by the Canadian Alliance. It was
supported primarily by the NDP and supported by the
Conservatives. It was defeated, not because they were against
private members' business. It was defeated because every one of
those MPs over there was subject to pressure from special
interest groups, because when you bring transparency to
government, when you bring transparency to crown corporations,
they are going to put a lot of pressure on individual MPs.
There is a lot to do here, but we are making a
lot of progress, perhaps not with as much help as I would like
from the opposite side.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points.
At the beginning of his remarks the member implied that it is
our position that the throne speech contains no attempts to
improve parliament. That is not our position. Our position is
that the provisions of the throne speech to improve parliament
are pathetically inadequate. I just want to make that clear.
1355
My comment and question really is on the first part of the
member's remarks, wherein he dismisses the idea that energy
consumers would be better helped by a tax reduction rather than a
rebate.
This member and other members opposite have resisted every
suggestion to reduce consumption taxes on fuel or anything else
by saying that it will not be passed on to the ultimate consumer,
that it will be absorbed by the oil company, the manufacturer,
the distributor or someone else. This is their argument as to
why there is no point in reducing consumption taxes: that they
cannot do it because they cannot pass it on to the consumer.
In 1993 the Liberal Party itself promised to eliminate a
consumption tax, the GST. It would never have promised that if
it had not believed that there was some mechanism to ensure that
the reduction in that tax was passed on to the taxpayer. Why
does the government not take that mechanism, which it had in
place when it planned to eliminate the GST, and use it to pass on
a reduction in fuel consumption taxes to hard pressed energy
users?
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, the answer is clearly
speed and target. What we had to do is that we had to get a
break on fuel taxes to the people who needed it most. The
problem with just an across the board rebate is of course that it
benefits the rich and the people who do not need it quite as
desperately as those who do. We are definitely a government
that, if we are going to respond, we are able to respond to what
I think was a real crisis in fuel prices. We responded quickly.
If we had chosen the rebate route it would have taken about a
year and it would have helped a lot of people who do not need
help.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
find it rather paradoxical to hear our colleague on the
government side talk about government integrity, and the greater
role members have been given by the government, when this very
morning we could read on the front page of La Presse that the
Liberals were getting ready to vote against one of the red
book's promises.
How can the member rise in the House, talk about independence of
thought, integrity, giving more power to members, when just like
in The Silence of the Lamb he, along with every government
member, is going to vote against the red book?
I sincerely believe the member is one of the too many Pharisees
on the government benches. Let us hope that one day in the
future we and the other opposition parties will be able to wake
up the government so that it lives up to the promises it made in
the red book.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, in the absence of the member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot—
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
put a question to the member. He cannot talk about independence
of thought and flee like Louis XVI in The Hunchback of
Notre-Dame.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I remind the hon. member
that we do not refer to whether someone is here or not here in the House.
[English]
Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Speaker, you were quite right
to advise the member of the Bloc not to talk about the fact that
the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot fled the
House. You were quite right to bring that up, Madam Speaker.
There he is.
It was almost laughable, if it was not such a serious thing,
when the Liberal member in his presentation talked about how, in
order to catch the cabinet members, the whip and the Prime
Minister off guard, for private members' bills they count from
the back down. How surprised the Prime Minister and the cabinet
must be with the votes. How surprised they must be.
1400
Let us say this to all Canadians, that that is not exactly the
way it happens. Prior to the members coming in, sitting on their
desks, private member's bills or not, is either a demand or a
recommendation from the government whip. We have seen those on
the government benches. When the member so piously talks about
how the Liberals have such free votes and how the whips cannot
see how the members are voting, that is absolute hogwash. The
member knows it and now Canadians know it.
Mr. John Bryden: Actually, Madam Speaker, that is not
done by the whip. The whip does not attempt to interfere in
private member's business. What was actually happening with
that, and it was something that evolved when the legislation got
very controversial because it was not always well thought out, is
that I think the person responsible for private members' business
was sending notices around indicating the government's position.
All it does is indicate usually the Department of Justice's
position on it.
That was the initiative of the member who was the chairman of
the subcommittee on private members' business at that time, not
the member for Mississauga Centre I should stress. It was a
subsequent member.
It was a very, very poor practice and I never want to give the
impression that we have perfected the operation of private
members' business on this side or on the other side. I am hoping
that in this parliament that will be discontinued and we will not
do that, because I felt the pain of that when my access to
information bill came before the House. I think some members
were influenced by what was before them on their desks and I hope
that will stop.
I have to say further that I have watched that side,
particularly that party, particularly when it was under the
leadership of the member for Calgary Southwest, and there was not
a ripple of dissent during most private members' bills. There
was always unanimity. On this side we have had free votes. We
have voted contrary to the government's preference more than 2000
times. That is 2000 votes since free votes were instituted for
private members' business.
No, what Canadians need to see during a vote is to have the
camera panned and watch everyone on the other side jump up and
down like monkeys. On this side you will see dissent on private
members' business, Madam Speaker, and that is healthy dissent.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I think I can give a simple explanation to the member
opposite about the apparent perception of us voting according to
instructions. As a matter of fact, I have never ever voted the
way I have been told. I have always been persuaded, and that is
the way the House should be.
I think that the discrepancy between us apparently all voting
together and the members over there voting is that we are all
subject to collective fine minds and good wisdom. However, over
there occasionally, that being lacking but still being a whipped
vote, we get an unwise vote on that side and a good one on this
side.
I could give many examples of different votes which were held in
the previous two parliaments which were not good for this
country. I think of only one, the Nisga'a agreement. I think of
the vote on hepatitis C. Did I say only one? I mentioned two
before I could stop my tongue.
The idea of votes and members of parliament representing their
constituents here is absolutely critical. It just cannot be two
or three people putting their heads together and every time
without fail getting it perfect. So, why not listen to 301
members who are properly elected and who put forward amendments?
Surely we would be able then to get better legislation for the
Canadian people because we could improve it.
The mechanism now is that once it is brought in by the
government, even in committee, amendments are denied. We bring
amendments in here and they are denied. I have had members over
there say to me that some of the amendments I put forward in
committee were good amendments.
1405
However, when I asked why they voted against it in committee,
one of the Liberal members shrugged his shoulders and said that
they really did not have a choice. There was a contradiction
between what the member is saying and what I heard from another
one of his colleagues. I would really like to know what it is,
but clearly we do need to have the freedom as elected members to
represent—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member for
Vancouver East.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker,
first may I congratulate you on becoming the Acting Speaker of
the House. It is very nice to see a woman in the chair. I hope
that it is a worthwhile and rewarding experience. I will be
sharing my time today with the member for Palliser.
First, I will thank the people of Vancouver East who supported
me and voted for me in my re-election. We went through a very
interesting federal election campaign and here we are again, back
in the House and listening to yet another throne speech by the
government.
I have to say that I came back with some anticipation and maybe
even a little bit of eagerness that we might hear something new
from the government side, that something from the Canadian people
had resonated with the Prime Minister and government members in
terms of what would be in the throne speech.
Picking up on the debate that we have just been listening to
about parliamentary reform, I would like to begin with that
point. Speaking to backbench members of parliament, whether from
the government's side or opposition members, there is a very
strong feeling in this place that parliamentary reform and the
opening up of the Chamber, in terms of the kinds of rules and
procedures that apply, is something that is long overdue.
A lot of us were listening keenly to the throne speech to know
if there would be any indication that the message had fallen on
receptive ears on the government's side. Unfortunately that was
not the case. I would agree with the member for Calgary
Southwest who said that the so-called comments about
parliamentary reform in the throne speech were absolutely
pathetic.
I think of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle who has long
championed the issue of parliamentary reform. I think of the
discussions I have had with our House leader, the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona, a person who really understands what
fundamental changes have taken place in the House regarding
parliamentary democracy. It is really a sad day that we have
come to a point where a lot of us are talking about parliamentary
reform but nothing has really changed.
In listening to the throne speech, the thing that I was paying
attention to was whether the government would be willing to
address what is truly a national crisis in our country: the
growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Just the other day we had a report from the Vanier Institute
that clearly showed that the gap between the rich and the poor
was growing. It pointed out that 20% of families with the
highest income saw their share of earnings rise 6.6% while the
lowest fifth, the lowest 20%, saw their share shrink by 5.2%.
The other day in question period I told the government that the
growing inequality in our country, the growing poverty where more
and more families are experiencing difficulty in paying the rent
and finding work, or living on substandard wages, is a direct
result of a decade of failed Liberal policies that have created
this inequality. I must say that the throne speech failed
miserably to address that issue in any substantial way.
One of the concerns I have, in reading through the throne
speech, is that the reference to a national project on poverty
was nothing more than a new guise for a program that one could
consider a workfare type of program, where low income parents on
welfare would be motivated or compelled to work in the low wage
ghettos and be subsidized. It is really a subsidization program
for employers who provide very low wages.
That is the government's answer to dealing with poverty. It
does not deal with the reality that one in six Canadians live
below the poverty line. It does not deal with the reality that
many aboriginal people are living in destitution and poverty on
reserves as well as off reserves.
1410
The messages and the commitments in the throne speech were
utterly disappointing in addressing what I believe is truly a
national crisis.
The same goes for housing. Any organization that has dealt with
this issue, national housing groups, housing advocates and people
who deal on the front line, have said over and over again that
what the government must do is get back into the housing supply
program. There is no getting away from that simple
straightforward fact.
Instead, what did we see in the throne speech? We saw one
reference where the government will stimulate the creation of
more affordable rental housing. What this says to me is that the
government is now ready to begin a program of basically
subsidizing developers. This is not a national housing strategy.
This will not provide affordable housing for families, single
people and seniors, the people who really need it.
Canada had good housing programs. They were dismantled by this
government. It was one of the things that fell under the axe
when the finance minister brought in his draconian cuts which
were basically done on the backs of the poor people. The housing
program was one of the victims of that. As a result, we now have
something like 200,000 people sleeping on the streets. We have
millions of Canadians who are inadequately housed.
I was very disappointed that we got a mere line in the throne
speech and no reference to a real national housing strategy.
This is particularly reprehensible when one considers that the
finance minister, who is sitting on a big fat surplus, 10 years
ago in the opposition actually produced a very good housing
report. The report called for a lot of the kinds of programs
that people today are still today calling for. Does that
minister believe in his own report that he wrote a decade ago?
It is the kind of hypocrisy that makes Canadians feel very
cynical about the political process.
As the spokesperson in our party on the issue of post-secondary
education, I try to stay on top of what the government is doing
or is not doing when it comes to helping students. We only heard
about the innovations of the high tech future of Canada, the
vision of the future and the knowledge based economy. All these
platitudes there were in the throne speech. There was not a
single reference to the crushing debt that students are facing in
the country.
Why is Canada only one of three OECD countries without a
national grants program? Why is the average student debt now
$25,000? Why have student loan bankruptcies increased 700% since
1989? It is because the government has abandoned post-secondary
education. The retreat of public funding and the dramatic
increase in tuition fees of about 240% is now hammering students.
They are graduating into poverty. That is the Liberal answer to
post-secondary education.
When it comes to issues of justice and equality, the throne
speech had nothing to offer. When we put the picture together
and looked at where we are headed as Canadians, I and my
colleagues and in the New Democratic Party have very deep
concerns about the vision of the government. We have concerns
about the very role of government. It has changed its vision of
helping people, of providing a social safety net and of
strengthening democracy. It has now become the propaganda
machine and the movers and shakers for globalization.
We were also looking for references that would deal with the
threats of corporate globalization, that would respond to the
concerns from Canadians about how the free trade area of the
Americas and the WTO and these trade agreements and how the
issues and concerns about weakening democracy in those agreements
were going to be dealt with. Again, the throne speech was silent
on this matter. There were no references to banning bulk water
exports, something that Canadians are extremely concerned about.
There was no commitment to environmental labour or public concern
about meeting to carve out these issues in any trade deals.
1415
We in the New Democratic Party see this as the most pressing
issue before us. Whether we are talking about health care,
education, culture or our very democratic foundation, we are
threatened by globalized trade agreements that are literally
transferring power from democratically elected governments to
private corporations that have no accountability. The government
is allowing that to take place.
We are just a small group but we will be a very strong force in
taking on this issue in parliament and challenging the government
on its agenda in this regard.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 2. 15 p. m.,
pursuant to order made earlier today, every question necessary
to dispose of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne
is deemed to have been put, and the deferred division is deemed
to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, February 13,
2001, at the conclusion of Government Orders.
[English]
It being 2.16 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.16 p.m.)