37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 005
CONTENTS
Friday, February 2, 2001
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
1010
1015
1020
1025
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1030
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1035
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
1040
1045
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1050
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| 37TH PARLIAMENT
|
| Mr. Alan Tonks |
1100
| CYPRESS HILLS—GRASSLANDS
|
| Mr. David Anderson |
| INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
| HULL—AYLMER
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| YUKON
|
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| SANDRA SCHMIRLER
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| SPORTS
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
1105
| ANDRÉ D'ALLEMAGNE
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| NUNAVUT
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1110
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
|
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
1115
| MEMBER FOR ELK ISLAND
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1120
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. John Manley |
| PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1125
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| FUEL PRICES
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1130
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1135
| Hon. John Manley |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| INTERNATIONAL AID
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
1140
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1145
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CINAR
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1150
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Ivan Grose |
1155
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| CONTAMINATED WATER
|
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1200
| FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY
|
| Bill C-4. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1205
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
| BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
|
| Bill C-203. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| LABOUR MARKET TRAINING ACT
|
| Bill C-204. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1210
| CANADA WATER EXPORT PROHIBITION ACT
|
| Bill C-205. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-206. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| ENERGY PRICE COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-207. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-208. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-209. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1215
| MARINE LIABILITY ACT
|
| Bill S-2. First reading
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1220
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1225
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
1230
1235
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1240
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1245
1250
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1255
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1300
1305
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1310
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1315
1320
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1325
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1330
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1335
1340
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1345
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1350
1355
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1400
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1405
1410
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1415
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1420
1425
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 005
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 2, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from February 1 consideration of the motion
for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply
to her speech at the opening of the session and of the amendment.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have rise in the House
since your election. I am delighted to see you in the chair.
You have demonstrated great skill in the role as the Deputy
Speaker. We look forward to one of the most productive
parliaments that one could possibly expect as a result of your
leadership and your skills as Speaker.
I am pleased to rise to speak on the Speech from the Throne. As
Minister of the Environment it is my particular responsibility to
concern myself with Canada and our natural heritage from coast to
coast to coast.
We are blessed to live in a country that is rich in nature,
wilderness and ample resources. This rich natural heritage is a
sacred trust passed from one generation to the next. Indeed, as
former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau used to remark
“geography and nature defines us as Canadians”.
[Translation]
As Canadians, we understand that protecting the environment is
not an option. It is a must-do. Nothing is more fundamental in
this country.
[English]
That is why one of the key planks in the government's plan for
its third mandate is to ensure a clean, healthy environment for
Canadians and the preservation of our natural species.
For its part the Government of Canada has already made
significant investments in the environment by supporting
community initiatives, funding research, facilitating the
development of new environmental technologies, supporting
international environmental initiatives, and strengthening
measures to reduce air and water pollution.
[Translation]
Our work is paying off. Just last month at the world economic
forum in Davos, Switzerland, a study was released which shows
that, together with Finland and Norway, Canada is one of the top
three countries in environmental sustainability.
Canada ranks third on an environmental sustainability index, the
most comprehensive global report comparing environmental
conditions and environmental performance across 122 countries.
[English]
We can be proud of that progress, but we should not be content
to rest on our laurels. I would like to speak today to how the
government intends to build on this and other environmental
achievements to ensure the preservation of our vast landscape and
the wealth of our natural resources for future generations to
come.
Specifically I will address clean air and clean water, the
conservation of Canada's parks and species at risk, health
protection and climate change.
[Translation]
Our goal is to help Canadians push the frontiers of
environmental science and technology. Let me stress that
science must be the foundation of all our environmental
policies.
[English]
If we do not have the science right we obviously will not get
the policies right. By investing in our science capacity and
sustainable practices we can harness the power of science to
support our environmental goals and to protect and promote the
health of Canadians.
[Translation]
Science is already showing us that children do not react the
same way as adults to toxic substances. They are not small
adults. They are at the most delicate stage of development and one
of the most at risk groups.
[English]
In its third mandate the first key step for the government will
be to fill critical research gaps that exist now so that we can
assist in developing the appropriate standards to safeguard the
special vulnerabilities of our children.
Our science also tells us that some 5,000 Canadians annually die
prematurely because of air pollution.
Hundreds of thousands of others suffer from aggravated asthma,
and I am one of them, bronchitis, and other respiratory
illnesses. Now we are learning that air pollution affects our
health at lower levels than we previously thought.
1010
[Translation]
Canada has already launched the beginnings of a clean air
strategy. It addresses transboundary pollution, vehicle and
fuel standards, industrial sectors and the science of air
quality. In so doing, it engages Canadians and the communities
in which they live to become part of the solution.
[English]
We have also reached other important national and bilateral
agreements related to air pollution. In December I had the
pleasure and privilege of signing on behalf of Canada the ozone
annex to the 1991 Canada-United States air quality agreement,
committing both our countries to significantly reducing the
creation of smog causing pollutants in the eastern half of this
continent.
In our new mandate the Government of Canada will move quickly to
implement that ozone annex and to extend it to the western part
of the continent. The annex complements many other initiatives
already underway to improve air quality in Canada itself,
including the Canada-wide standards for particulate matter and
ozone agreed to by the federal, provincial and territorial
governments only some six months ago.
[Translation]
The quality of our air is rightly one of the top concerns of
Canadians. So is the quality of our water. Indeed, the quality
of our water is now preoccupying Canadians from all walks of
life and all levels of government.
[English]
The Government of Canada is committed to working with all
partners and all levels of government to protect Canadians from
the dangers of polluted water. During their June 2000 meeting
the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of the
environment agreed to establish three task groups to deal with
water management issues including water quality, demand, use
management and preventable measures for water hazards such as
flooding. We have put some $135 million into supporting
municipal projects through the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities that protect the environment such as waste water
treatment and solid waste management.
[Translation]
The Speech from the Throne commits the government to do more and
to take leadership in developing stronger national guidelines
for water quality. Drawing on expertise within the government
and across Canada we will significantly strengthen the role of
the National Water Research Institute.
We will invest in research and development to protect surface
water and groundwater supplies from industrial and farming
activities. We will fund further improvements to municipal
water and waste water systems.
[English]
We are also taking action to protect fragile ecosystems. We
have created seven new parks. We have also provided Parks Canada
with an additional $130 million over four years to establish new
parks, manage the existing ones and build on our scientific
capacity within the parks system. My neighbour, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, will no doubt be saying more on this later in
this debate. I look forward to hearing her remarks.
In addition, the Government of Canada is committed to protecting
species at risk through strong and effective legislation,
stewardship to protect habitat, a productive recovery process in
partnerships with provinces, territories, stakeholders and
aboriginal groups.
I stress the importance of effective legislation. Duplicating
less effective legislation elsewhere simply because it appears to
be stronger is not the way to go. Let us learn from the mistakes
of others, craft something totally Canadian and effective on the
ground, which is where we can protect species and the battle
lines can be drawn.
[Translation]
I will be reintroducing the species at risk act in the House
today, but I want to point out that our strategy to protect
species at risk is already producing good results.
1015
[English]
Legislation is supported on the ground through voluntary
activities by conservation groups and individuals who are taking
action to help protect species, protect habitat and conserve
biodiversity where it matters most: on the land, in our streams,
oceans and forests.
Our strategy balances strong regulations with voluntary measures
and incentives. When Canadians, for example, donate ecologically
sensitive lands to an environmental group, they can now benefit
from a 50% reduction in capital gains.
I applaud the Minister of Finance for his recognition of the
importance of this measure in getting the goodwill and
co-operation of landowners in the battle to protect habitat of
species, endangered and otherwise.
[Translation]
Let me turn now to the issue of global warming. Canada is
extremely concerned about climate change, and with good reason.
The North, and our country is a northern country, is the area
which perhaps is experiencing the most severe impacts of climate
change. We see that the ice is melting. Polar bears are
starving. The traditional lifestyle of aboriginal peoples is
threatened. The fauna and flora are highly disturbed.
[English]
As a northern nation we are on the frontline of the impact of
climate change. We have taken action to respond and will take
more action throughout the coming decade. We are beginning to
see results.
Since Kyoto we have succeeded in decoupling economic growth from
emissions growth in Canada. Indeed that has dropped to one-fifth
of what it was before. Previously for every 1% increase in gross
domestic product we would see a 1% increase in emissions. Now
for every 1% growth in GDP we see one-fifth of that. Indeed that
is a dramatic change.
Canada has become a leader in the science and modelling of
climate change. Last fall we adopted the first national climate
change action plan.
[Translation]
This $500 million action plan captures many of the best ideas
that came out of a consultation process with representatives of
industry, environmental organizations, aboriginal people,
municipalities, academic institutions and other.
We engaged all our provinces and territories in the effort. All
relevant federal departments were involved in preparing the
action plan.
[English]
No other country in the world has gone through such an extensive
process to develop its national plan. This means that once the
decisions are made we will have an already high level of buy in
and acceptance and hence, we trust, a smoother path to
implementation.
The action plan targets key sectors that will provide both
environmental and economic benefits. As a result Canadians will
enjoy cleaner air and water. They will save money from energy
efficiency and increased use of renewable energy technologies.
Ultimately our climate change action plan will make the Canadian
economy more innovative and more competitive on the world scale.
[Translation]
When fully implemented, the plan will take Canada one-third of
the way to achieving the target established in the Kyoto
protocol. It will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by
about 65 megatonnes annually during the commitment period of
2008 to 2012.
This is a major step forward that sets the stage for future
reductions and reflects the seriousness with which Canada takes
its international commitments.
[English]
On the world stage we have championed a comprehensive approach
to climate change that will lead to practical action.
I must confess disappointment at the results of the meeting in
The Hague where inflexibility on the part of the European Union
did not allow for an agreement between the United States and the
countries of the umbrella group and the European Union.
Nevertheless that is a minor setback. We will continue to play
the role of bringing people together on climate change and other
key environmental issues because Canadians have told us they
want Canada to take a leadership role in protecting the global
environment.
1020
We have already played an instrumental role in bringing about
the Montreal protocol on CFC reduction, the persistent organic
pollutants, or POP, negotiations, which took place in Cartagena
and again in Montreal, in addition to the successful outcome to
the Montreal conference on biosafety and genetically modified
organisms.
[Translation]
This weekend, I will be joining my international colleagues, the
various environment ministers, at the United Nations environment
program meeting in Nairobi to continue in our efforts to build
a world that is more secure, more prosperous and more
sustainable.
I would like to turn now to an important tool to promote
development that is sustainable, and that is environmental
assessment. By bringing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act into force
in 1995, this government has ensured that the environmental
effects of our actions are fully considered before decisions are
taken.
Each year the Government of Canada assesses almost 6,000
projects each with the potential to affect our air, our health,
our water, our wildlife and natural spaces. Project by project,
and step by step, we are using environmental assessment to avoid
adverse effects of development.
I will report to the House soon on the outcome of the recent
review of this act. I plan to take the measures needed to make
it an even more effective tool in support of this government's
focus on a clean, healthy environment for Canadians.
[English]
In closing, I will tell a story that captures the essence of
these issues. It demonstrates the holistic nature of
environmental issues today, and the need to embrace new ways of
thinking and new alliances.
The Georgia Basin ecosystem initiative from the west coast of
Canada, an area which we share with the United States, is a
partnership among the federal and provincial governments,
business and industry leaders, first nations, citizens
and volunteers.
The initiative tackles environmental issues such as clean water
and air and species at risk. At the same time, it addresses the
social and economic needs of communities within the Georgia
Basin.
[Translation]
In one of their projects, they have developed an interactive
computer model that shows how three prime systems, the biosphere,
human society and the economy, interact with each other.
Community members have had the chance to plug in their choices
and see the kind of world they can create for the Georgia Basin
by the year 2040.
[English]
I like that project for a number of reasons. First, it is a
great management tool that will be useful for decision makers.
Second, it is a motivator of ordinary citizens. It gets people
involved and shows them the consequences of their potential
actions. In that way it allows a higher level of debate about
society and its goals.
[Translation]
In the months and years ahead, as we struggle to protect the
myriad aspects of our environment, we need to use all the
available tools. We need to embrace innovation, whether it comes
from a computer model or an aboriginal elder. Finally, we need
to promote the notion of personal stewardship among all
Canadians.
[English]
Our ancestors have thrown us the torch. It is for us to hold it
high, to keep it burning brightly and to pass it on to our
children. The government and I, as Minister of the Environment,
are committed to that task.
1025
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the environmental
situation that the minister has pictured is as rosy as he would
lead us to believe.
I encourage every interested member of the public to obtain a
copy of the environmental commissioner's report. It excoriates
the federal government on its actions and its failure to deal
with a wide range of environmental challenges.
I ask the minister if there will be any obligation on the
government to deal with private landowners and the provinces to
protect critical habitat.
Given that Canada is the third largest conduit for the
trafficking of endangered species products around the world, a
multibillion industry threatening species as far ranging as the
Siberian tiger, the black rhino, and many fish of the sea, will
the minister work with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
Minister of Justice to develop a plan of action to address this
serious problem?
Hon. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the
Throne is a general outline of approaches which I reiterated in
my speech. In response to the first question of the hon. member
from Esquimalt, I indicated that within the last week Canada has
been named third in the world with respect to the environment and
its protection. Finland and Norway are ahead of us, and both are
small Scandinavian countries in terms of population and area.
I could pluck a myriad of reports out of the air to support
this. However, it is the most prestigious of the various reports
dealing with Canada and its position with respect to the
environment.
The hon. member has plucked out another report which says that
in the view of a certain group we are not doing enough. I tend
to prefer the type of report which analyzes objectively on the
basis of some 66 criteria reduced to 22 headings and dealing with
122 nations. I tend to prefer that objective approach and
analysis.
This is not to say, as I said in my speech and which the hon.
member appears to have missed, that we should sit back and say
nothing more should be done, we are doing well, who cares. Not at
all. Third is not good enough. We wish to be first. We will
continue to work. We know that many other countries have the
same objective, so it will be a tough race.
He is demonstrating, like so many members in the opposition,
that a Canadian optimist is someone who says things could be
worse. There are times, when it comes to issues such as this
one, when we should sit back and say we are doing well. The next
thing to say is we could do better and where we can do better.
Let us not always bring forward the negative, negative, negative,
because that discourages people.
I mentioned in my speech that we work with large numbers of
people throughout Canada on voluntary co-operative efforts.
Occasionally we should point out to them that their good work on
the ground is recognized at the highest levels internationally.
The second point raised by the hon. member is CITES. I will
certainly work closely with the Minister of Justice and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is a major problem.
We will be putting resources where we think they are most
effective. Just as with many other smuggling issues around the
world, it is extraordinarily difficult to deal with it simply at
the borders. We will have to deal with it in some of the markets
of Singapore or Hong Kong or elsewhere in the world. We will
have to deal with it in concert with other countries. This is
not simply a question of more and more heavy enforcement at
border points.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before dealing with the legislation the Minister of the
Environment is introducing today, the species at risk act, I
want to come back to the issue of climate change.
The minister engaged in a lot of rhetoric and bragged about the
government's record on the environment. He even went as far as
changing the whole concept of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
to the 1990 reference levels.
1030
That is the real comparison base, not the ratio of the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions to Canada's GNP. I thought it was
important to remind people of this.
My question is a very simple one. The minister just told us that
he will be introducing this afternoon an act respecting the
protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Is the
minister aware that in 1989 the government of Quebec passed
legislation to protect species at risk? When introducing his
bill today, will the minister take into account all the
expertise and the work already done on this issue so as to avoid
any overlap with the 1889 legislation, which was passed by
members of the national assembly, some of whom are federal
Liberal members sitting in this House today?
I am thinking about the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, who were sitting in the national assembly
when the act was passed.
Does the minister intend to abide by the Quebec legislation on
endangered species?
Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I can assure him that we will indeed table the bill on
endangered species this afternoon, at least I hope so. I
appreciate that we should wait before discussing a bill that we
have not yet seen.
He said something very important regarding greenhouse gases. We
are working together with the provinces and I salute everything
that Quebec has done. It has been very well done. It can serve
as an example for many other provinces.
I am not saying that everything is perfect or that we have
reached our ultimate goal. Not at all. I am saying we must work
with the federal government within the federal jurisdiction,
with the other provinces and territories, and with other
countries in the world.
The efforts made by the Quebec government have really been
appreciated at the federal level and we are working together.
We have the same objectives and I hope that with this
co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, with
the Quebec government and the other provinces and territories we
will succeed. I am sure that the targets set—6% below 1990
levels—we can reached. This objective is not so out of reach that
it impossible to achieve.
I think that with the co-operation of all jurisdictions and the
awareness of the Canadian people, we will be able to achieve the
Kyoto objective, which was a 6% reduction by 2010.
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
would the minister elaborate on his relationship with the
environment departments at the provincial level. I am
particularly concerned about the Newfoundland government's plan
for development on the Main River which is a heritage river in a
pristine environment and the home of the pine marten. There is
some concern that the government is not being sensitive.
In his concern for species at risk, how does the minister look
upon the disagreement?
Hon. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I will be answering the
member's question in more detail when we discuss the species at
risk legislation. However, I can assure the hon. member that if
a province or territory fails to take adequate measures to
protect a species at risk, the architecture of the legislation
suggests that we should step forward. I will be happy to give
more details when the legislation is before the House. I
appreciate the member's concern and it should be flagged.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on page 13 in the throne
speech, it says that the government will focus on three
priorities: clean air, clean water and the conservation of
Canada's natural spaces.
Last December the Government of Canada signed an agreement with
the United States to significantly reduce emissions that cause
smog. The spinning wheel turns. How do those statements square
with the minister's apparent lack of resolve to send a strong
signal regarding the Sumas 2 power project?
Instead of just letting bureaucratic processes roll on, will the
minister send a strong signal that Sumas 2 is not on? The
Americans get the electricity and we get the pollution.
1035
Hon. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the proposed Sumas 2
plant is under investigation by the energy facility site
evaluation council of Washington state. I have had discussions
with the governor of Washington on this matter. It would be
thoroughly inappropriate for me to take the NIMBY approach of the
hon. member before the body which has been given the task of
analyzing the impact of Sumas 2 reports.
If we are to succeed on issues of this nature we must be
realistic as to the process. We must submit our interventions
respectful of American jurisdictions and of American agencies
that are charged with the task of analysis. If we do not show
respect for the system, if we simply raise our hands and scream
and say that nothing is acceptable, we will not have them
considering our views.
I remind the member that the change in fuels in the Fraser
Valley due to the increase in the price of gas has had 30 times
the impact on the air shed of the Fraser Valley as would have the
proposed Sumas 2 plant. That is not to say that Sumas 2 should
go ahead. It is just to point out how important it is to be
consistent in what we do.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I
wish to inform you that I am splitting my time with my colleague
from Mercier.
I wish to begin my first speech in this House by an introduction
and acknowledgements.
First off, I wish to describe to you my riding, Matapédia—Matane.
I can say without false modesty, and I believe that all my
colleagues will agree, that Matapédia—Matane is one of the most
beautiful ridings if not the most beautiful riding in Quebec.
An hon. member: Even more than Champlain.
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Even more than Champlain, as my colleague just
said. Matapédia—Matane has more than 60 towns and villages and a
population of almost 75,000 people, some 55,000 of voting age.
Matapédia—Matane borders on two regions of Quebec: the Lower
St. Lawrence and the Gaspé Peninsula. Two regional county
municipalities, Haute-Gaspésie and Avignon, are part of the Gaspé
Peninsula region, while the Matane and Matapédia RCMs are part
of the Lower St. Lawrence region.
It is a huge area of more than 743 kilometres around and
covering 17,000 square kilometres. Incidentally, the well-known
expression “one day per riding” finds its full meaning here
because it actually takes a full day to go around the riding.
And it is not even enough to cover all the area, which is as
large as a country.
The economy of my riding is, so to speak, uneven because the
socio-economic situation and recessions of the last decades have
taken their toll.
Moreover, the fact that the federal government has abandoned
communities like mine does not help economic recovery.
However, I wish to say in this House how proud I am of
representing the great riding of Matapédia—Matane. The population
that I represent is, without a doubt, extremely worthy and
noble. The men and women and young people of my riding are
deeply attached to their area, their legacy and their heritage.
This country was built by men and women and it is an area worthy
of being inhabited.
Now for a few acknowledgements. First of all I would like to
thank the man who came before me as member for Matapédia—Matane,
Mr. René Canuel, who for seven years devoted his life to the
service of his fellow citizens.
Thanks go also to my election team, as well as to all those who
voted for me, my party and our agenda. It is something I am
proud of.
I would be remiss if I forgot to thank my spouse, Louiselle, and
my children, Stéphane, Lucie and Frédéric, who have lost a full
time father but got a member of parliament. I would also like to
congratulate my opponents in the last election campaign.
Finally, I want to address a message to the population of the
riding of Matapédia—Matane: I will endeavour to help them to the
best of my knowledge and capacities with my team: Francine,
Thérèse and Raynald.
We are all ready to tackle the hard work coming up our way, as
we say back home. My staff have faced such difficulties in the
past with courage and persistence.
1040
Today, they are ready for action and determined to forge ahead.
Tomorrow, the people in our ridings will judge our actions as
parliamentarians and they will be in a good position to attest
to what this government wants to do and can do.
Understandably I now wish to comment on the Speech from the
Throne made last Tuesday by the Governor General. The throne
speech was both arrogant and devoid of meaning. Arrogant, for it
outlays the plan of a government that failed to boost the
economy of my riding, the plan of a government that managed to
hurt my fellow citizens.
During the last electoral campaign, voters from Matapédia—Matane
not only showed what they thought of what the liberal government
did or neglected to do, they also sent a very clear message
about the present government's agenda which is to deny our
existence and compromise our future. The government's agenda
must be profoundly changed. It must include communities like
mine and regions.
The economic recovery of our regions requires, commands a
radical change of direction. We should begin by doing away with
the arrogant notion that we live in a prosperous Canada with a
strong and healthy economy. This is an illusion where I come
from. It is a complete illusion in my area.
But such statements are not surprising since the Prime Minister
did not even bother visiting our regions during the last
campaign.
Maybe he was afraid he would not be welcomed.
If isolated areas are really included in the government's
development plan, how can we explain its absence, its failure to
respond to the call for help of a whole community? A few months
ago my community's feeling of alienation led to the creation of
a grassroots movement, the Action des Patriotes gaspésiens,
which is now 12,000 members strong.
That movement came about because a population felt abandoned,
pushed aside and completely ignored. The organization's
popularity reflects the deep despair of a community which firmly
believes that the present government does not want to hear or
see its situation.
I declare that the Speech from the Throne is a scandal. It is
outrageous to hear or to read that the government intends to
continue to deny, forget and abandon regions like mine.
The examples of this are legion. I will speak of just two that
are very striking. First, there is unemployment insurance—that
is right, unemployment insurance, not employment insurance—a
program that has literally pillaged the most disadvantaged
members of our society, the honest and courageous workers who
have struggled and yet not accumulated enough hours to qualify
for this program which is rife with injustices, so they end up
on welfare.
What is more, this program particularly prevents the youth in
our regions from benefits. They are required to have 910 hours
of work the youth in our regions from benefits. They are
required to have 910 hours of work before drawing employment
insurance for the first time, whereas our economy is based on
four major industries that are more than 80% seasonal. This is
a disgrace. The young workers are entitled to equal and
equitable treatment.
To quote the spokesperson for the coalition chômage Gaspésie les
Îles, “the changes announced in the bill to be introduced this
afternoon are but a drop of justice in a whole ocean of
injustice”.
Regional development is another example of this government's
arrogance and of the scandal of the throne speech. Regions such
as mine have been totally abandoned by this government.
Economic Development Canada is one concrete example of this
abandonment; the government response to the serious crisis
facing my community was a meagre $35 million, spread out
moreover over three long years, and with no action plan to boot.
There is no clearly defined strategy. Those are beautiful, or
horrible, examples of the arrogance and scandal of this
government, which wants to pursue its policy of abandonment of
the regions.
My response to this is no. The response of the people in my
area, the people of my riding of Matapédia—Matane, to such a
policy is no.
1045
People back home are ready for the battle. They are determined
not to throw in the towel; they are determined to take action
and to build a better future, but not the one promised and built
by this government. Again, we are opposed to abandoning the
regions. If necessary, the lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé
Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands will become symbols of that
battle, of that struggle for dignity and a better future.
On a somewhat different note, but just as pressing, I am now
going to provide more details on the issues I intend to fight
for in the months and years to come.
In addition to my primary duties as member for Matapédia—Matane,
my leader, whom I congratulate on his brilliant performance
during the last election campaign, has given me other
responsibilities.
Indeed, I will be the associate critic for fisheries and oceans
and, without necessarily getting into the details of my mandate,
perhaps I could point out to members that I will fulfil my
mandate with four main points in mind: first, I will demand a
true management policy for Quebec fishers, followed by a true
groundfish strategy, a real improvement of port infrastructures
and, of course, a true employment insurance program.
I will also sit on other committees to help achieve the global
objective of our political party.
We Bloc Quebecois members are here to protect and promote
Quebecers' interests.
I may add that another responsibility was recently bestowed upon
me in that I am the chair of the eastern Quebec caucus. I intend
to meet this new challenge just like the other ones, with
determination and hard work. We are here to serve our fellow
citizens. We are here to build a better future for Quebecers.
I am convinced that there is only one real solution for us and
that is sovereignty.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the new member for
Matapédia—Matane on his speech.
Because I know him personally, I know that he has developed
considerable expertise in running a riding office in recent
years, and we all know how important that is. To this is now
added the responsibility of representing the people of
Matapédia—Matane. I am certain that he will carry his new duties
off with great aplomb.
I would like him to elaborate a bit on the situation of people
in his region, specifically with reference to the Prime
Minister's statement during the election campaign to the effect
that there had been serious errors in the EI regime.
On behalf of the residents of Matapédia—Matane, I would like to
know just what these important factors are that need correcting,
that we expect to see corrected and that we want to see
included in the bill the government intends to introduce this
afternoon. Does the member intend to make this a major part of
his mandate for the people of Matapédia—Matane?
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. Obviously, the situation in the riding of
Matapédia—Matane is unique. It is the same for the Gaspé. The
two RCMs of Matapédia and Matane were always considered part of
the Gaspé for the purposes of the Coalition-chômage, because the
situation was very serious.
In our regions, the official rate of unemployment is 22% or 23%,
but 40% to 50% of the public relies on employment insurance or
income security in the winter.
What we desperately want in our region is a real employment
insurance regime that will cover people not just for 38, 42 or
44 weeks, but for the whole year. When people manage to work at
least a certain number of weeks, it should be possible to
provide them with security that will last 365 days of the year.
That is what we want.
We want a real employment insurance regime. The regime was set
up to protect such people, but it is not doing so right now.
I would add, for the benefit of my colleague, that another very
important issue, one which I intend to fight for personally, is
that of young people. As I was saying earlier, in the riding of
Matapédia—Matane, the major industries are forestry, agriculture,
fishing and tourism. These are all industries where work is
almost exclusively seasonal.
1050
When young people graduate from tourism courses, particularly in
my colleague's riding, where there is an institution offering
such training, they can never collect employment insurance
because they are never able to accumulate the required number of
weeks. So they leave the region and head for places where they
can find work.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to
start with I would like to congratulate my colleague, who will
be a welcome addition to our caucus. I have a couple quick
questions for him.
Could he tell us why people should visit his area? Mr. Speaker,
you yourself might be looking for a place to go to on your
summer vacation. I would like our colleague to extol the virtues
of his beautiful area and tell us what tourist attractions that
can be found there.
Also I would like him to tell us a thing or two about the
vibrant social fabric of his community.
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this
opportunity to promote my riding.
There are four MRC municipalities in my area. First, there is
Avignon, or Carleton, on Chaleur Bay, which is known worldwide
as a tourist destination.
Then there is the MRC of Matapédia, which is more agricultural.
There is a bit of tourism too, mostly in the wintertime of
course, but also in the summer.
On the other side, there is the MRC of Matane, famous for its
fisheries and major industries. It too is a very nice area.
Then there is the upper Gaspé, further on, which relies mainly
on fishing, is increasingly developing its tourism industry.
This is almost exclusively a coastal area, stretching over
nearly 743 kilometres.
On the one side there is Chaleur Bay, and on the other the St.
Lawrence River; in the centre is the Gaspé Park with many
outstanding tourist attractions such as the delightful Gîte du
Mont-Albert.
I thank my colleague for this opportunity to promote my riding.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I also want to
take this opportunity to thank my constituents for re-electing me
a third time. To get such strong support for a third time is
both moving and challenging.
It means that we have to do the utmost to express what our
constituents need to make their lives better. There is no better
time than an election campaign to go out and meet the people
where they live and where they shop and to understand how huge
the problems they face are.
It is a responsibility we have to deal with every day and my
constituents can be assured that my colleagues and I will do our
best to live up to their expectations. I also want to spend as
much time as possible in my riding.
For someone like me, the throne speech is truly offensive. It is
offensive in the way it describes the reality in Quebec and in
Canada, because that is what it is supposed to do. Yet what it
describes has nothing to do with what is really going on.
The federal government, or shall I say the executive branch of
the federal government, talks as though it were the only true
government, the main government in charge of culture, education,
the economy, the environment. It talks as though it were the
major stakeholder. In fact, this is far from the truth.
1055
It is offensive to see that, since 1993, this government has
been bent on reducing the deficit without making sure to do so
in the least possible harmful way. Sure, such an exercise was in
order, but the government conducted it without caring about what
was happening, particularly in Quebec, and even though it knew,
I am sure, what the impact would be in our province.
The suffering—and I say it again because this is just
that—endured by citizens in health, education and other areas,
not to mention of course the services that were cut by the
Quebec government, are the result of the drastic federal cuts.
What do we see in that document? That the Government of Canada
will invest, that it will care about improving Canadians'
health, that it will make sure young people succeed at school
and that it will be a leader in the protection of the
environment. This is very upsetting.
The federal government is the one responsible for these serious
problems in the health sector. Sure, an agreement was signed,
but not one penny will be paid before April, when it will take
effect.
An hon. member: No indexing.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: And no indexing, with the result that
instead of being at 20%, we will be at 14%. So, the situation
remains very serious in the health sector.
In education, there is the issue of dropouts. Dropouts are not
good for the new economy.
I realize that. But why do dropouts drop out of school? It is
often because they have problems at home and because their
parents are unemployed or do not have an adequate income.
The employment level has gone up and we are proud of that—Quebec
worked hard to improve the situation—but the unemployment rate is
still high and the underemployment rate is extremely high. The
result is that a large number of families do not have what it
takes to live decently.
Young people drop out of school because they live in families
that have difficulties, but also because the schools were also
subjected to a rigorous regime. When there is a shortage of
teachers, when everyone is overworked, it is harder to make sure
that young people can keep up with the rest of the class.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
37TH PARLIAMENT
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, I would like to offer my congratulations to you and all
members of the House elected to the 37th parliament. I would
like to extend my commitment to working with you, Mr. Speaker,
and to all the members to achieve those objectives which have
been outlined in principle in the throne speech.
Second, I would like to thank the residents of York
South—Weston for once again supporting my candidacy for public
office, this time as member of parliament. I truly believe the
message that my residents are sending is that they want to see us
working together on actions that will improve life for all
Canadians, particularly those who are most vulnerable within our
communities.
To this end, I would again pledge my commitment to work
diligently through our committee and our House systems and
structures with all members to build bridges between rural and
urban communities and to reinforce the principles of sustainable
development.
In so doing I believe that we will achieve that which we desire
for our children—
1100
The Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but
his time has expired.
* * *
CYPRESS HILLS—GRASSLANDS
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this morning I thank the constituents
of Cypress Hills—Grasslands for their overwhelming support and
confidence. I thank the people who worked with me. It is
solidly in the spirit of southwestern Saskatchewan that people
will still help others to get ahead without asking for anything
for themselves.
I want to thank my family, particularly my wife Sheila and my
children Amy and Andrew, for their sacrifice. I thank God, who
has directed my steps for many years and who deserves the credit,
but most certainly not the blame, for who I am.
I thank my predecessor, Mr. Lee Morrison. His rock solid
preparation, his intelligent understanding of the issues and his
insistence on standing firmly for his principles and for his
constituents have given me an example of what is needed to
effectively represent the people of Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as next week is International Development Week, it is an
honour for me to praise the work of Horizons of Friendship, a
non-profit agency in my riding.
Horizons of Friendship is a Canadian non-profit international
development agency committed to addressing the root causes of
poverty and injustice. It supports central American and Mexican
organizations that undertake local initiatives which further this
goal. In Canada, it raises awareness on global issues and works
with Canadian organizations at the local and national levels to
bring about positive and lasting change.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Horizons of
Friendship for being such an active part of the community of
Northumberland and for the life saving support that they provide
to so many, especially now as they work to help the victims of
the recent earthquake in El Salvador.
* * *
[Translation]
HULL—AYLMER
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, it is with
pleasure and enthusiasm that I rise today to thank the voters of
my beautiful riding of Hull—Aylmer for having re-elected me for
the second time in two years as their representative in the
House of Commons.
Bolstered by this new gesture of confidence from my
constituents, I begin this 37th parliament in a spirit of
optimism. I am privileged to represent a riding here in the
House that is dynamic and flourishing, and I shall continue to
do my utmost to fulfil my commitment to act as the ambassador
within the Government of Canada for all the residents of my
riding.
Once again, my thanks to the voters of Hull—Aylmer. They have my
assurance that they have made the right choice to guarantee a
better future for all. Thank you.
* * *
[English]
YUKON
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I bring
greetings to the House from the farthest constituency in this
land, the beautiful Yukon, home of a strong and proud people,
some of whom are descendants of the world's greatest gold rush,
home of the Skookum Jim Friendship Centre and some of the most
innovative self-government agreements in the world today, and
home of the Canadian poet who wrote the best selling book in
poetry history, Robert W. Service.
I am proud to serve here with my 300 colleagues to fulfil the
mandate that we were all given in the last election: to build a
strong economy so that we can help those most in need.
[Translation]
In the days to come, people will be hearing about our mandate,
and about the Yukon. Thank you, Merci, Mahsi Cho, Gunetisch.
* * *
[English]
SANDRA SCHMIRLER
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your election win.
This morning I would like to thank the riding of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar for electing me in the last federal
election as its member of parliament.
The beginning of Winterlude this weekend in the beautiful city
of Ottawa makes me remember the wonderful young woman who, so
sadly, passed away last year in Saskatchewan. Sandra Schmirler,
Olympic women's curling gold medallist, was born and raised in my
hometown of Biggar, Saskatchewan. Today, in this historic
building, I pay tribute to her and her family.
* * *
SPORTS
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my sincere
congratulations on your election. You have the confidence of
your colleagues and I know you will preside with honour and
fairness over Canada's most cherished democratic institution.
I also rise today to welcome the 2001 Nokia Cup Ontario Men's
Curling Championship to the city of Woodstock in my riding of
Oxford.
1105
All eyes will be on the Woodstock and District Community Complex
next week, February 5 to 11, as the top men's curling teams from
across Ontario compete for the Nokia Cup. This is the final step
before the winning team represents Ontario at the national
championships in Ottawa this March.
I commend the organizers and the over 300 volunteers for all
their hard work. In particular, I recognize Mr. Verne Kean, the
chairman of the committee, who is a former student of mine. Best
wishes to all for a fantastic event.
* * *
[Translation]
ANDRÉ D'ALLEMAGNE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec
is in mourning. Yesterday André d'Allemagne, a pioneer of the
sovereignist movement, passed away at the age of 71.
A founding member of the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance
nationale, he made a significant contribution to the advancement
of the indépendantiste cause.
A figurehead for the Quebec sovereignist movement, he was also
a visionary whose analyses have not become dated.
In a text that appeared in the magazine L'Indépendance in
December 1962, he wrote as follows about the new relationship
between a sovereign Quebec and Canada: “In this field, as in
many others, everything possible under Confederation is possible
within independence, while many things impossible under
Confederation would be made possible by independence”.
André d'Allemagne leaves a rich heritage for all those who share
his belief that Quebec must assume its rightful place in the
world.
On behalf of all members of the Bloc Quebecois, my sincere
condolences to the family and friends of André d'Allemagne.
* * *
[English]
NUNAVUT
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of Nunavut, I congratulate you on being elected Speaker
of the House of Commons.
I want to thank the wonderful people of Nunavut for their
resounding endorsement of me to continue representing them in the
House of Commons. I look forward to working strongly on their
behalf and the throne speech contained very positive
announcements to start on that road. We are thankful that there
is a strong commitment to the aboriginal people in the mandate of
our government because we only want to share opportunities with
other Canadians.
The Speech from the Throne gives us great hope for the future. I
look forward to working with the government of Nunavut and the
federal government on key issues such as education, health and
housing. Mutna.
* * *
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the examples of indifference or even
ignorance shown by the Liberal government toward British Columbians
occur on a regular basis.
Here is just another example of many. B.C.'s forest industry is
being devastated by a mountain pine beetle infestation that is a
natural disaster equal to an ice storm in Ottawa or a flood in
Quebec. Yet, while the mandate of the Canadian Forest Service
includes assistance in regard to insect damage, the federal
government has done nothing to help British Columbia's forest
industry out of this true natural disaster.
Once again, as a B.C. MP, I say to the Liberal government, thanks
for nothing.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
welcome release of Chinese-Canadian academic KunLun Zhang should
not however obscure the following facts: that Professor Zhang
should never have been arrested, detained, tortured or imprisoned to
begin with; that thousands upon thousands of Falun Gong remain in
detention for nothing other than giving expression to their
fundamental freedoms of belief and conscience, assembly and
association, expression and information; that an exercise in
meditation spiritual movement dedicated to values of truth,
compassion and tolerance has been declared illegal; and, that we
are witnessing the most persistent and pervasive assault on human
rights in China since Tiananmen Square, including violations of
rights of religious adherents, Tibetans, Internet users,
democracy supports, workers and the like.
While Chinese-Canadian relations should be encouraged and trade
is a form of constructive engagement, the trade mission cannot
proceed as if this is business as usual. The protection and
promotion of human rights must be a priority on the Canadian
agenda, an expression of who we are and what we do.
As one who acted as counsel to Professor Zhang, I take this
opportunity to thank all members of this place and, in
particular, the ministers of the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade for their assistance in this matter.
* * *
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we
are nearing the 10th anniversary of the Westray mine disaster,
where 26 miners were killed due to gross negligence and a wilful
blindness to workplace safety and health.
Last spring the justice committee unanimously agreed that the
government should table legislation to amend the criminal code to
include corporate accountability in the case of gross negligence
causing death in the workplace.
Today we are reminded again of the need for a Westray bill.
Nova Scotia courts have just found a company guilty of a
workplace accident causing death. It was fined a paltry $50,000.
This is pin money for a large corporation.
1110
I call it murder when a worker is killed at work through gross
negligence. If an employer is found guilty he should not just be
fined under the workplace safety and health act. He should be
charged with murder under the Criminal Code of Canada. That is
what the committee directed parliament to do, to table that
legislation, and we are anxiously looking forward to the
opportunity to debate that bill.
* * *
STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank our Prime Minister for
his commitment to the advancement of women and women's issues. In
fact, Liberal governments both past and present have always
supported the advancement of women in society.
It was under a Liberal government that Canada saw its first
woman Speaker of the House of Commons and the first woman
Governor General. It was under our Prime Minister that a Liberal
government appointed a woman as Canada's first Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Beverley McLachlin. It was our
present Prime Minister who appointed the first woman Commissioner
of Official Languages, Madam Dyane Adam. Also, since taking
office our Prime Minister has made sure that half of all
Canadians appointed to the Senate are women.
Again our Prime Minister made history. On January 15, 2001, he
appointed the first woman to occupy the position of chief
government whip, the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean. I
congratulate both the Prime Minister and the member for Ottawa
West—Nepean for this milestone.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
February 6, Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada, will
be tabling his last report in the House of Commons.
This report will summarize the ten years of Mr. Desautels'
mandate. Indeed, Mr. Desautels spent ten years pointing out
serious problems in all important areas, including the programs
run by Human Resources Development Canada.
He spent ten years conducting fully independent audits and
reviews and communicating his findings to parliament in an
informative and objective fashion.
He spent ten years trying to improve parliamentary control over
public moneys and promoting the use of effective management
methods in the public administration.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois wishes to stress here the
exceptional work done by Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of
Canada. Once again, thank you for having helped improve the
well-being of all Quebecers and Canadians.
* * *
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations on your election as Speaker of the House. I also
want to thank the residents of Richmond—Arthabaska for having
made history in their own way.
That said, the asbestos industry has often been denigrated,
usually in an exaggerated way.
Government standards for the chrysotile asbestos industry
are not strict, consistent and accurate enough. For example, the
0.1% standard for construction work is neither measurable nor
scientifically verifiable. This creates a problem for those who
work in that industry.
Simply put, the regulatory provisions generate confusion and are
harmful to the asbestos industry.
Let us look at what is being done on the Hill with regard to
buildings.
The federal government, which is a great protector of the
asbestos industry on the international scene, would greatly
improve its credibility if it became a facilitator, along with
its provincial partners, to implement scientific methods of
analysis to determine the standards relating to the use of
chrysotile asbestos.
It is with the hope of seeing a true desire on the government's
part to protect the interests of the asbestos industry that I
join the provincial MNA for Richmond, Yvon Vallières, in asking
my government to make representations to its provincial partners
so as to arrive at an agreement establishing realistic standards.
* * *
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
November 27, Canadians did the Right Honourable Prime Minister
and the Liberal team the honour of giving them a third
consecutive mandate. Credit for this stellar achievement goes
to our Prime Minister.
The new Liberal government is going to continue its efforts to
help Canadians. With our track record, all signs point towards
an even better future for all.
1115
For instance, we have reached agreement with the provinces on
the implementation of a comprehensive health action plan. We
have also signed an agreement with them on early childhood
development to increase assistance to families with children
throughout Canada.
These are some of the ways in which we are responding to the
appeal so often launched by the Prime Minister to continue our
efforts to make Canada an even better place in which to live.
* * *
[English]
MEMBER FOR ELK ISLAND
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the week leading up to the opening of parliament was a very
emotional one for me.
First, the supreme court ruled to protect our children and
grandchildren from pornographers. We hope now that the
government will close the remaining loopholes.
Second, the court ruled that Robert Latimer's sentence for
taking the life of his daughter be upheld.
It is now almost a year since my handicapped sister passed away.
I restate again my profound and deep thanks to my parents for
caring for her and protecting her for 55 years. What they did
was immensely courageous and heroic. I thank my dear mom and
dad.
I would also like to add my deepest thanks and express my
appreciation for the staff at the many care centres across the
country, including Maureen and her staff at my sister's care
place in Saskatchewan. These people also are true heroes,
working lovingly and unselfishly in their efforts to reduce and
control pain and to provide a caring home life environment for
their patients. I thank all of them.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the opposition has raised concerns
about some of the layoffs in the auto industry and the high tech
industry because of an economic turndown.
As important as those jobs are, there are tens of thousands of
workers across the country who want to go to work this spring and
may not be able to do so. Those are the farmers of our nation
who have been waiting, some as long as three years, for dollars
that are due to them from the crisis fund that is set up for
them. They have not received those dollars.
Why does the Prime Minister call this program a success when
many farmers are facing disaster?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we recognize the problems of many farmers across the
country. The Prime Minister referred to the need for further
action in his speech in the House the other day. There was also
a signal in the throne speech. We are very conscious of our
responsibilities and we will carry them out.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has shown that he
does not hesitate to pick up the phone to call a banker to say
somebody needs some money. Will he indicate today that he will
pick up the phone, call whoever administers that fund and tell
them to get the dollars out to the farmers who are waiting for
them today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has done more than that. He stood in
his place in the House of Commons and talked about our desire to
do the right thing for Canadian farmers.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, desire is a wonderful thing but
action is what is required here.
Is the Prime Minister aware that farm incomes on average over
the last five years have decreased up to 65% for grain farmers
and the money sits on the cabinet table when it should be on the
kitchen tables of the farmers?
The Prime Minister said he would do something. Will he pick up
the phone, talk to the administrator of the program and tell him
to get the dollars out, yes or no? Will he also release his
negotiators in the area of pulling down subsidies, which are far
too high, and the user fees that the government continues to
charge on the backs of farmers already faced with low prices?
Will the Prime Minister do these things? Will he pick up the
phone and get things moving?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
listened to the concerns of the farm commodity groups. We
realize that they are hurting because of the low commodity prices
and because of subsidies around the world. Our minister met with
farmers from at least six provinces yesterday. I know I did
myself.
We have and we will recommend that we add additional funding for
our farmers. We put a program in place that will provide $5
billion over the next three years. Yes, more is needed.
However, we do believe in our family farms and we will be there
for them in the future.
* * *
1120
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is pretty clear that if the Department of Foreign
Affairs had not intervened to stop the police from pressing
charges against Mr. Knyazev for drunk driving, justice would have
been done and Mr. Knyazev either would have been convicted or
thrown out of the country long ago. Instead, his drunk driving
charge was ignored the first time, covered up the second time,
and it was not until the third incident, after he had killed a
Canadian citizen, that action was taken.
Why did the minister allow diplomatic niceties to take
precedence over the safety of Canadian citizens?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we have said over the last couple of days in the
House, we are very concerned about the situation that developed
last Saturday and the terrible tragedy that occurred.
At this point I do not think I have any information to indicate,
as the member has suggested, that the Department of Foreign
Affairs intervened to prevent charges being laid. That is not a
practice that we condone or expect. Those decisions are taken by
the police and the crown attorney. They chose not to press
charges in that case.
However, I want to assure the member that we are investigating
the situation and that we will do a thorough investigation to
ensure this does not happen again.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we have a copy of the letter that was sent from the
Department of Foreign Affairs to the Russian embassy which was
written after the arrest by the police and suspension of this
person's driver's licence for 90 days. The letter reads:
The Department finds the actions of the Ottawa-Carleton
Regional Police unacceptable and wishes to apologize for this
incident. The issue has been raised with the police in a full
and frank manner.
The Department wishes to inform the Embassy that Mr. Knyazev's
driver's licence is attached and that all the charges have been
withdrawn. The Embassy will be reimbursed for the incurred
expense for the towing of the vehicle.
How can we possibly say that the Department of Foreign Affairs
did not intervene when it sent a letter like that apologizing
for—
The Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the letter was sent in
response to a diplomatic note from the Russians. We have taken
the unusual step of making this exchange of notes available to
the opposition and to the media so that they know what happened.
In fact the apology did reflect the fact that a diplomat was
treated not in accordance with the Vienna Convention, but at the
moment that is of less significance to me than the fact that we
need to see justice done in the case that arose subsequently.
* * *
[Translation]
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the government House leader said he wanted to modernize
parliamentary procedures and, in the same breath, “avoid having
the opposition parties table hundreds, indeed thousands, of
amendments to bills at report stage”.
Is the government House leader telling us that his reform
consists in gagging the opposition once and for all so that it
cannot properly do its work, which the public expects of it?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. What I find
surprising is that the member is claiming that amendments to
change commas to colons constitute a change or an improvement to
anything.
She must certainly know—and I suggest she give it some
thought—that the amendments she wants to propose, which would no
doubt be much better than the amendments of those who used
similar tactics in the past, warrant hearing by this parliament.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, who is the
government leader to judge our amendments to bills?
He must understand and agree that the thrust of his reform,
given all the scandals and criminal investigations involving the
government, has to be to make the system more transparent and
more democratic, as we, the auditor general, the privacy
commissioner, the information commissioner and all the
opposition parties in the House have asked?
Are transparency and integrity not what the people want?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, although I do not agree with all
the member's gratuitous accusations, I do agree entirely that we
must further improve the operations of the Parliament of Canada.
We did so yesterday when we changed a standing order. We do it
all the time among parliamentary leaders.
I think we are doing a good job, if I can put it that way, in
improving things for all parliamentarians. We intend to
continue to do so at all levels in the coming months.
The Prime Minister has said I would be approaching the other
leaders with definite proposals on various issues, and I will.
1125
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the low participation rate in the last federal election clearly
shows the public's lack of interest in the political process.
Will the government's determination to further gag the
opposition not have the effect of increasing this loss of
interest, since gagging the opposition is tantamount to gagging
the public?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have absolutely no desire to gag the opposition.
It is obvious that the public had no intention of supporting the
Bloc Quebecois and its loony ideas.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps we should look at the participation rate across Canada.
With its reform, is the government not setting the stage for
imposing, without any debate, those intrusions into Quebec's
jurisdictions that are contained in the throne speech? The
government should have the courage to admit that this is the
main reason for being in such a hurry.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is prone to
exaggeration. To claim that reforming procedure to improve the
operation of parliament is tantamount to amending the
constitution to change areas of jurisdiction is quite the
exaggeration.
* * *
[English]
FUEL PRICES
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are suffering because of energy cost hikes. In
Winnipeg, for example, people are paying 30% more this year for
home heating.
The one time fuel rebate is not sufficient. Some who do not
need it receive it. Some who desperately need it do not get it.
It is true that the government had to act fast. Now it is time
to act wisely.
Will the government finally establish an energy price review
commission to protect Canadian consumers from wild price
fluctuations and excessive price hikes?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate that the leader of the New Democratic Party
has recognized the assistance that was announced in the economic
statement last October. Those cheques will be processed by the
Government of Canada and should be in the mail to Canadians
during the month of February. Eleven million Canadians will
benefit. The total benefit amounts to about $1.3 billion.
With respect to the matter of price regulation, as the hon.
leader will know, that is entirely within the jurisdiction of the
provinces.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, is not
the real reason for the government's resistance to an energy
price review commission the flawed trade agreements? It appears
Canada is hell bent to embrace American demands for a general
agreement on trade and services with even more restrictions and
penalties for Canadians.
Next week the Prime Minister goes to Washington. Will he tell
President Bush that Canada does not intend to be the refrigerator
of the Americas or the solution for its unlimited energy
appetite? Will he tell President Bush not to count on us to
support his GATS energy position?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister will defend and support the
well-being and the best interests of Canada, both at home and
outside of Canada. I wonder what my hon. friend has in mind. Is
she attacking the province of Alberta for what it is doing in
terms of its own energy production? It is implicit in her
question.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in the absence of the Prime Minister, who spoke so knowledgeably
yesterday of Mr. Jean Carle, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell
the House if Mr. Jean Carle was involved in any way, in any
aspect, of the Auberge Grand-Mère file either during Mr. Carle's
tenure in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada or at the
Business Development Bank?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be happy to take that question as notice.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in the absence of the Prime Minister, can the Deputy Prime
Minister tell the House whether Mr. Cedric Ritchie, the new
chairman of the board of the Business Development Bank, was
briefed on every detail of the Auberge Grand-Mère file before he
assumed his position?
1130
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will take the question as notice, but I do think we
should say something about the fact that a Canadian as
distinguished as Cedric Ritchie has been willing to assume the
responsibilities he has. That is a mark of confidence in the
work of the bank and in the government.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber agreement with the U.S. expires
next month. The issue has come before the U.S. senate at the
confirmation hearings of trade representative Robert Zoellick as
the most important trade issue between our two countries.
The new industry minister has bumbled into this issue, making
comments completely contrary to Canada's interests, forcing the
international trade minister to burn up the phone lines and fix
the problem.
I would like to ask the government: Who is in charge of this
file, the Minister for International Trade or Captain Canada?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon.
member's question, it is quite clear who is in charge of
international trade for the government. It is the Minister for
International Trade.
The goal of Canada is quite clear as it relates to softwood
lumber. It is to achieve free trade in lumber with the United
States. That is the surest way to establish fairness for all
provinces.
As soon as the trade representative is confirmed in the United
States, the minister will be seeking a very early meeting with
him to pursue this file and many others.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that it is in fact the Minister
for International Trade.
It is imperative that Canada speak with a united voice on this
issue. Yet we have two ministers of the crown who cannot get
their act together. I must admit Captain Canada does appear to
have an insatiable appetite for the camera.
Given the recent power struggle between these two ministers,
what is the position of the government? Will the Minister of
Industry have any influence over this matter, or has he been
silenced?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the
matter is that various ministers comment on files from time to
time, but the goal of Canada is very clear. It is free trade in
lumber with the United States.
The hon. member might be aware that there will be a meeting on
Monday in Ottawa of federal-provincial trade ministers. There
will be an opportunity to pursue the various concerns that he has
raised today.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs informed us that an investigation
had been carried out within his department on the allegations of
negligence leading to the tragic death of Ms. MacLean. He also
assured us that the diplomats arrested for impaired driving
offences would not drive again in Canada. At least that is what
I read in the blues.
There is one thing of which he did not give us assurance,
however: that justice will be done.
What guarantee has the minister received from the Russian
government that justice would indeed be carried out?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it has been my priority right from the start, on
behalf of Ms. MacLean and her family, to ensure that justice is
done—she herself was a lawyer. That is perhaps the most
important aspect of the whole matter. We also want to ensure,
if possible, that such a thing never happens again in
Canada.
I have spoken with the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs and
he has assured me that, after investigation, the legal procedure
will be followed. Representations have already been made as
well by the Russian embassy to obtain from the Canadian police
the information required to continue the investigation in
Russia.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Yet, Mr. Speaker, one cannot
help but be concerned by all the reports by Russian commentators
and by what we hear of public opinion in that country.
Could the minister tell us whether the government is prepared to
meet the necessary costs to ensure that all of the evidence can
be submitted at the trial of Mr. Knyazev, and that all witnesses
will be able to testify without having to incur personal costs?
1135
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are two things I want to point out.
Our request that diplomatic immunity be waived has not been
withdrawn, and that is my preference. Should it be
necessary, and should additional costs be incurred, we are ready
and willing to pay them, because justice must be done.
* * *
[English]
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance position on
softwood lumber has been well known for eight months and reflects
the current industry position. The recently formed Canadian
Lumber Trade Alliance with co-chairs from Quebec and British
Columbia is speaking with one voice.
Yesterday we heard ill-informed and unfortunate comments by the
Bloc Quebecois and by the Minister of Industry. Will the Prime
Minister assure Canadians that there will be one voice speaking
for Canada on this issue?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government will speak in one voice and will work in
the best interest of softwood lumber producers all across Canada.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber agreement is
about to expire eight weeks from now. Until recently the
position of the federal Liberals was unclear.
We wanted the assurance, and I think we have now it, that we
will have one voice coming from cabinet on the issue. May we
also receive assurance that the federal government will not be
pitting one province against another in this discussion?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our objective as always is to work with all parts of the
country to see that all parts of the country are dealt with
fairly. We intend to vigorously pursue Canada's interests once
the U.S. trade representative is confirmed.
We know that three investigations in the United States have
found that there are no improper subsidies of Canadian softwood
lumber. We will pursue our objective for free trade in softwood
lumber with the United States. In so doing we will work to
ensure fair treatment of producers in all parts of our great
country.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government House leader said,
and I quote “If there are amendments, they will be minor. In
principle, it is the same bill”.
The government House leader thus contradicted the minister
responsible for Quebec and the minister responsible for amateur
sport, who said they were open to significant changes to the
act.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us the
real position of the government?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the hon. member
continues his interest in employment insurance. I am glad to
convey to the House that today the government will be making good
its commitment to the Canadian public made during the last
election.
We will be reintroducing the amendments to the Employment
Insurance Act. As usual the bill will follow the normal process
through the House, including committee stage where witnesses are
heard. I am sure the hon. member will engage fully in that
process.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that her bill will
simply give back 5% of the annual surplus of $6 billion to the
unemployed, while making it legal to misappropriate the fund
surplus?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member wait to
see the bill once it is tabled.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL AID
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has two highly trained emergency units
specialized in saving lives and offering relief assistance. It is
our responsibility to offer the services of these teams when
countries are hit with natural disasters.
My question is for the Minister for International Development.
The minister failed to offer the services of our disaster
assistance teams to either El Salvador or India. Why?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not so. The hon. member is
certainly wrong. We do not have two search and rescue teams in
Canada, to start with.
We have responded immediately to both. I was on the ground with
the El Salvadoran team and I surveyed the damage myself
personally with the president of El Salvador. I can tell the
hon. member that we responded appropriately and immediately.
1140
With respect to India it was the same situation. I was on the
phone immediately with the high commissioner of India on the day
that it happened. I was on the phone with the high commissioner
of Canada. He faxed me at my home over the weekend so that I
could talk to him on an ongoing basis.
I have staff on the ground from CIDA and we are responding
appropriately. At the moment we have close to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's search and rescue disaster assistance team
stayed home. Other countries sent their rescue teams immediately
and other countries continue to do so now.
Canadians feel that the government failed to respond fully to
these two unfortunate disasters. Will the minister tell the
House if her government has a comprehensive plan to deploy our
teams to respond to disasters anywhere in the world?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is getting things
confused. We have one disaster response team, DART, which is not
a search and rescue team. It deals with the second phase of a
situation.
With the information we have from the ground from our own
officials and officials from India, we are responding
accordingly. The Red Cross is providing through our funding a
350 bed hospital, which is providing shelter, clean water and
sanitation to 300,000 victims in the earthquake area.
We are providing for 400 communities through CARE Canada. Some
20,000 people are being assisted, again with shelter, water and
sanitation.
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some have
questioned the effectiveness of the team Canada trade missions.
Given this, could the minister tell me why the government is now
leading another trade mission to China?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question and
her interest in team Canada and its partners in Asia-Pacific.
The team Canada formula works. Since the first team Canada trip
to China in 1994, Canada's commercial presence in China and Hong
Kong has more than doubled. Moreover, the high level exchanges
that team Canada offers also allow our two countries to work
together to advance human values.
I am pleased to be joining this team Canada trip to China and
Hong Kong from February 9 to February 18.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Tuesday's
throne speech talked of ensuring that all children are protected
from the torments of poverty.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Since the reform of employment insurance is in part the cause of
this great poverty, will the changes to the employment insurance
program to be announced by the Liberal government finally
eliminate this scourge and give families and children especially
some relief?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to see in the Speech from
the Throne the commitment from the government to redouble our
efforts to ensure that no Canadian child suffers the debilitating
impact of poverty.
We have a number of strategies in place to work co-operatively
with the provinces and territories to eradicate poverty in
Canada. They include the national child benefit, the recent
agreement on early childhood development, changes to the
Employment Insurance Act, and other measures. I am glad to see
the hon. member is interested and will work with us on this very
important national undertaking.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, over 800,000
people do not qualify for employment insurance. The 1996 cuts
to employment insurance left many families down because of the
gap. They are without income of any sort for 4 to 8 weeks.
Could the Liberal government guarantee that the changes to the
employment insurance program will finally eliminate the problem
of the gap and make the program more humane, once and for all,
for the children of Canada?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, employment insurance is there and
provides a very important support for Canadians who through no
fault of their own find themselves between jobs.
For us the most important social program is a job. That is why
we are so glad to see levels of unemployment at record lows.
Canadians are employed in numbers that we have not seen in
decades. There are other strategies that we engage along with
employment insurance to help Canadian families so that they can
contribute to the success and benefit from the prosperity of the
country.
* * *
1145
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In March 1998 during the photo op used by the then premier of
Newfoundland and the then premier of Quebec in relation to the
development of the lower Churchill, a commitment was made by the
Prime Minister and the premier of Newfoundland to undertake a
feasibility study on the construction of a transmission line from
the lower Churchill to the province of Newfoundland.
The results of that study were supposed to be known within a
year, and I understand the minister's department was responsible.
Could the minister tell us the status of that feasibility study?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister and the premier of the day undertook
to examine a number of issues. There were no commitments made at
that time with respect to particular outcomes or resolutions of
those issues, but a good deal of study and investigation was
required. That work has been ongoing.
In terms of bringing the House completely up to date, and in
particular the hon. member, I will inquire as to the exact status
of the report material and provide him with a response as soon as
I have that information.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is amazing that after three years we have not heard anything of
the feasibility study that was supposed to have been completed
within a year. I know there was a study done and it should be
tabled.
I ask the minister, or perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister, in
light of the power shortages in the United States and in light of
the need for stable power, if they will now commit to fund or
share in the cost of a transmission line from the lower Churchill
to the province of Newfoundland?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of the studies that have been undertaken has
been to illuminate this entire issue, both in terms of the pros
and cons of the particular approach referred to by the hon.
gentleman and many other approaches. When the information is
fully available, sound decisions will be possible to make.
One of the great virtues of the country is that we do have an
abundance of energy resources of all kinds, both renewable and
non-renewable, and that is a great Canadian strength.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, during the last election
campaign the Liberal government made one meagre small promise to
my province of British Columbia: mild assistance for home heating
fuel costs. We are only a couple of days into this parliament
and already the Liberal government is backpedalling from that
promise.
With Christmas bills rolling in and temperatures dropping, why
has the government not moved to fulfil its campaign province to
British Columbians who are facing soaring fuel costs?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the end of December the Minister of Finance confirmed
the details of the home heating fuel program and indicated that
the cheques would be processed in February.
I would point out that it is February 2. Those cheques will be
forthcoming very shortly, as promised.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I think British Columbians and all Canadians who are
waiting for this home heating assistance will take cold comfort
in that sub-zero response.
Yesterday, when asked about this failed campaign promise, the
finance minister admitted “there are obviously defects”. Now
that the Liberals have admitted that their home heating
assistance program is not working, just how long will the Prime
Minister leave British Columbians and all Canadians waiting out
in the cold for this assistance?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister of Natural Resources has said, we are
carrying out our commitment. The cheques should be mailed to
British Columbians and all Canadians in February.
Perhaps, if the Alliance Party had not voted against our ways
and means motion to bring into effect the budget update, things
might have happened sooner. They voted against it. They voted
against the interests of British Columbians and all other
Canadians.
We are not only moving on our fuel tax rebate, we are bringing
into effect $100 billion in tax cuts which will help British
Columbians and all other Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning, we learned that the RCMP is recommending to the
deputy attorney general of Quebec that charges be laid against
the former directors of CINAR.
According to many witnesses, it is common practice in the
industry to submit inflated invoices.
1150
When is the government going to ensure that taxpayers' money is
legitimately spent and ask the auditor general to look into the
subsidies and tax credits enjoyed by producers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
deputy attorney general of Quebec has his responsibilities as a
member of Quebec's public service. This is not up to the
Government of Canada. Nor is it for us to comment on a specific
file under the jurisdiction of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency. I am certain that the agency will assume its
responsibilities fully.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last year, when the RCMP released certain disturbing facts in
connection with CINAR, the government began, as usual, by trying
to play down the affair.
How can the government justify waiting for other scandals to
surface before investigating?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
categorically reject the ridiculous premises of the hon. member.
The government is assuming its responsibilities in this
situation, but the rules of parliament prevent us from
commenting on an individual tax file.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, MRIs are an essential medical tool
used by physicians to treat their patients. We now know that the
waiting list in Ontario is increasing by 12,000 people per year.
In an Ottawa hospital the waiting list is 7,000 people, with a
waiting list of seven months to get that MRI.
Why has the health minister allowed this situation to become so
deplorable? It deprives Ontarians and Canadians access to
lifesaving MRI scanners.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member has it all wrong. As a result of the health accord
last September, we will be transferring to Ontario in the course
of the next five years over $42 billion that can be used for
health. Apart from that, we set aside $1 billion just for the
purchase of new medical equipment. Ontario's share is almost
$400 million.
We call upon the government of Ontario to make the right and
wise decision with respect to that money, and to put the
equipment where it is needed by Canadians so that there are not
undue waits for MRI scans when they are medically necessary. Now
that we have furnished the tools, we expect the government of
Ontario to do the job.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is a symptom of a larger problem
of the government falling asleep at the watch. The government
has allowed Canada and Canadians to fall into the lowest third of
all developed nations in their access to top of the line
essential health care services.
My question is very simple. Why has the minister allowed sick
Canadians to fall to the bottom of the heap among the developed
nations in their access to new lifesaving technologies?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member would do well to look at just where the responsibility
lies. The Government of Canada furnishes the funds to the
provinces to provide for the health care system. The provinces
then deliver the services and the required equipment.
Many provinces have already reported publicly how they are using
their per capita allotment of the medical equipment fund to
purchase things like MRIs. We have not yet heard from Ontario.
I, too, have read the troubling reports of the waiting lists in
Ontario. It was raised yesterday by one of our colleagues from
Nepean—Carleton.
I call upon the government of Ontario to do the right thing with
the additional money and buy and put the MRIs where they are
needed.
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what measures
is Canada taking to ensure that beef imported to our country does
not pose any health risks for Canadians. In other words, is my
Big Mac safe to eat?
1155
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is recognized as BSE free. We are determined that will
remain so. As a result, acting on information received and on
the advice of scientists, today the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will announce
the suspension of beef imports from Brazil.
For its part, and consistent with that suspension, Health Canada
will recall from the Canadian market any products containing
beef.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of the Environment.
The Sumas 2 gas fired electric plant has British Columbians
really upset. The Americans get the electricity and Canadians
get the pollution. The hapless provincial NDP government missed
its opportunity to defend the province.
Will the minister wait for more deliberations, or will he use
his powers now to defend British Columbia and stop Sumas 2?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know this will come as a surprise to the hon.
member but the powers of the federal Canadian Minister of the
Environment do not extend to the continental United States.
We have made representations to the energy facilities site
evaluation council of Washington state. That was done on May 2.
We pointed out there was insufficient information on air quality
impacts. There was a problem with respect to alternative fuel,
in particular oil firing, and I could go on. When they came back
with their revised proposal, we once more put our objections
forward.
The system is now awaiting the energy facilities site evaluation
council to report to Governor Locke.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister's weakness
shows. He is hiding behind the bureaucrats, and that is not good
enough. The science is clear, yet the minister is hedging. In
fact he is implying that approval of Sumas 2 is possible.
If ever there were a test for the government to resolve to
defend all of Canada, this is it. Will the minister use his
rightful powers and stop Sumas 2? Yes or no.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that the environment and scientific
information to which the member refers came from my department.
I do not understand why the opposition talked earlier about the
softwood lumber agreement and the need to have one Canadian
voice. It has played fast and loose with the interests of the
people of the Fraser Valley and the interests of Canada on the
issue of Sumas 2. It is outrageous that we have had this
behaviour.
We will continue to play the cards as best we can, in the right
form and in the right order. We will not simply go out there, as
he and his fellow members of the Canadian Alliance Party have
done, and say that it is in our backyard, of course it is
unacceptable.
* * *
[Translation]
CONTAMINATED WATER
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, our
colleague from Manicouagan questioned the Minister of Transport
yesterday about his plans for dealing with the contamination of
the water table in the beaches area of Sept-Îles. He got no
answer.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Since the
minister acknowledged his responsibility three years ago, why
can we not know what he plans to do now?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary, we have a very good plan.
I am told there are four options. An ion exchange treatment
device, a reverse osmosis treatment device, bottled water
delivery and the payment of a sum for the purchase of bottled
water.
That means we have four options for the residents of
Sept-Îles. I am told the resident have chosen options. I think
the matter will be resolved.
* * *
[English]
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the forest products industry is of immense importance to the
economy of British Columbia and the people of my riding. An
important part of that industry, the Canadian Pulp and Paper
Association, is having its annual meeting in Montreal this week.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. What
action is the Canadian government taking to ensure the
sustainability of this immensely important part of the forest
industry?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is correct with respect to the
importance of the Canadian forestry sector, including pulp and
paper. It is important for investment, employment, exports,
environmental stewardship, and for new science and technology.
Two areas are of particular importance to the Government of
Canada: our support for research, such as our financing for
PAPRICAN in relation to pulp and paper, and trade and market
access where we assist in developing and opening markets around
the world and in defending our Canadian reputation in markets
around the world, as I did very recently on a European mission.
* * *
1200
[Translation]
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently
the government tabled its bill to reform financial institutions.
Could the government assure us that this bill is going to include
amendments that will protect the medium sized banks such as the
National Bank in Quebec?
Just before the election was called, the Secretary of State for
Financial Institutions had committed to amending the bill with
the conditions set out in a letter from Bernard Landry, Quebec's
minister of finance and deputy premier, specifically in order to
protect the specific nature of Quebec as far as its financial
institutions are concerned, the National Bank in particular, in
the event of a control bid by a single individual, which would
be contrary to the interests of Quebec.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the
question by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
I must inform him that we made no promise of a specific time but
that the minister did indeed respond to the letter setting out
Mr. Landry's concerns. I am sure something will be done.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Steve Ashton,
Minister of Transportation and Government Services of the
province of Manitoba, and the Honourable Jack Anawak, Minister of
Community Government and Transportation of Nunavut.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an act to amend
the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance
(Fishing) Regulations.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado
Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the
Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY
ACT
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation
to fund sustainable development technology.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1205
[Translation]
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection
of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-203, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act (unpaid wages to rank first in priority in
distribution).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this bill
today. The purpose of the bill is that in the event of a
bankruptcy the interests of the employees will be put before the
interests of any other creditors. In other words, if there are
unpaid wages or severance pay owing, the company will have to
deal with those debts first before the debts to the banks or
other creditors.
We believe it is overdue. It stems from the drastic situation
of Giant Mine in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
LABOUR MARKET TRAINING ACT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-204, an act to provide for the establishment of
national standards for labour market training, apprenticeship and
certification.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is another bill that I feel very
strongly about. It would put the onus on the government to set
national standards for apprenticeship, curriculum and training.
In the interests of the mobility of working people going from
province to province, the certification of a journeyman carpenter
would be the same in B.C., Manitoba or Newfoundland. There is a
great demand for this in industry. I think it is in the
interests of industry that we adopt this bill, and I am very
proud to present it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Hon. David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. First, I congratulate you on assuming the position of
Deputy Speaker.
I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to revert to
Senate public bills as I have to leave to catch a flight. I
apologize to my hon. colleague over there. It will take a few
seconds and he will then be able to introduce the remainder of
his bills.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the minister have unanimous
consent to proceed to the first reading of Senate public bills?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
1210
CANADA WATER EXPORT PROHIBITION ACT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-205, an act to prohibit the export of water by
interbasin transfers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this bill
which would try to act in the interest of all Canadians in the
matter of the interbasin transfer of water and the inherent
dangers of that.
The Minister of Industry recently said that water would be the
oil of the coming decades. There is great interest in other
countries getting access to Canadian freshwater resources. We
believe that we have to act now to outlaw and ban the interbasin
transfer and the bulk sale of water.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-206, an act respecting the protection of whistle
blowers and to amend the Auditor General Act, the Parliamentary
Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Staff Relations
Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill regarding whistle blowers looks
at the public service and public sector. Many employees in the
public sector would come forward with perhaps cost saving
measures, or even evidence or allegations of wrongdoing, if they
knew they would not have to fear being disciplined for being that
honest.
We believe that as an employer, the Government of Canada should
encourage its employees to come forward if they know of some
wrongdoing or misuse of funds. The whistle blowers bill would
give them a licence to do so without fear of losing their jobs.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ENERGY PRICE COMMISSION ACT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-207, an act to establish the energy price
commission.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked and horrified at
the spiralling and out of control energy costs, especially for
their home heating fuel.
This bill seeks to encourage government to create an energy
price commission which would regulate the cost of home heating
fuel so that we would not have the terrible shock of seemingly
arbitrary increases in prices.
Canadians feel they are being gouged, cheated and ripped off.
They are looking to the federal government for some direction to
add some semblance of order to energy pricing. This regulatory
body would serve that purpose.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-208, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual
offences).
She said: Mr. Speaker, as you know, following the tabling by the
previous member for Jonquière of a petition signed by more than
100,000 persons, I committed to introduce a bill regarding this
matter.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the criminal code to modify
offences for sexual interference with a person under the age of
fourteen years and for invitations to sexual touching involving
such a person, to change the punishment for offences committed
by persons in a position of authority and for sexual assault,
and to require persons convicted of any of these offences to
undergo treatment.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-209, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (public
transportation costs).
She said: Mr. Speaker, with the strong support of a number of
groups that have indicated great enthusiasm for such a bill, among
them the Canadian Urban Transit Association and the Société de
transport de l'Outaouais, I introduce this bill to amend the
Income Tax Act in connection with public transportation costs.
The bill amends the Income Tax Act to allow an individual to
deduct certain public transportation costs from the amount of
tax payable.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1215
[English]
MARINE LIABILITY ACT
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Transport) moved that
Bill S-2, an act respecting marine liability and to validate
certain bylaws and regulations, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
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 and of the amendment.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is always
hard to break off, especially when the subject is the Speech
from the Throne, and to resume cruising speed in a very
emotional speech.
For our viewers, I mention that I started by pointing out that
the throne speech was offensive, because in it the federal
government set itself up as the main government, if not the
important government, the only government of a state that is
becoming increasingly unitary.
It is also offensive because this speech sets out an idyllic
vision of Canada and of the role of the government, which wants
to promote health, reduce the student dropout rate, make Canada,
which is currently in fifth place, one of the world leaders in
research and development and a leader in environmental matters,
whereas the facts are quite different.
In terms of health care, education, research and the
environment, cuts and a lack of policy have led in many cases
to a dramatic situation.
I must target my remarks, since I will be short of time. I want
to point out that, with respect to poverty, the fight against
student dropout, the fact that children need families and that
early childhood will be one of the important issues of this
government, what we have learned in the past 30 years, what we
now know and what we rediscovered during the Canada wide tour by
the Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, is that
social policy must be integrated if it is to be effective and
achieve its objectives. They must not go all over the place.
What we are seeing is Canada wanting to intervene in a sense,
while—and I will speak of Quebec with pride—the government of
Quebec has for years had a family policy which is becoming
increasingly integrated and may be effective, but for which
Quebec is lamentably short of money because of the cuts made
everywhere due to the federal government's refusal to negotiate
parental leave.
1220
If the government is really serious about its goals, it will
have to change the way it deals with Quebec in terms of these
plans. It is all very well to state in the throne speech what
one's intentions are, even though they seem to be going all over
the place; in fact, for policies to be effective—money being
scarce—they must be complementary.
When it comes to child poverty, one must look at the parents'
income as well as social housing policies. One must also make
sure there are enough teachers in the classroom, and that
services are provided after school to help children with their
homework.
The very minimum of course is to have a decent income.
Quebec has shown leadership. It has done more than pay lip
service to child policy. Resources have to be set aside.
I find this throne speech very disheartening because we can only
expect further battles about being able to use, in the most
efficient manner, our own tax money, which unfortunately has to
go through Ottawa before it can come back to us, not only
covered with little red flags, but also with strings attached,
which may be go entirely against our own goals and wishes, and
in the end be counterproductive.
It is not surprising that so many Quebecers are in favour of
sovereignty and want to run their own affairs. We are going to
keep working toward that end.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member. She mentioned that, in the throne
speech, the government is moving towards a unitary state. I find
it hard to believe that she would even suggest such a thing.
Does the hon. member not recognize that the government system in
Canada is one of the most decentralized systems in the world?
Can she not compare our system to that of other countries?
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I said “in an increasingly
unitary direction.” I would remind the House that in 1867 John
A. Macdonald wanted a unitary state, but George Étienne Cartier
as well as the New Brunswick representatives were against the
idea.
However, what we point out is that, not counting the
Constitution—because the Constitution gives some powers to the
provinces—what is starting to truly hinder Canada is the central
government's unrestricted spending power. The Meech Lake
agreement would have solved this problem, albeit in a somewhat
modest and timid way however for now there is no limit to the
spending power of the federal government nor to its power to
levy all the taxes it wants, regardless of need.
That gives the federal government a disproportionate edge,
because it can interfere at anytime and anywhere, and impose
conditions for every $10,000 it hands out to any group, just
because it is the one with the money.
That being said, what was supposed to be a confederation at the
very start and turned into a federation has now increasingly
becoming a unitary state, with some decentralization or
concentration in regions that have nothing to do but cash
cheques.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
two short questions for my colleague from Mercier who has been
very much involved in social issues, both in the labour
movement, in the past, and as a member of parliament.
1225
Could she remind the House why it is important that Quebec
should have an integrated plan of parental leave, and why the
Chrétien government should accede to Quebec's demands in terms
of numbers and eligibility?
The Deputy Speaker: I know this is a new parliament, but we
should never forget that hon. members should be referred to, not
by name, but by their title or the name of their department.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I did refer
inadvertently to the Prime Minister by name.
That was my first question. My second question to the hon.
member for Mercier is this: would she remind us why the national
vision the Bloc Quebecois is pursuing is most relevant, and why
it will be important in the coming years?
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, these are two short questions
requiring two long answers, but I will try to get to the basic
points.
In the first case, Quebec—more than other provinces, if they
want it—needs, not a favour from the federal government but
payment of the portion of employment insurance to which it is
entitled for parental leave so that it could, not only as is now
provided by the legislation, grant leave with 55% of earnings to
women who are eligible for employment insurance, but to all those
who need it and are self-employed workers or other workers. This
would ensure that they get a decent income because, even with
the extension, few women will be able to take advantage of
parental leave because their earnings are inadequate. What
we are talking about here is eligibility and income.
Why does Quebec need it more than any other province? Because in
Quebec there is a serious demographic problem because of a drop
in the birth rate. Consequently, it is essential that the
Canadian people and the Quebec nation be able to grant decent
parental leave.
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mount Royal.
After an absence of three and a half years, it is a great honour
and a privilege to return to the House today and to convey on
their behalf the concerns of the constituents of Halifax West.
I wish to talk about some of those concerns today, but first let
me tell hon. members about my constituency of Halifax West. It
is comprised of the western portion of the Halifax regional
municipality. It is a riding of great diversity, from the
suburbs to the seaside, from places like Clayton Park, Spryfield
and Bedford to Peggy's Cove, Hubbards and Seabright, a beautiful
area along the sea.
This is the fastest growing area in Atlantic Canada and it is of
great concern to people in my riding that there is not the
infrastructure needed to support that growth throughout Halifax
West. As a result, we have congested roadways, aging and
overcrowded schools and a need for new and more schools, and a
shortage of recreational facilities.
Throughout Halifax West, there are hard-working people. The
unemployment rate in the metropolitan Halifax area is something
around 6%, lower than the national average. We have a strong and
in fact a booming economy. There are many young families, who
are concerned about education, health care, recreation and taxes.
There are students coping with rising tuition and trying to
handle debt loads. There are empty nesters who are struggling to
save for their retirement. There are retirees on fixed incomes.
Over the past few months, particularly during the federal
election campaign, I have talked to thousands of people. I have
knocked on their doors and visited them in meetings around the
riding. I have heard their concerns, their priorities and their
frustrations. They are very pleased to see the progress that has
been made over the past seven years on issues like the debt, the
deficit and taxes. However, they certainly still face problems
and they still have concerns.
For instance, at my office this week I have heard a lot about
the high cost of home heating as people try to make ends meet
during a difficult winter with high heating costs. I have passed
on those concerns to the Minister of Finance and to other members
of the government. I have made their concerns very clearly
known.
1230
I mentioned that Halifax West is the fastest growing area
in Atlantic Canada. The Halifax metropolitan area is one of
great growth.
What are the sources of that growth? The first and most well
known source would be the Sable gas program, which has had a huge
positive impact on the economy of Nova Scotia in recent years. It
is only beginning. We have seen the development of one field
near Sable Island. More fields have already been discovered which
we will see developed in the near future and will bring
tremendous benefits to Nova Scotia.
One of the concerns I heard during the election campaign was
about the royalty scheme for the benefits generated by Sable
offshore gas and other gas resources off the Nova Scotia coast.
During the eighties the governments of Premier Buchanan in Nova
Scotia and Prime Minister Mulroney in Ottawa made a deal on gas
royalties whereby the province of Nova Scotia receives 30% of the
royalties and the Government of Canada receives 70% of the
royalties.
In comparison, western provinces at their inception received
huge areas with great natural resources. They have been able to
benefit from those resources. I would argue that Nova Scotia
ought to have the same kind of benefit from its offshore
resources, as should Newfoundland.
I hope the government will examine the situation with regard to
the royalty scheme and consider a more equitable scheme for
royalties.
The port of Halifax is another source of great growth in the
Halifax area. It is the major east coast port for Canada and the
only east coast port that is ice free. No ice breaking is
required for the port of Halifax. Yet a concern that has been
raised in the past is that fees paid by Halifax shippers have
subsidized ice breaking in the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The port is a key economic engine for the metropolitan Halifax
area and for the Atlantic economy. Last year, just in containers
alone, 548,404 container units went through Halifax. That is an
increase of 18.5% over the previous year. I am not talking about
roll on, roll off cargo, bulk or break bulk cargo but about
containers. We see tremendous growth in that sector of the
port's activities.
The port must remain competitive and it needs the government's
attention and involvement. I was pleased that a couple of years
ago the Government of Canada committed, as part of the bid that
Halifax made, to win the business of Maersk Canada Inc. and to
spend $75 million if Halifax were to win the bid to develop a
super terminal for post panamax vessels.
The government should maintain its interest in that matter. I
hope there will be support for growing the port and building a
new terminal when the time comes.
Halifax is also a thriving high tech community with companies
like InfoInteractive in the information technology field and
MedMira Laboratories in the biotechnology field, both of which
have developed in exciting ways with new technologies.
We have seen many companies developing in Halifax. There are
now over 200 companies in the high tech sector. Many of them
have developed because of developments in research at
universities and other institutions of research in the Halifax
area. That is why it was so important when last June the
Government of Canada announced the Atlantic investment
partnership, part of which is the Atlantic investment fund that
provides $300 million to increase the research capacity in the
region.
Dalhousie University, DalTech, Saint Mary's University and Mount
Saint Vincent University will benefit from that kind of research,
as is the community as a whole because those companies provide
good paying jobs with good benefits. That is so important for
families in our region.
Halifax is also the home of a vibrant east coast music scene.
It is a great centre for nightlife, music and the arts. There is
also a growing film industry. Nova Scotia has been the site of
the filming of many feature films in recent years. It has an
excellent supply of people who are trained in working on films.
1235
The navy is another major employer in Halifax. It is the east
coast home of Canada's navy and the arrival of the Oberon
submarines is very important to Halifax. Residents of the area
are appreciative of the government's decision to purchase the
Oberon submarines. They are also anxiously awaiting the swift
replacements for the Sea King helicopters.
Shipbuilding is another important industry in the area. Like
aerospace, shipbuilding faces stiff competition from subsidized
yards around the world. Until recently, the Halifax shipyard has
been very active, however, lately it has been a little less
active because of the competition. Many families, who rely upon
the employment generated by that shipyard, are looking to the
Government of Canada to come forward with a shipbuilding policy
that will be positive for the future of this shipyard, as well as
others across the country.
There are also many people who are employed in the health care
sector. That was probably the top area of concern that I heard
about during the election campaign. People were pleased to learn
of the health care accord, with $21 billion being invested into
the system and transferred to the provinces over the next five
years. They were pleased to see that the government has paid
attention to this important concern and are now anxious to have
the provincial government manage these dollars.
It is important to note that people want their concerns to be
heard by government. I feel it is my responsibility to come here
and convey the concerns that I hear.
It is also important to go back to the riding and listen to the
people. That is why I have begun a series of meetings called
“Let's Talk”, which I had when I was previously a member of
parliament. Last week, I started with a meeting in Spryfield in
my riding. I hold these meetings because I believe in our
democratic process. I believe the public must have a role in
policy making. I think it is a challenge that all of us need to
face and take on in order to engage our citizens in policy making
in a meaningful way. I challenge my fellow colleagues to find
new ways to involve those who have been voiceless.
Many of us like to hear ourselves talk but not everyone does. We
need to hear from those who do not have that particular
inclination.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Halifax West commented on the issue of offshore gas,
the distribution of that gas and the net benefit to his province
and to other customers who may avail themselves of that resource.
It raises the whole thorny issue of the production and
distribution of energy resources. I am sure Nova Scotia, with
its Sable Island offshore resources, is starting to wrestle with
the issue of who will be getting the net benefit from energy
resources.
The province of Alberta has staked claim on absolute ownership
of what is under its soil. Many Canadians actually feel that it
is part of our common wealth, that energy resources are not
theirs but ours, and that it is part of our birthright as
Canadians to have access to it and share in the benefit that it
offers Canada in terms of economic development possibilities,
namely the revenue and the sales that it generates.
In order to address that, we need some real leadership from the
federal government. Would the member agree that the federal
government does have a role to play in trying to bring some
semblance of order to the production and distribution of energy
resources? Would he support the idea of a regulatory body set up
by the federal government, an energy price commission, that would
be charged with the responsibility of regulating the price, so
that Canadians are not as furious about the seemingly arbitrary
fluctuations in energy costs, home heating fuels and gasoline?
Does he see a role for his Liberal government to intervene now
and establish a regulatory body such as an energy price
commission?
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member
is familiar with the constitution and will be aware that this is
an area that is the responsibility of the provinces not the
federal government. It would be encroaching on provincial
jurisdiction for the Government of Canada to create such a body.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member for Halifax West for a very
good speech and one which I think all members of the House
listened to intently because of the merits that were contained
therein.
I want talk a little bit about the government's plans. The
Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the cabinet and caucus
are working toward a very good system of tax cuts that are
starting to kick in right now. They will have an impact not only
on ordinary Canadians but, in a macro sense, on the entire
country.
1240
I wonder if the hon. member for Halifax West can comment on the
precise nature of the impact of those tax cuts. What will it
mean for Canadians no matter where they live? What will the
impact be on the country as a whole, especially as we move more
and more into a globalized economy where the interconnectedness
is very much in play? I would like to hear the hon. member's
comments because I know he is a seasoned veteran and has great
wisdom in this area.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his generous and kind words. The tax reductions committed to by
the government will be of great benefit to our country. I heard a
great deal about it during the election campaign in my riding of
Halifax West. Many people in that area were concerned about the
level of taxation and were anxious to see taxes lowered. They
are very pleased to see that as of the first of this year tax
cuts have already begun. These tax cuts will continue over the
next five years and amount to a total of $100 billion. That will
be a lot of dollars back in our pockets and it will help the
economy.
Many Canadians are concerned right now as they watch the U.S.
economy. The government is also concerned about the slowing of
that economy and will watch it closely. However, it is important
to note that our economy remains very strong and in good shape.
The fact that we are having these tax cuts at this particular
time will help to strengthen our economy and encourage people to
spend, buy products and support the economy.
I think we will probably see interest rates come down some more
over the next year. That will also boost the economy. I think
we can expect a soft landing. There are many other factors, but
I think we are near very good things with more good times ahead.
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take
this opportunity to thank my family for their engagement in my
work, and the electors of Mount Royal for their renewed
confidence and trust in me, and both for their espousal and
support for the human rights agenda which will be the burden of
my remarks today.
In the Speech from the Throne and in yesterday's address by the
Prime Minister, the Prime Minister spoke of Canada's deep
commitment to democracy and human rights. The Prime Minister
mentioned that we have become a model for the world and that
international involvement will be a main theme of this
parliamentary mandate.
I will share with members a series of principles and policies
which may underpin such a commitment.
First, combating hate speech, hate crime and hate movements. We
are witnessing today a growing trafficking in hate from central
Asia to central Europe and North America, reminding us that we
have yet to learn the lessons and are repeating the strategies of
50 and 60 years ago. As the Supreme Court of Canada put it in
upholding the constitutionality of anti-hate legislation, “The
Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers, it began with
words”.
Fifty years later, this teaching of contempt and this demonizing
of the other has led us down the road to genocide in the Balkans
and Rwanda.
What is so necessary today is a culture of human rights as an
antidote to a culture of hate, a culture of respect as an
antidote to a culture of contempt, including in particular,
respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, respect for
the equal dignity of all persons, respect for the right of
minorities to protection against group vilifying speech, respect
for our international treaty obligations which remove incitement
to hatred from the ambit of protected speech, recognition of the
substantial harm caused to the targets of hate speech and hate
crimes, be they individuals or groups, and respect for the
underlying values of a free and democratic society.
Second, the communications revolution, the Internet as a
transporter of the best and the worst. Television, radio and now
the Internet, all have incredible power to move people to act.
As with most technologies, there is power for good and potential
for evil.
On the one hand, the Internet can be used for human rights
education as a means of organizing human rights defenders, as a
means of accessing human rights violations and mobilizing the
international community to act. Urgent appeals and public
campaigns can be received instantly and can prevent further
abuses.
1245
While the information highway can transport the best, it can
also transport the worst. The ability of the Internet to reach
out to people on a grand scale is what attracts not only the
human rights defenders and civil society generally, but also the
terrorist, the child molester, the hate group leader and the
pornographer.
Hate on the Internet, particularly cyberhate, also seeks to
target and recruit children. We have seen a proliferation of
hate sites from just one in 1995 to over 2,500 today.
What we find now is that while technology races, the law lags.
Once again the scientists are beating the lawyers. We need a
strategy of cross-commitment, an imaginative use of legal remedy,
education, anti-racist education, heightened awareness, media
exposure and community advocacy.
Third is the combating of xenophobia and discrimination in the
multicultural societies of the 21st century. Xenophobic,
discriminatory and exclusionary attitudes and policies toward
refugees, migrant workers, minorities, immigrants and les
étrangers, the stranger generally speaking, characterize
multicultural societies of the 21st century.
If a watershed issue in the 1980s was the right to emigrate,
particularly for those behind the iron curtain, then a watershed
issue as we begin the 21st century is the right to asylum and to
protection against discrimination generally.
Fourth is the global struggle against torture. Torture, be it
through rape, mutilation, beatings or any form of cruel and
degrading mental or physical punishment, finds expression today
in at least 150 countries, three-quarters of the world states,
while children are tortured in at least 50 of those countries.
People have died from torture alone in at least 80 countries in
the past three years. The unconditional and absolute right to be
free from torture, one of the most basic rights of all of the
human rights, is under international assault.
Canada must become a leader in this crucial global struggle
against torture. Working against torture should become a central
piece of our foreign policy, a commitment we bring to all of our
dealings with other states in the international community.
Fifth is the rights of children. The convention on the rights
of the child was ratified more quickly by more countries than any
other treaty in history. The international community recognized
that children, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, need to be
protected from the violation of their rights.
In the last year alone, three international conferences were
held on war affected children, culminating in Canada in the
Winnipeg conference where 132 governments issued a resounding
call to action on behalf of children affected by conflict.
The Speech from the Throne should be commended for its emphasis
on the rights and needs of children. As my own daughter put it
when speaking to me on human rights, “Daddy, if you want to know
what the real test of human rights is, always ask yourself, at
any time, in any situation, in any part of the world, if what is
happening is good for children. That is the real test of human
rights”.
Sixth is the rights of women. The genocide in World War II and
the ethnic cleansing and genocides since have included horrific
crimes against women. Moreover, these crimes have not only
attended the killing fields or been in consequence of it, which
would be bad enough, but now become in pursuit of it.
We are witnessing 50 and 60 years later once again violent
crimes against women in armed conflict. The lessons of those
days need to be relearned and acted upon. The struggle for
international women's rights in all its expression must be a
priority on our human rights agenda. The notion that women's
rights are human rights and that there are no human rights
without the rights of women must be not only a statement of
principle but an instrument of policy.
As UNICEF recently reported that discrimination against women
was an injustice greater than South Africa's apartheid. As the
women's rights movement has put it, significant numbers of the
world's population are routinely subject to torture, starvation,
terrorism, humiliation, mutilation and even murder, simply
because they are female.
Seventh is the plight of indigenous people. If we look at the
Speech from the Throne we see its commitment to the question of
the dignity and welfare of aboriginal people. What is needed
here is a new cultural sensibility, a respect for difference, a
politics and policy of inclusion, a recognition of aboriginal
people's right to self-government, a recognition of their unique
status by reason of their historic presence as first nations, a
generous rather than a grudging or recriminatory respect for
their aboriginal treaty rights and land rights, a radical
improvement of economic and social conditions on reserves, a
reform of the Canadian justice system to accommodate the
distinctiveness and sensibilities of aboriginal culture, and the
adoption of the draft UN declaration on the rights of indigenous
peoples.
Eighth is the struggle against impunity. The 20th century has
been characterized by crimes that have been too terrible to be
believed but not too terrible to have happened.
1250
It is also characterized by the impunity that has accompanied
the commission of these atrocities. Establishing accountability
is not only a moral imperative but a practical one. The adoption
of the international criminal court in 1998 was a watershed in
the fight against impunity and in the struggle for accountability
in protecting the rule of law while deterring those responsible
for the commission of the worst of atrocities, be it genocide,
war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Accordingly the struggle against impunity requires that we
recognize that states have an obligation to prosecute or
extradite the most serious of international crimes. It requires
that we invoke the full panoply of remedies at our disposal
internationally and nationally to bring those responsible for war
crimes and crimes against humanity to justice in Canada and
elsewhere.
Canada should lead a campaign for the necessary ratifications to
bring the international criminal court into being. We should
continue to take the lead in engendering justice both at the
international criminal tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda
and the prospective International Criminal Court. We should
develop mechanisms for the protection of civilians in armed
conflicts, refugee camps, security, and the integration of human
rights into peacekeeping missions.
I will close with the reminders of my own constituents. We can
best give expression to the struggle for human rights in the
understanding that each one of us has an indispensable role to
play in the individual struggle for human rights and human
dignity.
Each one of us can and does make a difference. Human rights
begins with each of us, in our homes, in our workplaces, in our
human relations, in our daily capacity for active care and
compassion. We are each, wherever we are, the guarantors of each
other's destiny.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your new post. I
would be remiss if I did not begin by congratulating the hon.
member on his courageous stand with respect to Falun Gong. I
know his work has saved the life of at least one individual and
has brought the attention and attraction of the international
community on this terrible situation.
The points that he articulates about human rights abuses,
torture, the rights of children and conflict are well known. The
amount of conflict taking place in the world today has been
exploding over the last few years. The international community
has been ill able to deal with this in a preventive fashion. I
was very happy and encouraged to see in the throne speech an
explicit reference to the prevention of deadly conflict.
Many of the things we have seen that the hon. member mentioned
in his speech about abuses to children, torture, et cetera, are
products of conflict in many cases, so I will confine my comments
and questions to that.
Will the hon. member and his government look at international
organizations and how we can prevent conflict? Will he advocate
conditionality on World Bank activities in certain countries such
as Tibet, Chad and Angola? Will he put pressure on companies in
the international communities and countries to ensure that their
resources will be applied to primary health and education instead
of war efforts?
I cite the specific example of Angola. It receives a $3.5
billion infusion of capital every year from international
organizations and companies while their people are living in
abject poverty and are dying. One-third of the children in
Angola die before the age of five.
Will he fight for conditionality in loans from the World Bank,
in actions by the IMF, and in CIDA's activities internationally?
Mr. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question
goes to the heart of what a human rights foreign policy is all
about.
I mentioned just yesterday the fact that China in the year 2000
has been the recipient of $1.67 billion in loan assistance from
the World Bank. We need to review the policies of the World
Bank, the IMF and international financial institutions to ensure
that we are not licensing or rewarding human rights violations,
be it in Angola, China or elsewhere.
With respect to the question of my involvement in these issues,
my whole approach with regard to human rights foreign policy,
including not only international financial institutions but
corporate involvement, is that we cannot have a situation where
corporations are themselves, however inadvertent, acquiescing in
those violations.
1255
We need more than just voluntary codes of conduct. We need to
review whether we can regulate the character of our corporations
when they are carrying out mandates that are effectively given to
them by the Canadian government in the manner in which they
relate to other countries.
I am referring to where the Export Development Corporation may
be assisting corporations acting in countries that are committing
the most egregious of human rights violations.
We will need to review our whole pattern of both corporate
involvement as well as assistance by international financial
institutions to human rights violator countries.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague in commending the member for
Mount Royal. I think that he is a model member of this place in
his passion, intellectual honesty and commitment to issues of
conscience.
I should like to ask him two questions. First, will he join
with me in encouraging the Prime Minister and ministers who will
be travelling to China this month to raise as a top priority
Canada's very grave concern about the continued atrocious human
rights record of the People's Republic of China?
Will he join with me in raising concerns about the labour camps,
not just the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners but minority
Christians, Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Muslims and other
religious minorities, and the people of Tibet?
My second question touches on what the member passionately said
at the outset of his remarks in terms of the need for greater
sensitivity about hate speech and hate crimes. Will he agree
with me that it is very potent language, that it must be used
with great care, and that we must use the most potent language in
our rhetorical arsenal against those who are guilty of such
crimes?
Will he therefore join with me in regretting the remarks during
the recent campaign of his colleague from the riding of
Thornhill? Although my party, according to the Globe and
Mail, had the distinction of having the highest number of
ethnic minority candidates of any party, the member for Thornhill
ascribed to it the inclusion of many “bigots, racists and
Holocaust deniers”.
Mr. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of human
rights in China generally, I would refer the hon. member to my
Standing Order 31 today. I identified a list of human rights
violations in China in addition to the matter of the Falun Gong.
I also recently identified 10 categories of human rights
violations by China, which I take to be performance criteria by
which we measure the character of China's standing in the
international community.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the opening session of this
new parliament and begin by thanking the constituents of Calgary
Southeast for their renewed confidence in my representation here.
I was honoured to receive an increased majority. I would also
seek permission from the Chair to split the balance of my time
with the member for Peace River. It is a particular honour to
come back here with a larger majority.
I will address the balance of my remarks to the question of the
lack of real economic vision presented in the throne speech.
Economic and fiscal questions at a time of increasing economic
uncertainty were unfortunately excluded from any serious
discussion in Her Excellency's speech. That reflects a general
attitude of carelessness from the government when it comes to the
economic prospects we face.
I cannot help but note in the recent exchange I had with the
honourable and esteemed member for Mount Royal that he failed to
address my second question. I hope that at some point, when it
is appropriate, he will do so.
This is not the right place for us to completely rehash the last
election. However, issues and comments that are raised during an
election campaign which are of profound importance to the tone
and tenor of public discourse should be addressed.
I hope he will agree with me that it was very regrettable that a
member of his caucus and a member of cabinet who continues to be
supported by the Prime Minister engaged in the most foul,
defamatory and scurrilous sort of remarks that are possible in
public discourse.
1300
At the outset of this parliament I for one want to put on the
record how deeply hurt I and many of my colleagues were by those
remarks made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I
furthermore want to say that a substantive and not merely
rhetorical commitment to human rights and civil rights such as
that expressed by the member for Mount Royal is a tremendous
thing and a great value to this place. However, members opposite
would have greater credibility in addressing such issues if they
were to identify the kind of language which frankly is hateful in
itself and inflammatory.
I want to put on the record that I think the member for
Thornhill stepped beyond the bounds of anything close to civil
discourse and impugned herself as somebody who is willing to
direct frankly hateful thoughts toward honourable, civil and
tolerant members of this place and many who participate in our
national politics.
Having addressed that regrettable matter, I turn to the issue of
the growing economic uncertainty which we now face. Yesterday we
heard reports from Statistics Canada that manufacturing orders
and production will be declining even further in this quarter.
This matches the reduced output being seen in the United States
in reduced consumer demand. This also comes at a time when the
principal economic authority in the developed world, the U.S.
federal reserve board, has decided to reduce its prime rate by
100 basis points in three weeks, an unprecedented action.
All of this gives credence to those very credible voices and
economists who suggest that our largest trading partner is now
likely in the midst of a recession and that Canada may very well
be headed into a similar recession. I note on the front page of
one of our national newspapers today an economist being quoted as
saying that we are in at least a brief recession.
Recession means two successive quarters of negative growth. We
asked the government what it plans to do, how it plans to respond
and whether it plans to act on this very troubling new economic
development which will inevitably impact the standard of living
of all Canadians and the fiscal projections and incoming revenues
of the government. The government refused to do so. It is back
to the don't worry, be happy theme which the Prime Minister is so
adept at striking.
Last October the government introduced not really a budget but a
statement, really a political statement, which had been done very
quickly. Finance department officials were given very short
notice by the Prime Minister to produce an election statement
that was not able to take anything into account with respect to
the recent developments in the U.S. and Canadian economies. The
government is planning to maintain a fiscal plan right through to
March of next year based on an outdated political document.
I know that some of my Liberal colleagues, those who came of age
in the 1960s, still have a strong streak of anti-Americanism and
they still do not appreciate the degree to which we are reliant
on the American economy. Let me explain that we export to the
United States more of our manufactured goods than we consume
domestically, so when consumer demand goes down in the United
States, manufacturing output will go down in Canada. That will
inevitably affect our economy.
When our economy is negatively affected and we see a reduction
in growth, according to some projections, of .1%, which is
substantially lower than that projected in the fall statement, or
potentially negative growth according to some economists, we will
see government revenues decline. When government revenues
decline, especially when the government is increasing spending in
all sorts of unidentified areas, the conditions exist for
potential deficits. That is precisely what the second most
heavily indebted country in the OECD does not need to incur at a
time of economic uncertainty, yet government members put their
heads in the sand.
1305
At the outset of this parliament we call on the government, not
out of a sense of partisanship but out of a sense of prudence, to
introduce in the spring, as is our convention, a comprehensive
budget that takes into account all of these factors.
Let me suggest some things the government might want to
introduce in that budget. First of all it might want to review
the $52 billion of new spending outlined in the fall statement,
much of which was not identified. It may care to identify the
costs, which it has so far refused to do, of the 14 specific new
spending commitments outlined in this week's Speech from the
Throne and of the 51 other vague commitments to and promises of
new spending programs. It may also wish to outline precisely how
it intends to accommodate the Prime Minister's red book
commitment to spend 50% of future surpluses. This is a figure
clearly not accounted for or anticipated in the finance
minister's fall economic statement.
We have contradictory directions. We have the old spending,
welfare state, Trudeau Liberal in the person of the Prime
Minister, who is promising to spend, spend, spend. We have the
finance minister suggesting continued fiscal prudence. We have a
potential recession coming on. With all of these contradictions
and this atmosphere of uncertainty, there is no action. There is
no precision. There is no response. The government cannot even
tell us how much it plans to spend.
It is an important question, because as spending rises and a
recession comes on we will continue to see our productivity gap
grow. As my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, reminded us
the other day, our standard of living, which is measured by real
disposable income per capita, has declined from 70% of the U.S.
average in 1990 to just over 63% in the year 2000. We have moved
to the rank of 24th out of 25 OECD countries in the last decade
in terms of growth in per capita GDP. Ireland has doubled its
per capita GDP in a time when we have seen ours shrink.
We do see a diminishment in our standard of living. We see it
in the fire sale prices of Canadian companies, such as the recent
purchase of the Montreal Canadiens. We see it in the continued
impoverishment of the Canadian currency, which affects our
standard of living. We see it in the brain drain, with tens of
thousands of bright, mostly young, talented Canadians leaving
this country to pursue brighter economic opportunities elsewhere.
We see it in the fact that Canadian taxes are on the whole
one-third higher than they are in the United States.
All of these issues need to be addressed. The opposition has,
and will outline through the course of this parliament, its
comprehensive plan for tax relief, debt reduction and spending
restraint. We invite the members of the government to do just
that.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the voters in Etobicoke North for supporting
me again and giving me the opportunity to represent them in the
House of Commons.
I am sure the member from Calgary Southeast has heard of the
concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy. In spite of that, he
and his colleagues stand in the House and pick out every tiny
shred of negative comment that might have come from the United
States or from selected economists. It is almost like they are
wishing that the economy would go into a significant downturn. I
think that is scandalous.
I would like to quote from an independent, reliable source, the
International Monetary Fund. The report is dated January 26,
2001. Today is February 2, 2001. This report says many things,
and paragraphs and sentences of it have been quoted. One thing
it does say is:
The strong policy framework in place (in Canada) has positioned
the real and financial economy to cope with any new major
economic shock, including a slowdown in U.S. growth. The
Canadian authorities are to be highly commended for their policy
accomplishments.
The government had a mini budget in October and introduced the
largest single tax cut in Canadian history. In fact, in the year
2001, at around $17 billion in tax savings, it is the largest
single monetary tax cut in Canadian history and is coming right
at a time when there is somewhat of a slowdown. However, most
reasonable, educated economists are saying that even a slowdown
in the United States will be a temporary slowdown and that the
economy will start to pick up at the end of the year.
1310
Notwithstanding that, the government has consistently built
prudence into its economic forecasts and estimates. There is
prudence in its budget planning. The finance minister said that
this situation is being monitored and that he will take action if
required.
I wish the hon. members would look at something more positive.
Instead of being the doomsayers and feeding a self-fulfilling
prophecy, why do they not talk about the realities in Canada
instead of the myths?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member
opposite does not believe that the OECD is a credible economic
source when it says that our standard of living has fallen over
the past decade.
Perhaps he does not believe that his colleague from the riding
of Markham was an honest and thoughtful economist when he said in
October of last year “I believe in being honest” and “the mini
budget is firm but other promises might have to be delayed a year
if the economy is not as good as what we believe it will be”. He
went on to talk about the fact that there was a $2.6 billion hole
in the Liberal budget promises. That is what one of the member's
own colleagues said. I do not know what source he would find
more pleasing than that.
The point is this: no amount of hot air opposite will turn
around the reality of the uncertainty we are facing right now.
The hon. member did not make a case for the lack of a
conventional, full spring budget. All he told us is that he
hopes and expects that the recession which we may now be facing
will shortly be curtailed. That sounds an awful lot like Michael
Wilson and Don Mazankowski in this place 12 years ago, when they
denied for a full year that we were even in a recession.
Governments do not want to face up to economic prudence. We
believe they should do so by accelerating meaningful tax relief
so that we can increase consumer demand, investment in the
economy and productivity, and so we can see our dollar appreciate
over time and our standard of living go up with it, unlike the
decline we have experienced over the past decade of Liberal
government.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in listening to the members
opposite, I was remembering Trudeau saying that the land was
strong, and we all know what his economic record was.
My colleague calls on the government to act, but beyond just
calling for a real, comprehensive budget, what elements does he
think would be wise for Canada to take on in view of changing
realities? I can think of four: reduced spending, creating a
low tax environment, long term debt reduction commitments, and
balanced budget legislation. Perhaps my colleague can elucidate
a little on what would really be wise for this country.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, my colleague identifies
debt reduction as an important long term priority. In the fall
economic political statement, there was no outline of a long term
debt reduction strategy. The government's attitude is that maybe
if we are lucky, maybe if we run a surplus and do not use the
contingency fund, if the minister for heritage and her big
spending colleagues like the minister for HRD do not get their
hands on it, we might allocate it to debt reduction.
We need a legislated debt reduction strategy, which some of the
provinces have successfully implemented, and major tax relief,
which we can afford and which will keep us competitive even after
the Bush tax cuts are passed by congress this spring.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to respond to the Speech from
the Throne as the industry critic for the Canadian Alliance.
First I would like to thank the electors in the Peace River
constituency who have returned me for a third term and who in
doing so again placed a responsibility upon me to carry out their
interests in Ottawa. I intend to do just that.
In order to respond to the Speech from the Throne, I think we
need to examine the government's proposals to help Canadian
industry through the looming downturn in the economy by
increasing Canadian competitiveness in the new economic
environment, which is necessary.
In order to do that, we need to look at Canada's historical
position in terms of what we have done in the economic area in
the last several years. We have to ask what went wrong in the
past and evaluate whether the proposals in the mini budget and
the throne speech are adequate to see us through. I would like
to make the case that these are not the right formula. The
formula the Liberal government has in those two areas will not
see us through adequately and will not put us back into a
competitive position.
The finance minister and the industry minister both maintain
that everything is okay, and we heard it from the parliamentary
secretary too.
It is sort of a head in the sand approach that has become all too
common from the Liberal government; everything is going to work
out, do not worry about it.
1315
Let us look at an historical review. Last spring the Standing
Committee on Industry tabled a report regarding Canada's
productivity. The study was initiated in response to concerns
expressed by many prominent economists and business leaders who
warned of an alarming productivity gap developing between Canada
and the United States, particularly over the past decade.
These leaders confirmed through statistical evidence what
Canadians instinctively already knew. Our standard of living had
fallen over the past 30 years and the rate of decline had
accelerated in the 1990s. Witnesses told the committee that on
average Canadians earn $9,000 less per capita than their American
counterparts. This illustrates how Canadian productivity has
impacted on our standard of living. That is what this is all
about. It relates to our standard of living; are we better off
or worse off than we were a decade ago.
Between 1996 and 1998, the U.S. increased its productivity at
double the rate of Canada. No wonder the 1990s were called a
dec-a-dis hor-ri-bil-is by the hon. member for Markham when he
was the chief economist at the Royal Bank of Canada. All of a
sudden he has completely changed his tune. I wonder why?
What happened to Canada's productivity and why did we slip out
of the game? We went from being number two in 1976 but we
slipped badly. In fact, from the 1950s to the mid 1970s we had
tremendously high rates of growth of productivity in this
country. In 1976 Canada was second only to the United States in
terms of productivity among the G-7. While the United States
remains number one, Canada no longer holds that second place
position. By 1997 we were in fifth place. Italy, France and
Germany have all passed Canada by and more countries will do so
if we do not get our fundamentals right. Members might rightly
ask how did this happened. We need to pursue this further.
The issues related to Canada's loss of productivity and weakened
competitiveness are complex, to say the least. Many factors,
including external shocks to the economy of a country can cause
disruption. However, the United States was better able to adapt
and restructure their economy. The restructuring which took
place in the U.S. during the 1980s enabled the Americans to lead
the way in growth for much of the 1990s, as is the case today.
Why did it happen? How did it happen? I suggest that it is 30
years of bad public policy in Canada that has caused that to
happen. I see a denial happening in government ranks again that
they do not recognize what happened and therefore cannot make the
shift.
I would like to argue that the fundamental shift in government
policy in the 1960s and 1970s, specifically major social programs
that were introduced and the federal government expansion during
those years, created the conditions that led to Canada's decline
of productivity and currency devaluation.
One might ask whether it was a coincidence that the Canadian
dollar has had a 30 year decline, that Canada's productivity has
had a 30 year decline and that the investment in Canada had a 30
year decline. I suggest that at the same time taxes went up, the
debt went up. There is no coincidence. It is bad public policy
by the Liberal and Conservative governments of the day which has
led to the decline and currency devaluation that we are suffering
today.
As an example, changes to the employment insurance program moved
it away from the concept of an insurance program to more of a
social program function. The result was an increase in
unemployment rates, several points higher than that of the United
States over the last 30 years. It remains there in good times or
bad times. It is just an example of growth or government
expansion.
Federal government spending continued to grow every year, which
had to be financed by tax increases and deficits. The result was
a $585 billion debt. It was largely glossed over until about
1993-94 when we had to finally admit that we were virtually
bankrupt.
What was the government's response at the time? That was a
brand new Liberal government and many of the members here today
came in at that time. The newly elected Liberal government
raised taxes and cut transfers to the provinces to get itself out
of the problem.
Did it cut its own spending? Very little. Program spending is
starting to grow again, which shows the Liberals do not recognize
what needs to be done. They increased excise taxes on gasoline
which added to transportation costs. They hiked capital gains
tax in those years which discouraged investment. They allowed
the discounted Canadian dollar to insulate Canadian exporters
from restructuring and improving their own productivity through
investments in technology and innovation.
No wonder the Canadian standard of living was slipping away and
our best and brightest were leaving for better opportunities in
the United States and other countries.
1320
Despite what the finance and industry ministers are saying
today, Canada is not well positioned as a low tax jurisdiction.
We just have to look south of the border. We have not even
caught up to them from the last time. Now the Republican
government of George W. Bush is moving the yardsticks again with
lower taxes.
While the overdue tax cuts in October's mini budget were
welcome, their value is hampered by long phase-in periods and
other half measures. For example, the corporate tax rate was
reduced by a mere 1% this year. The planned seven year reduction
will not be fully achieved until 2005-2006.
I maintain there is a very real danger that Canada will become
the incubator economy for the United States and our people will
be lost to foreign multinationals. Why does this government not
learn from the experiences of Ireland, the Netherlands, Georgia,
Michigan, Ontario and Alberta. They cut taxes and within a year
or two saw their revenues grow as an increased growth in the
economy quickly made up for those cuts. Canada's national debt
right now is roughly $565 billion; 25 cents out of every tax
dollar goes just to pay interest on debt.
We know what is happening in Washington. It is moving again to
cut taxes. In fact, it is telling us that the U.S. debt is going
to paid off by the end of this decade. Where is the finance
minister of Canada's plan to pay down the debt? At the rate he
is going it will take him 190 years. That is simply not good
enough. We are not sending the right kind of signals to our
business community for investment.
I think this begs the question. Where is Canada's plan? I do
not see it in this throne speech. I did not see it in the mini
budget and I do not think they have one.
What about the low Canadian dollar? Defenders of the low
Canadian dollar argue that it helps exporters and therefore
creates jobs. It begs the question. If a 66 cent dollar is
great, why do we not move to 50 cents? Would that not be better?
The answer is no because it does not encourage investment by
Canadians and foreigners in our country. What it does encourage,
I would suggest, is other people from other countries coming up
and buying up companies like the Montreal Canadiens and taking
them outside the country because our dollar is so weak.
We have to look at investment. Currently, I think the real
problem in Canada is the lack of private investment, especially
investment in research and development. Canada is currently
ranked 15th amongst OECD nations on how much it spends on R and D.
U.S. venture capital investments were 12 times that of Canada in
1995 and have moved to 18 times what Canada spent on venture
capital in the year 2000.
We are going the wrong way. Public money under the Prime
Minister's leadership cannot fill that void. It has to be filled
because we need to have investors confidence that they will get a
return on investment. I would argue that that is happening
because we have an unfavourable tax climate which has caused lack
of confidence.
To sum up, it is simply a matter of bad public policy. I am
concerned that that bad public policy is continuing. We have had
30 years of decline and it is not over yet. Canadian industry
needs the government to finally pay attention to getting the
fundamentals right and creating the business environment so
Canadian companies can succeed on their own. They need to boldly
cut taxes to get not just the same as the United States but more.
My belief is this is a very weak, timid response. We have to do
much better. I would encourage the Liberal government to bring
down a budget to that effect as soon as possible.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the previous speaker for pointing out many of the
obvious shortcomings of the Speech from the Throne and many of
the obvious flaws in the reasoning.
One of the specifics he dealt with was the problems with the EI
system. It was very timely that he pointed this out and I am
glad he did. Today a new bill was introduced, allegedly to try
and repair the completely dysfunctional and broken unemployment
insurance system in the country.
The hon. member spoke to the fact that the system is so broken
that it ceased to become an insurance system at all. It does not
provide insurance benefits to unemployed people. What is the
point in having an unemployment insurance system if it does not
provide insurance to the unemployed?
It is really common sense. The fact is that less than 40% of
unemployed people qualify for any benefits whatsoever. If the
person is a woman that figure is 25%. If the person is a youth,
the figure is 15% of unemployed people who qualify for any
benefits, even though they are forced to pay into it. They have
no choice. It is a mandatory deduction off your paycheque.
As a result, the government is getting a surplus from the EI fund
of $500 million a month, not per year, per month. That is really
another tax off the paycheque. It is not an insurance system any
more.
1325
The negative nature of not having an employment insurance
system has added to the profound economic difficulties that some
regions in the country find themselves in. Just how much of an
impact has the absence of any meaningful insurance program had on
the hon. member's riding?
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I guess I would maintain
that I do not think any employment insurance program can
substitute for a job. Most people want to have a job. That is
their number one criteria. I suggest that the moves the Liberal
government is taking to correct the fundamentals are not good
enough to allow that to happen.
For the last 30 years we have had chronic unemployment in the
range of 5% to about 12%. That is going to vary. I am
suggesting, and the analogy I was making, that up until about
1970 the business cycles of Canada and the United States could be
charted on a graph. We could look at the two of them in good and
bad times. The economic indicators were always the same. We
could put them together.
It was the same with employment insurance and the unemployment
rate. However, starting in the 1970s we had a divergence because
we expanded the employment insurance program to become more of a
social program. I do not think that was the right method because
we built in a penalty for Canadian business.
I agree with the member from Winnipeg that there are many
shortcomings in the employment insurance program. He raised the
example of a person who has to pay into the program but cannot
collect benefits. Canadian farmers are in that category as are
lots of people. It should be one way or the other. If a person
is not going to get benefits from the plan, he or she should be
exempt from it.
Overtaxing workers and employers to build up large surplus funds
for general revenue for the government to squander away on its
priorities is not good enough. We need to have a true insurance
program where we have dedicated revenue, not where it is going
into the general revenue for governments to fritter away.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member for Peace
River.
He talked about bad public policy. Since when is bringing
interest rates down, since when is bringing unemployment rates
down, since when is bringing in and delivering the largest single
tax decrease in Canadian history of $100 billion and since when
is reinvesting strategically in things like health care, children
and poverty bad public policy? Since when is paying off debt and
reducing the deficit to zero bad public policy?
What I object to is those members opposite always need to bring
in the Americans. They are lovers of the Americans. Listen to
how they invoke the name of George W. Bush. Look at how they
always want to cozy up to American cultural, economic and social
ways. Canadians object to that. More to the point, they reject
that.
Is it bad public policy for a person who has carved out his
career by saying that taxpayers' dollars should be used wisely
and then turn around and use $800,000 of Albertan taxpayers'
money to do something that $60,000 could have done? I ask the
member for Peace River if that is good public policy.
I also want to ask the member for Peace River—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret that with only five minutes
for questions and comments, I am trying to be as co-operative as
I can be with all members on both sides of the House. I will
give the floor to the member for Peace River for one final
minute.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it was
largely the Liberal government that put us in this terrible mess
to begin with.
It was Brian Mulroney's government that was elected to go in and
clean up the mess which had been created. The failure of the
Conservative government to do that was the reason why the Reform
Party and the Alliance were formed. It did not listen to the
huge majority and clean up that mess.
In regard to the lawsuit, I would like to talk about Pearson and
Airbus. I believe over $2 million of taxpayers' money went to
pay for Mr. Mulroney's expenses when the Prime Minister and the
current Minister of Health had to admit that there was no
evidence to back up their accusations. They had to publicly
apologize to Mr. Mulroney.
1330
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Simcoe—Grey. Let me begin by joining all my colleagues in
congratulating you on your election to the chair. We look forward
to your presence in the chair during this session.
I also take this opportunity to thank the people of
Parkdale—High Park who re-elected me for a second term. They
have renewed their trust and confidence in me to represent their
interests in the House of Commons. I am truly honoured by the
privilege which they have again bestowed on me and I undertake to
continue to work on their behalf.
On the day the election was called I told my constituents I was
proud to run on the record of the Liberal government and on the
policies and programs that have assisted individuals and
communities in my riding. I unequivocally repeated this message
on election night. Today I once again confirm how proud I am to
be a member of the Liberal government and of the Prime Minister's
team.
Today I will address the government's commitment in the Speech
from the Throne to a vibrant Canadian culture and how this
commitment is integral to fulfilling our government's other
commitments to creating opportunity, investing in innovation,
connecting Canadians, investing in skills and learning, and
helping our children.
In 1997 in my first speech in the House of Commons I spoke about
the fact that I truly believe we must invest in programs,
opportunities and partnerships which support our arts and
culture. I said then and still believe today that this is one of
our greatest responsibilities. I am proud to say that in the
Speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's contribution
to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne we made a
commitment to fulfilling this responsibility.
I commend the Prime Minister and the government on its
commitment to innovation by not only increasing federal
investment in traditional research, institutes and granting
councils, but also by committing to a reinvestment in arts and
culture.
The Speech from the Throne clearly states that the focus of our
cultural policies must be on excellence in the creative process.
Investing in the creative process is what Canadians need and what
our children and grandchildren will need to participate in the
new economy.
Let me begin by applauding the government's renewed support for
the CBC to assist it in fulfilling its distinct role as a public
broadcaster serving all Canadians.
The CBC is truly one of Canada's national institutions. It
connects Canadians from sea to sea to sea. It speaks to
Canadians by Canadians about Canadians and provides the Canadian
perspective to national and international issues at home and
abroad.
The CBC provides services in English, French and aboriginal
languages. It also opens up opportunities for our creative
people, our artists, directors, set designers, lighting designers
and writers, just to name a few. It provides a venue for
independent producers to produce Canadian content that is not
only generic and exportable but is important to Canadians and
talks about our history.
Canadians have been very impressed with the public response to
the history series on television. The Minister of Canadian
Heritage recently said that it was a type of project that could
not be undertaken by the private sector and really ties in with
the core mandate of telling Canadian stories. I am very proud to
say that the producer of the history series, Mr. Mark Starowitz,
resides in my riding.
Let me turn to the arts in the new economy. In June 2000 the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released
an analysis on why the new economy was arriving sooner in some
places. In trying to pinpoint the driving forces of the new
economy so that governments can nurture them, the OECD
highlighted the importance of innovation.
1335
For governments the OECD offered a menu of what is quickly
becoming standard advice: foster competition, encourage startups
and venture capital, invest in research and shape education and
immigration policies to enhance human capital. It also noted
that wiring schools will not be enough.
Yesterday in the House the Minister of Industry confirmed that
Canada had surpassed the United States in being the first to
connect all its schools, and said that the government would
continue to connect Canadians and provide them with fast, high
speed efficient broadband.
While this connection of Canadians is very laudable, I would add
that it is simply not enough. In the Prime Minister's address in
reply to the Speech from the Throne, he clearly stated:
In a globalized society, in a universe of hundreds of channels,
in the age of the Internet, it is more important than ever to
support Canadian culture.
I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment thereafter to
provide significant new support to ensure that our cultural
institutions, our performers and our artists can play the
critical role of helping us know ourselves.
Yesterday the Minister of Industry spoke about the importance of
our scientists and their innovations. Today I want to talk about
the importance of our artists, writers and creators and their
innovations. We need to encourage creativity and innovation, and
our artists are well suited to play an important role in this.
I refer my colleagues to an article written by Robert
Everett-Green that appeared, unfortunately, on the front page of
the arts section of the Globe and Mail and not the business
section. It was entitled “Art, not IBM, makes kids smarter”.
I think we have to remember that the arts provide essential
training for a more creative world. I too believe that arts, not
computers, make kids creative. Many studies have found that
children exposed to music at an early age score much higher on
scholastic entrance exams than those who are not.
The Speech from the Throne also talked about the important role
the arts play in our communities. It also noted the role they
play in improving our quality of life.
In his speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto last September,
Piers Handling, director of the Toronto International Film
Festival Group, spoke about the importance of the arts to quality
of life. He urged the arts community to articulate the idea
that, controversial as it might sound, culture is as important as
health and education.
Handling reminded everyone that the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao
transformed a once run down port in northern Spain into a vibrant
city that attracts millions of tourists each year.
However we do not have to look to Europe for examples. We need
only look to Stratford, Ontario. It was on the verge of dying as
a town after the demise of the steam engine. What happened? Tom
Patterson, with the assistance of the town council and $100, went
to New York, obtained the necessary rights to produce theatre,
and made Stratford what it is today.
Not only is Stratford a wonderful city to visit and a major
tourist attraction, it has also served, and continues to serve,
as a training ground for our wonderful artists.
I would be glad to speak about the importance of the arts for
Canada's future. However, I will end now with a quote from Jane
Alexander's book Command Performance, which recounts her
term as chair of the National Endowment for the Arts. The quote
explains why the arts are so important. It says:
When we teach a child to sing or play the flute, we teach her how
to listen. When we teach her to draw, we teach her to see. When
we teach a child to dance, we teach him about his body and about
space, and when he acts on stage, he learns about character and
motivation. When we teach a child design, we reveal the geometry
of the world. When we teach children about the folk and
traditional arts and the great masterpieces of the world, we
teach them to celebrate their roots and find their own place in
history.
Who knows if we will remember the F-22 400 years from now? I
submit that we will still be reading Carol Shields, Margaret
Atwood, Michael Ondatjie and Mordecai Richler.
1340
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the
hon. member. In her speech she said culture was as important as
health care. Would she rather have access to a play at Stratford
or access to the emergency department at St. Joseph's Hospital in
the area where she lives?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is
about either/or. There is not one thing that we as Canadians
need. We need a balanced approach. We need all choices. We
need a healthy environment. We need a good medical system. We
need to invest in our children and we need to have a vibrant arts
community. To say that the arts are dispensable, with all due
respect to my colleague, we will have to agree to disagree.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to some
statements the Minister of the Environment made today.
I was surprised when the government talked about its grand plan
for going to Kyoto and holding Canada out as an environmental
standard for the world. It went to Kyoto without a plan or a
cost estimate, and yet it promised the world to all the other
nations there.
When the government came back to the House we asked how it would
finance its plan and carry it out. The government did not know
because even at that time, after it made its promises, it did not
have a plan.
The K word is missing from the throne speech, K being Kyoto. Yet
there are statements about the environment which are quite vague
and meaningless. It seems reality has caught up to the
government in terms of its Kyoto promises.
Because the Kyoto agreement and the promises Canada made are so
significantly absent from the throne speech, where exactly do the
Liberal government's ill-conceived environmental promises stand
on its agenda now? Could the hon. member tell us in detail?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I love to address
questions on the environment because the issue is very important
to the people in my riding. I have worked very hard with a
number of environmental experts who live in my riding.
We spoke about the Kyoto protocol. Yes, it is true we have not
signed it. However that does not mean we have not acted on it.
We have acted on it. We have worked at reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
We have worked with the provinces, the territories and the
municipalities to ensure that we have clean air and water. We do
not need an agreement to act on what we have agreed to. We will
work with other countries to ensure we all sign the Kyoto
protocol.
We cannot look to Germany as an example just because it was the
first to sign the Kyoto protocol. Germany was able to close its
industries, but we are not able to do that. However we will work
together in partnership with the corporate sector, the labour
unions and the private sector to ensure that all of our protocol
targets are met.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park is truly an
expert when it comes to things cultural and things related to the
arts.
I was astounded during the election when those reform alliance
people wanted to privatize the CBC and strip it of the great
unifying effect it has on the country. I was shocked when those
members opposite wanted to get rid of small theatre grants,
destroy French immersion schools, and strip every cultural venue
in our great country that makes us strong. It is a disgrace even
to hear them today echo the fact that they were prepared to do
that.
1345
Would the hon. member be so kind as to outline the kind of
activities that she has been involved in on a personal basis? I
know she is a cultural icon in Toronto. What she needs to do for
the House is tell us a little about what she does on a very
grassroots, personal level to make this an even better country,
unlike what the Alliance people—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I cannot imagine
where I am going to find the time for the hon. member to do all
that, but in 30 seconds or less will she please give the House
the short version?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what the
arts does for my community in my riding of Parkdale—High Park.
Every year the Canadian Stage Company, of which I am a former
chairman and director, produces Dreams in High Park, which is a
venue that provides experience through training for actors and
directors. They actually have an opportunity to perform
Shakespeare and practise classic theatre. What else does it do?
It also makes the park safe. It makes people come out into the
community. It makes our community safe and prosperous, so we see
another role for it, as Mr. Handling said at the film festival.
It works to build our community.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
an absolute pleasure to rise in the House today to provide my
reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Before I do so, I want to take a moment to offer my thanks to
the residents of Simcoe—Grey for once again establishing their
confidence in my party, my Prime Minister and myself in the
election this past fall. They have bestowed on me incredible
honour and responsibility and I once again take this opportunity
to tell them that I do not take that honour and that
responsibility lightly.
To my family, friends and supporters, I could not possibly say
thank you enough for their help and the confidence that they have
shown in me. I take this job very seriously. I tell them from
the bottom of my heart that I do appreciate their confidence and
I will not let them down. I know that my Liberal colleagues will
not let them down either as we focus on the future of this great
country to ensure that our generation and future generations
enjoy a higher quality of life than those which have proceeded
us.
I want to send a special thank you to my wife Sandi and my three
children, Amy, Alex and Matthew. Without them, it certainly
would have been incredibly difficult. Sandi certainly has done
an incredible job in allowing me to come here and represent the
constituents of Simcoe—Grey.
I would also be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not offer my
thanks and congratulations to you. The citizens in your riding
are certainly well served by one of the most effective and
honourable men in the House of Commons. I want to offer my
sincere appreciation for the help and guidance you have provided
to me over the last three and a half years. In my first term of
parliament your experience was called on by me on numerous
occasions, and you never ceased to direct me in the appropriate
way to best serve my constituents. I appreciate that from the
bottom of my heart.
To Her Excellency, our Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, I
offer my thanks. Her Excellency has provided a vision for Canada
that all Canadians can buy into. She has set bold goals and bold
visions. She has made a very bold statement as well, that is,
that all Canadians will, as they have in the past, come together
to make sure that Canada will continue to be the best place in
the entire world in which to live. I offer my thanks to her for
making such an incredible statement in such a few short minutes.
That is exactly what Canadians will do. We will work together,
because that is the type of people we are. We are a caring and
compassionate community. We certainly appreciate tolerance and
diversity, but we build on our weaknesses to create strengths. We
have done it in the past and we will continue to do it under this
Liberal government.
As Liberals, as Canadians, we will seize the opportunities. With
those opportunities in this ever changing global economy will
come challenges. We recognize those challenges on this side of
the House. We work very hard with our cabinet colleagues and
with the members in the caucus to make sure that Canada overcomes
all of those challenges, whether we are dealing with
agricultural, cultural or industrial issues, all of the aspects
that the House and our committees deal with.
1350
The government has done a very good job of trying to make Canada
the best place in the world in which to live. It could not have
happened without the 30 million plus Canadians who joined us in
that fight. They have joined us in the fight to make sure that
the next generation has more advantages and is better positioned
to carry forward in this new age economy. This government has
been successful. The last election speaks very clearly to that.
Canadians were loud and clear. They told us that they wanted a
balanced approach. They told us they wanted government to work
with the people, the provinces and the municipalities and to make
sure that it is not simply the strong that move forward, to make
sure that as the country moves forward as a whole we take the
weakest with us as well. The throne speech has done exactly
that. It has laid out a course. It has laid out a vision that
the country as a whole can buy into to ensure that as we in the
country move forward the weakest are not left behind. It is not
the Canadian way to leave the weakest behind.
Contrary to what some of my friends in the Alliance might think,
it is incredibly important for the federal government to play a
key role in the everyday lives of Canadians. There is a need for
a strong federal presence in the country, from coast to coast to
coast. Through the delivery mechanisms and bureaucracies we
have, we are doing that, and we will do a better job.
I can cite numerous examples within my own riding. There is
Human Resources Development Canada, without doubt one of the
hardest working bureaucracies we have in government today. I
take this opportunity to thank the dedicated men and women who
have been delivering the programs that have made a difference in
the lives of people in my riding. My hat is off to those people,
because despite the scurrilous accusations that have been made in
the House and outside the House toward some of those individuals,
the federal government has made an incredible difference through
these bureaucracies, with the support of Canadians throughout our
great country.
One of the things that touched my heart in the throne speech,
perhaps because I have three children of my own, is the focus on
a national children's agenda. I was moved when the Governor
General talked about the new challenge for Canadians. “Seize
this challenge” was the statement. We were told to come
together and make sure that there are new opportunities for our
young people, not simply for those in the upper or middle
economic classes but for all young people. When I hear those
kinds of things, I get terribly excited. I think we can make
another big difference in this coming 37th parliament.
A lot has been done. I am looking across the floor and people
are nodding. These people recognize that the government has done
an incredible job with the young people of the country. I
certainly appreciate the fact that they are acknowledging that.
Whether we talk about Canada's national child benefit program,
the $2.2 billion investment signed in September 2000, or the
extending of parental leave for new parents, the Liberal
government has made a big difference.
However, what is very clear in the throne speech is that there
is still a lot of work to be done and a long way to go to make
sure that things gets better. That is the government's
responsibility: to make sure that as we move forward as a
society the weakest are not left behind. I have heard the Prime
Minister say that we will not leave the weakest behind. I have
heard cabinet ministers say it. I have heard my colleagues say
it when I have visited their ridings and they have visited mine.
We will make sure that this is a country founded on one country
moving forward, not on parts of a country moving forward.
The throne speech also touched on a variety of other topics,
many of which will play a very critical role in the development
of my riding.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, having visited it in the past, my
riding has an economy made up of three separate and distinct
things: agriculture, tourism and industry. I was extremely
pleased to see that all three areas were touched on in the throne
speech because that provides an opportunity for municipal
councils, non-profit organizations, agricultural groups and
private sector companies to know in just what direction the
government is heading.
1355
The government has clearly outlined a path for positive growth.
It does not hoard negativity. it does not use fear mongering.
Rather it lays out a vision for Canada of which I know everyone
in the House is extremely proud.
Some questions have been raised in the House over the last
couple of days about how the throne speech will position the
Canadian economy in relation to the downturn in the U.S. economy.
I would be remiss if I did not thank our finance minister for
the wonderful job he has done in ensuring that our youngest
Canadians have an incredible foundation, a secure foundation,
which is a complete change from seven or eight years ago. Based
on that foundation, Canada will move forward. It will be a
global leader, not only economically but, unlike my friends in
the reform alliance party, it will be a leader socially as well.
I tip my hat to the Governor General, the Prime Minister, my
colleagues, the newly elected members and to you, Mr. Speaker. I
will enjoy working closely with them to make sure the 37th
parliament is the best parliament in Canadian history and that we
achieve the results to which the Liberal government is committed:
a stronger and more united Canada.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague on the other side seemed to dwell on the
economy and stated that things were going very well in his
riding. I am very happy to hear that things are fine in his
riding and that Canadians are in good hands. His riding is
fortunate to be represented by him.
He gave a very nice speech using flowery words. We would all
like to see those things happen, but there are clouds hanging
over the economic scene and throwing cold water on the
projections they have made.
We have seen the tug-of-war between ministers taking place on
that side of the House. It is a cause of concern for us,
especially on the question of international trade. I heard the
Minister for International Trade talk about Canada following WTO
rules and Canada needing a rules based system because that is
where our prosperity lies.
Then another minister throws cold water on Canada's stand of
following a rules based system, which will have a long term
impact. We can see the war beginning in Brazil.
He mentioned that in his riding the economy is doing well but
there are clouds on the horizon. I would like him to comment on
the tug-of-war that is taking place on his side of the House.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon.
member that there are clouds on my horizon. As I look across and
see the Canadian Alliance it is always cloudy. It is always
gloom and doom. That is not the reality in the country. It is
not about negativity; it is about being realistic.
Canada is very well positioned to weather any economic storm.
When one looks at the economy and what has been achieved in the
last seven years, it is an absolute economic miracle. Those are
not my words. Those are the words of the Financial Times.
I see my colleagues in the reform alliance getting upset because
they do not have a plan to deal with these kinds of issues. They
do not want to talk about positive growth, what has been done to
reduce debt or the most massive tax reduction strategy in
Canadian history. They do not want to talk about an incredible
shoring up of our social programs. They want to talk about gloom
and doom in the U.S. There are times when I am not totally
positive whether I am debating with members of parliament or
congressmen.
I will tell Canadians that Canada is very well positioned to
lead the way in this new age technology globally. We will do it.
We will continue based on the track record and on the historical
evidence the government put forward today. I am proud to say
that I will be part of that parliament.
1400
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
hon. colleague from Simcoe—Grey mentioned that it was important
for young people to have faith in their country and to have
something to look forward to. I wonder if he sees that going
beyond just the opportunity for cultural endeavours, which I
agree is equally important, but also to educational
opportunities.
I also think it is important to have faith in a democratic
system that allows the people of Canada to express their
disagreements with the Government of Canada and to have the right
to express by open demonstrations their beliefs that not
everything the government is doing is okay.
This leads me to the issue of free trade not being mentioned a
great deal within the budget. We have seen a situation where we
agree that trade is important, but free trade seems to be open
season on labour rights, environmental rights or human rights
within the different countries.
I am specifically referring to Canada talking about trade
agreements but not making any stipulation that the countries with
which it will trade will ensure that human rights violations are
not taking place and that environmental standards are met.
Just to give an insight into this matter, I have a list in front
of me of 77 Columbian trade unionists who have been assassinated
over the last year by paramilitaries. I wonder if Canada is
making sure that those countries it trades with are treating
their people fairly as well?
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious by the
member's statements that she is truly concerned about not only
the plight of young people here in Canada but those abroad as
well. There were many topics touched on in her comments. I
might have to relegate myself to one.
She spoke about the opportunity for youth. I would like to
provide an example of where we can really make a difference with
youth but not simply on the cultural side of things.
There is a program under Youth Service Canada and delivered
through Human Resources Development Canada. It has made an
incredible difference in the lives of young people in my riding.
It has provided them with the necessary lifestyle skills and the
necessary job skills to secure full time permanent employment in
our society. Those young people have become productive and happy
members of society. In that regard, I think the government has
done an incredible job in making sure we deal with the problems
our young people face.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Jonquière.
At the start of my third mandate, I am very pleased to rise for
the first time in this House. As a member elected with the
support of 60% of the people, as a sovereignist and an MP, I
want to say that there are pressing social concerns. I am not
saying that those who voted for me were all sovereignists, but I
know they supported someone they knew to be one.
So, members
will not be surprised that my attention is drawn particularly in
the throne speech to the section on celebrating Canadian
citizenship. One sentence struck me considerably, and I quote it:
Noble, people might think so, but I would say a pragmatic vision in
which four provinces decided to form an organization that suited
them. However, in their act of will, they made a serious
mistake, namely, and among others, giving the federal government
spending power.
This creature born of the provinces has worked systematically to
become the government of all the people living in Canada.
Today, in the throne speech, we have a specific example in which
the government regularly and systematically denies the
responsibilities of the provinces and the very foundations of
our society.
At the outset, there were two founding peoples. Even here, in
parliament, we have doors symbolizing this. Today, the federal
government is categorically denying this fact by its action and
its vision.
In addition, it swept away not only the protection of Quebec
society but all of the French fact within the country. As
regards the proportion of francophones, we need only compare the
situation as it was in 1867 with the situation today to see that
there is an operation underway to assimilate francophone
communities. Today, the government refers to them as
“sustainable francophone communities”, which means there are
some that are not.
1405
We should refrain from boasting too much. Many signs point to
the fact that we are not in an ideal society. I think this will
only be possible when it is recognized that there are two
nations in Canada, that Quebecers have a right to their
sovereignty, and that the Canadian federalism is not the best
way to foster better relations between these two nations. That
is my response to the very basis of what the federal government
wants to do.
At the same time, there is a profound lack of
vision in this throne speech.
There is no mention of the challenges of the future or the kind
of Canada we want in the next 20 years.
Why have we not been given more details, in a transparent way,
on what to expect in the next 20 years? We will have a free
trade area that will include the three Americas. We will
probably have a common currency. And we will have, willy-nilly,
an even stronger emergence of nationalism.
We do not need vast political spaces in order to develop
markets. Canada became a large political entity when, because of
protectionism, large countries were necessary in order to
develop sizeable markets.
Today, with free trade, this is no longer the case.
Small political entities can set up democratic organisations
capable of acting rapidly and efficiently. We see that
particularly in Europe.
This Speech from the Throne lacks vision. It contains some sort
of grocery list of things that the government would like to do
in the short term. I think that, ultimately, when history judges
this Prime Minister's governments, this will probably be the
main criticism.
Children are often mentioned in the throne speech. We are told
they will be given priority. We first have to see who is
responsible for what. In my opinion, the federal government's
responsibility in this matter should be to give money to the
provinces to help them manage their education systems properly,
and not to create new programs on top of the ones already in
place for early childhood development and for children at risk.
Each time the government interferes in education like that, it
creates duplication. Of course, this can be very interesting
from a visibility point of view. This is probably the main
reason why the Speech from the Throne is putting all that
forward. However it would have been much more efficient if the
government had actually said it was going to use the surplus
money it has collected.
The federal government collects much more money in income tax
than it needs to fulfil its responsibilities. It would have been
much better to use these surpluses to lower income tax or to
give the money back through its redistribution of wealth
function, so that the provinces could have the money they need.
In Quebec and Canada there are indeed areas where the programs
that should be set up are not those announced by the federal
government, but those the local governments want.
If federal money went directly to Quebec, the province could in
turn give more autonomy to local school boards. That means they
could have money to keep the small village school open. For our
rural communities this is often a priority, much more so than
programs put forth by the federal government.
In this respect, I believe the federal government does not
assume its responsibilities. It tries to increase its visibility
by intervening in areas outside its jurisdiction.
There is another thing with regards to children. Fundamentally,
I find this a major problem. The government keeps talking about
programs to help children. On the other hand, for the past
five years, we have had an employment insurance scheme that has
been creating poverty.
Children are not poor per se. They are poor because their
parents are poor. Eligibility rules have been tightened; benefits
have been cut; young workers need 910 hours of work to qualify.
The same applies to women re-entering the labour market. All
these measures have resulted in an increase in child poverty.
Today the government says it is going to issue cheques for
children, but their parents will remain trapped. I find this
behaviour unacceptable.
It cannot continue.
1410
The Speech from the Throne provides for many intrusions in
education. It would appear that the federal government is sorry
that it does not have a department of education. Now, with
globalization, it feels it is important to properly train
people. The problem is this is not its responsibility. It
belongs to the provinces. The government should accept this fact
by withdrawing from taxation sectors and to allow the provinces to
deal with this issue more effectively.
I was satisfied with a part of the minister's answer, yesterday,
when he said that, on the lumber issue, the priority will be to
return to free trade when the agreement expires.
I find that in this industry the federal government has been
slow to act. It might well, for a lack of time, have to renew
part of the current agreements or reach compromises with the
Americans, to the detriment of some Canadian regions covered by
the current agreement.
Let us not forget that four Canadian provinces are covered by
this agreement, but not the others. In the export trade this is
very prejudicial, for example to my riding, the Témiscouata
area where many sawmills export lumber. Both owners and
employees want us to revert to free trade in the lumber
industry.
Today, and I will conclude on this, there is concrete evidence
that the Speech of the Throne is sometimes devoid of substance.
On page 11, it says:
There was a time when losing a job also meant immediate loss of
income for workers and their families. And so Canadians created
Employment Insurance.
That program generated a surplus of $30 billion. Today, the
government is introducing a bill which should be a logical
follow-up to this policy statement. However all it does is confirm
that the government wants to grab that $30 billion surplus.
The government does not want to put the money back into the
program even though some young people and some women are not
eligible and even though seasonal workers do not have an income
throughout their period of unemployment, in spite of the
economic prosperity we are experiencing. This is totally
unacceptable.
For all these reasons, I think people will understand that we
cannot vote in favour of such a Speech from the Throne. This
applies to people of Quebec of course, because the speech is a
denial of Quebec as such, but it also applies to all those who
care for social justice because, in this Speech from the Throne,
there is no basis to ensure the proper distribution of wealth
that we ought to expect.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
just pointed out
how people confuse things in the House. I have been here
since the beginning of the week and I have been listening
carefully to find out what is going on. We have heard some
incredible things.
I spent nine years in the Quebec National Assembly. We had some
idea of how we were treated. However I am shocked to hear some of
the things that are being said here.
The federal government is constantly and increasingly trying
to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions—I am here to protect
Quebec's interests—but that is also true for all the provinces.
The government is trying to create confusion. When we criticize
the government for not taking its responsibilities, for example
as regards the environment, we are told that this is a
provincial jurisdiction. On the other hand, when the government
should leave the money to the provinces to fulfil their
responsibilities, it gets involved. This is truly scandalous.
I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. Two things
are confused. The government talks about tax cuts and employment
insurance reform. Tax cuts will help the rich get richer, while
employment insurance reform will make the poor poorer. These two
issues are discussed together.
Let me quickly give an example.
Under the most recent tax cut, a person earning $100,000 will
save about $2,000 in taxes.
If that same person, or his brother, earned $35,000 under the
same conditions, he would save seven times less or about $350.
1415
I ask the hon. member: Could he tell me if he has figured this
out? I would like him to explain this to me. Why is the
government creating confusion? Is it to fool people or is it
because it does not really know the different impact of these
two issues?
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, the member for Champlain mentioned
a major concern about the current system and the way the federal
government wants to achieve equity.
I would like to add that if a worker earning $100,000 is
eligible to EI he pays premiums on the first $39,000. He does
not pay any premium on his income over $39,000, while workers
earning $39,000 pay premiums on 100% of their income. This is
the money that was used to eliminate the deficit.
When there is a tax cut, we tell high income workers:“We have
eliminated the deficit on the back of workers who earn less than
you and now we can give you a rebate”. This is unacceptable in
my opinion.
It does not mean that we do not need to cut taxes or to put
money back into the taxpayers' pockets. What we see however is a
very unfair approach for those who need a better EI system to
achieve equity.
Seasonal workers earning $15,000, $18,000 or $20,000 a year, and
their families, do not necessarily need a tax reduction more
than they need EI benefits that will give them the money they
need while they are unemployed. That would be the right way to
achieve equity in our society.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have
the opportunity to speak today. Before I begin, I would like to
thank the people of Jonquière for renewing their confidence in
me this past November 27. I can assure them that I am going to
focus all my energies, as I have in the past, on meeting their
needs. My thanks to the people of Jonquière, Lac Kénogami,
Shipshaw, Larouche and Laterrière.
I am pleased to speak today in response to the Speech from the
Throne. I witnessed the throne speech masquerade this past
Tuesday, and today I have just witnessed another with the
introduction of the bill on employment insurance reform.
Canadians and Quebecers will no longer be fooled. This is the
last time the government will manage to pull the wool over
their eyes.
We had an election this past November.
The Prime Minister took everyone by surprise, calling an
election after only three and one-half years in office. No one
expected the government, with its boasts about its surplus, its
so-called good management and its claims to have settled all the
problems of Canadian society, to call an election.
Unfortunately it did.
What was there on the legislative agenda on wich to build a
campaign?
The government said it was going to share the wealth
between the poorest and the wealthiest. I attempted to discuss
this matter of the distribution of wealth with the Liberal
candidates in my region, but none had any idea what this was all
about. They all realized that the government was lying by
telling the public that the wealth was going to be distributed
between the richest and the poorest.
I think that the Prime Minister called an election because he
knew that the leader of the Canadian Alliance was not ready to
go out on the hustings. We can no longer be taken in by this
sort of arrogance from a party that walks all over the working
class and the disadvantaged.
In my riding of Jonquière, many workers are soon going to lose
their jobs with large companies, such as Abitibi Consolidated
Inc.—not to name names—which have decided to modernize their
operations,
which will lay off 250 workers aged 55 or older.
They are called older workers.
1420
In the three and a half years I have been in Ottawa, I have put
questions to the Minister of Human Resources Development. There
used to be a program for older worker adjustment known as POWA
to help older workers. This program made it possible for them to
look forward to a decent retirement, to head into retirement
with benefits under the EI plan. They had, after all, paid
premiums throughout their working lives, without ever reaping
the benefit. For three and a half years, the minister has been
telling us that these people should take job retraining, be
mobile and change their line of work.
Most of these people do not have much education. In my
region at that time, it was easy to get a job. Right after
second or third year high school, young people went to work in
the factory and were sure of staying there until they retired.
The situation has changed today.
Now they ask them to do it, but they have no money for these
people. However there is money in the employment insurance fund.
This year alone there is a surplus of $6 billion in this fund.
What is the government doing with the employment insurance fund?
In the latest bill it has tabled, it is returning 8% of the
$6 billion to the contributors. Only four out of ten will get
benefits. What is it doing with the remaining 92% of the fund?
As far as I know, we do not contribute because our salaries are
above $39,000. The Government of Canada does not contribute a
cent to the EI fund. Only workers and employers contribute.
Why does the government give itself the right to dictate the
rules and why has it the power to decide who will and who will
not draw benefits?
In the coming years, I think there will be real problems, as the
result of what is happening in Ottawa. These problems will
arise because there is no respect for the legitimacy of the
ordinary people, people who manage to provide decent social
conditions for themselves with the little they earn, but when
they pay insurance, they cannot draw on it.
The bill the Minister of Human Resources Development has just
tabled is no different from the one tabled before the election.
I think we will do a real job on them, in the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development. We will make them abide by their
promise.
I saw the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport and the
Minister of Public Works come to my area with the Minister of
Regional Development and say to the people of the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean “We will listen to you and we will amend the
act. Rest assured of that and vote for us. If you vote
massively, we will satisfy you all”.
I can see today that this was only cheap talk to get votes.
No, ordinary people will not be deceived again.
I also want to talk about the Speech from the Throne, which
completely ignores the status of women. Last spring we had the
women's march. Women marched on Ottawa.
I marched with them. They came to make demands. There is no
mention of those demands in the Speech from the Throne.
Where is the chairwoman of the Fédération des femmes du Québec,
Françoise David? Why has she not come to Ottawa to berate the
government, which does not care about women? Most of these women
are single parents. I will not tolerate this any more as a woman
and as a citizen of Quebec and Canada.
This government's arrogance must come to an end. I cannot see
how I can do anything but vote against this Speech from the
Throne.
1425
This morning I listened to the fine speech by the Minister of
the Environment. As members know, I was the Bloc Quebecois
environment critic during the last parliament. I would always
tell the minister in committee and elsewhere “By gosh, you make
good speeches; but you never deliver”. People always say “Ah, he
is very good at delivering good speeches”. Today I listened
very carefully to the minister. Things have not changed at all.
The government is still infringing on provincial jurisdictions.
In Quebec municipalities are the creatures of the provincial
government. Municipalities come under the municipalities act.
Now the federal government is creating programs that are
directly geared to these municipalities.
What will the government do with endangered species? We opposed
the bill during the last session. It could not be passed by the
House because, again, the government wanted to interfere in
provincial jurisdictions.
Habitat is a provincial jurisdiction. We all know that birds and
endangered species go together. The federal government has its
own jurisdictions, its parks, but it does not act. It wants
to tell others what to do.
It is sometimes difficult to look at one's self. It is
easier to tell people “Do as we say, but not as we do”. The
government is very good at governing in an arrogant manner by
telling others to do as it says, but to ignore what it does.
In the next three, four or five years, I will keep a very close
eye on this government.
I am currently concerned with regional development, which is
another interesting issue. The government will have to stop
creating in the regions needs that do not meet the
expectations just because it wants visibility. Enough is
enough. We are entitled to a tax refund. We pay federal taxes
and the time will come when this government will have to meet
our needs with our taxes.
This is just the beginning. I will vote against the throne
speech.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Jonquière for raising the important
issue about the state of the employment insurance system and how
it is failing Canadian workers in every respect.
The hon. member pointed out something that is very important and
I am glad she did. She pointed out that the federal government
does not pay into the employment insurance fund anymore. It
stopped doing that in the late 1980s. Only employers and employees
contribute to the fund. Where then does the government get the
right to use the surplus for anything other than income
maintenance for employees, which is what it was designed to do?
Would the hon. member not agree that if we deduct something from
people's paycheques, tell them that it is for a specific purpose
and then use it for something completely different, that it is,
in the very best light, a breach of trust? In the worst light,
it is out and out fraud. An absolute fraud is being committed on
working people because they are paying faithfully into an
employment insurance program but are being denied benefits. No
wonder there is a surplus, no one qualifies anymore. Less than
40% of unemployed people, less than 25% of women and less than
15% of youth qualify even though they have to pay into the
program because it is mandatory.
In my own riding, the third poorest riding in the country, the
changes to EI cost $20.8 million a year in benefits that would
have come into the riding. Can members imagine what they would
do if a company wanted to move into their riding with a $20.8
million payroll? They would pave the streets with gold to do
that.
I would ask the hon. member to tell us the situation in her
riding and the impact the cuts to employment insurance have had
on the unemployed people in Jonquière.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member of the New Democratic Party. All ridings are having
to cope with an extremely serious problem relating to employment
insurance.
We have a saying in our area “Piquer, c'est voler”. That means
if a person goes into another's pocket and takes his money
it that is considered stealing until proven otherwise.
What this government is doing at the present time in the matter
of employment insurance is dipping directly into the workers'
pockets. This is a serious matter, and I will respond to the
member's question.
We are a heavily unionized region. I believe that
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is the most unionized area of Canada and of
Quebec.
Before the last federal election, there was a movement in our
area that rallied together hundreds and hundreds of workers who
took to the streets to protest the employment insurance bill.
They even told the minister of revenue, who is also the minister
responsible for
regional development, “Hit the road back across the Parc des
Laurentides; you are not wanted here”. He had to pack up his
bags and head back home.
We had great plans for the construction of the Alcan plant at
Alma, where hundreds of thousands of workers were employed. Now
these people have no work and they will end up on employment
insurance.
There are no measures whatsoever to help them, no structured
programs that will let these workers gain some benefit from
what is rightfully theirs or to allow them to be directed into
employment.
All of this needs looking into. If I had any more time, there
is much more I could say.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands
adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)