1996-10-30

The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member and his phalanx from Victoria-Haliburton.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the city of Estevan, Saskatchewan has recently completed its 20th anniversary of the United Way radio and television 36-hour fundraising marathon. Between October 18 and 19, Estevan helped to raise $144,000 for the United Way, exceeding its goal by $14,000.
After 20 years Estevan, a city with a population of 11,000, has contributed $1,750,000 and has collected nearly 100 per cent of its pledges through the years. The United Way in Estevan has been the first in Canada to reach its goal 19 out of 20 times since the drive was first established. No other community in Canada or for that matter in North America can beat this record of raising money for the needed agencies of the United Way.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the generous and hard working people of Estevan and area who donate so much of their time and money to the United Way.
Vernon Barford Junior High SchoolMr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the students and staff of the Vernon Barford Junior High School in Edmonton.
On October 27, in commemoration of last year's unity rally in Montreal, the western Canadian chapter of the Canadian Unity Foundation under the leadership of Peter Goldring, took part in Planes and Trains for Unity.
Front and centre on the unity train to Quebec City was a banner signed by over 200 students from Vernon Barford Junior High School in Edmonton. Along the way the banner inspired others to sign their names and lend their support for a united Canada. The banner became an important symbol in the drive for unity.
I applaud the efforts of the students and of their principal, Al Grossman. They are all, as we are all, strong supporters of the drive for Canadian unity.
The Computers For Schools ProgramMr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have goofed again with their strategy to denigrate the Government of Quebec by spreading falsehoods, which have reduced the little credibility they had in the eyes of the people of Quebec to zero.
On October 22, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of heritage stated, in connection with the program providing computers to schools, and I quote: "Quebec schoolchildren will not be able to take advantage of the program, as the PQ government has refused to take part in it." He went on to say that the duly elected Government of Quebec was "depriving young Quebecers of a privileged access to computer resources".
According to Department of Industry figures, as at April 1996, the Government of Quebec has received over 5,300 school computers under the program. Once again, the heritage minister, through her parliamentary secretary, is proving that the federal Government's campaign to denigrate the Government of Quebec is totally unfounded.
Rather than carrying out a disinformation campaign, the minister should discuss things with her Liberal colleague, the Minister of Industry, in order to get an update on this.
Fighter Pilots CompetitionMr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to salute Canada's top guns. At the high profile international fighter pilots competition in Florida, Canadian fighter pilots won the world series of flying and beat the American team hands down.
I applaud the whole team but in particular Captain Steve Nierlich from the village of Sunderland in beautiful Brock township in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton.
The prestigious top gun award is the highest individual award in aerial combat. Canadians everywhere can be proud of this fighter pilot and look forward to the team appearing in the Remembrance Day fly past on Parliament Hill. The Canadian fighter pilots and flight crew of CFB Cold Lake have positioned Canada as No. 1 in the world in air combat. Canadians should be proud of their spectacular performance.
On behalf of all members of the House I would like to pay tribute to the Canadian fighter pilots and ensure that they get the recognition they deserve. Congratulations on a job well done.
The Canadian Association Of Immersion TeachersMr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to an important event that will take place on the weekend in Winnipeg: the twentieth annual convention of the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers.
This convention will be attended by teachers, administrators, researchers, university professors and commissioners, all of whom will take part in a variety of workshops and round table discussions. The aim of the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers is to pursue bilingualism by helping immersion teachers in Canada meet their professional development needs by various means, including research, conventions, a newsletter, publications and active participation at the national and international levels.
I wish all of the participants an exciting and productive weekend in Winnipeg and I congratulate the association on their continuing support for French immersion and bilingualism in Canada.
Youth Services CanadaMr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this month Malton, Ontario is celebrating the start up of a new youth connection after school program, a project that will create school homework clubs, recreational activities and a mentorship program for children and youth in the community.
The sponsor is Malton Neighbourhood Services. A volunteer pool will be established and parents are to be included in the activities. The project will receive $96,881 in funding through Youth Services Canada under Human Resources Development Canada.
Youth Service Canada projects, which last up to nine months, recruit unemployed and out of school youth between ages 18 and 24. This program champions the ability of young people to make a difference in their communities.
Health CareMr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we come to the end of Breast Cancer Month in Canada, I would like to draw the attention of the House to another disease which affects the lives of woman, albeit in a little more indirect way.
Prostate cancer causes a great deal of stress and suffering, yet there is relatively little public awareness of the serious nature of the disease. In B.C., for example, while the breast cancer rate is 30 per 100,000 population, the prostate cancer rate is 177 per 100,000. The corresponding death rates are 25 per 100,000 for breast cancer and 121 per 100,000 for prostate cancer.
Just as we need to find a cure for breast cancer, we also need to find a cure for prostate cancer. Every one of us has a father, just as every one of us has a mother. Prostate cancer affects us all.
I urge all members of this House to actively assist in the raising of funds for prostate cancer research and to help raise public awareness of the warning signs of the disease. Call 1-800-263-6750.
Quebec's Right To Self-DeterminationMrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a year ago today, the issue of Quebec's future was once again in the public spotlight. Quebec, with 49.4 per cent for the Yes side, said loud and clear that it was becoming more and more sovereign.
A year later, the federal promises of change which came late in the day have vanished as quickly as they were made. The Supreme Court has been asked to challenge the legitimacy of the plan for a sovereign Quebec and to contest the desire of Quebec to become an independent society.
The people of Quebec are watching all this very closely. Sovereignty is the only credible option for the future of Quebec and Canada. We must prepare for it. A partnership, an integral part of the plans for a sovereign Quebec, will be the basis for our future relations with Canada. As we approach the year 2000, Quebecers will choose the way of the future, when they will at last be able to develop their full potential.
[English]
Saint John ShipyardMrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, this morning the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal , my local paper, reported that the Minister of National Defence, along with the former PC minister of international trade, Michael Wilson, have teamed up to lobby the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to try to drum up some business for our Saint John Shipyard.
The Saint John Shipyard is billed as a centre of excellence. It has an outstanding reputation as a world leader. Both the Trudeau and Mulroney governments were responsible for creating the most modern shipyard in the world in Saint John. The final frigate set sail this past summer and 4,000 workers are now out of work. There is a need for a new contract.
To the shock of many of the people on that side, I want to publicly thank the Minister of National Defence for taking this initiative. I wish him and Mr. Wilson all the best in their endeavours and I do hope that we hear good news for the shipyard in the future. I offer my full support.
Baltic EveningMs. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today marks the 22nd annual Baltic Evening which is organized by both the Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group for the Baltic Peoples and the Baltic Federation in Canada. This event commenced in 1973 to bring together the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Canadian communities, members of Parliament, Senators and representatives from the diplomatic corps.
Since the independence of the three Baltic states in 1991, the Baltic communities have been working proactively to help build Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. These three countries are open for business and Canadians are encouraged to invest in trade with them.
In celebrating Baltic Evening we are acknowledging the great contribution made by the Baltic communities in building Canada. Our vibrant multicultural communities have assisted Canada in projecting a positive image to the Baltic states and all around the world. Félicitations à tout le monde.
Semex CanadaMrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Guelph-Wellington is home to Semex Canada which specializes in cattle genetics.
Through a grant from the Canadian International Development Agency, Semex has been involved with a five-year dairy cattle breeding project in three locations in the People's Republic of China.
Semex Canada recently shipped beef cattle from Ontario to China for breeding purposes. This kind of effort is another example of a Canadian industry leading the way in China.
The Prime Minister has been a leader in Team Canada trade missions to Asia. He knows the importance of the Pacific rim for jobs and for growth in this country.
I congratulate Semex Canada on its recent successes in China. Semex is but another example of why Guelph-Wellington is the best community in all of Canada.
The 1995 Referendum On Quebec SovereigntyMrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is the first anniversary of the 1995 referendum.
On October 30, 1995, Quebecers chose Canada. They chose to continue promoting the French language and culture as well as Quebec's distinctiveness in the Canadian community. They asked us to continue improving the federal system to make it more sensitive to regional needs and differences.
Over the last year the Liberal government has been working to respond to the legitimate concerns of Quebecers. Our work is in progress but needs the support of the provinces in order to be completed.
The government understood the message that Quebecers gave last year, unlike the separatists who continue to ignore the facts. The facts are Quebecers are looking for effective government which will respond to their needs and priorities, not separation.
The Quebec Socioeconomic SummitMr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's socioeconomic summit opened last night in Montreal.
This summit brings hope to all those in Quebec who think that political, social and labour-management co-operation is essential to find solutions to the employment crisis.
This event is a fine example of the Quebec co-operation model that is unique not only to Canada but to all of North America. It shows Quebec's vitality and what makes us different as a people.
I take this opportunity to urge the federal government to support the initiatives that will arise from this summit, while respecting the Quebec government's jurisdiction.
To all the participants, including the summit's instigator, Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard, we wish successful discussions and the best of luck.
National UnityMr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one year ago we came within a whisker of a yes vote in the Quebec referendum. Mr. Parizeau was ready with his plans but the federal government had no plan for a yes vote and, for that matter, no plan for a no vote.
What has happened since? Canadians overwhelmingly want to preserve this as a country of equals in a federal system. Yet the government persists in its concept of distinct society, appealing to the same kind of special status sentiment as Quebec separatists do. Little if any progress has been made on the reform of federal institutions or decentralization to the provinces or respect for their jurisdictions.
The federal government's plan B is also more words than action. It has referred the question of unilateral independence to the Supreme Court but has not developed plans of its own for the next referendum. It still has no contingency legislation to avoid the mistakes and ambiguities of the past.
We must all stand on guard and that must mean more than just standing still.
EmploymentMr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the devastation of Liberal employment policies continue. The Unemployment Workers' Health and Counselling Centre in Regina is working hard to help those unemployed workers who have been unfairly denied benefits by this government.
This not for profit organization, in its first year of operation, assisted workers in getting back some $140,000 in benefits that were denied them.
However, this organization has a problem. It has applied to Revenue Canada for a charitable registration number so that it can raise funds to continue its work in helping the unemployed. The Liberal government says the centre cannot receive a number because its work does not qualify as charitable work.
I find it astounding that the Liberals refuse to provide a charitable registration number to an organization with a proven track record in helping the unemployed, yet gives $86 million in an interest free loan to a profitable corporation like Bombardier.
Even the Fraser Institute has a charitable number and everyone knows the institute does nothing to help the unemployed, working class or middle class families.
The Leader Of The Bloc QuebecoisMr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois will be meeting, this evening, with representatives of a number of embassies.
Will he take that opportunity to tell them about the ongoing mobilization in support of job creation? Will he tell them about everything the various levels of government are doing to get the economy going again? Will his speech address our business people's growing interest in export markets? Will he remind them that the quality of life in Canada and our highly skilled workforce make Canada an ideal place to invest?
There is every indication that none of this is important enough for the BQ leader. He will address the only issue he knows about and cares about: the separation of Quebec.
This new initiative shows once again the Bloc Quebecois' inability to represent the real interests of Quebec.
The Economic Recovery Of Southwest MontrealMr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chamber of commerce as well as the four commissioners and the mayors of Verdun, LaSalle, Lachine and Montreal for organizing the business opportunity fair for the southwest end of the Island of Montreal.
This fair was held on Monday and Tuesday in my wonderful riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul. It was designed to introduce buyers from major public institutions in such areas as health, education, housing and municipal services to local business people. Let us hope that this event will become a driving force in the economic recovery of the southwest end of the Island of Montreal.
My congratulations to the organizing committee and the whole team for this successful event. See you next year.

Oral Questions
QuebecMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one year ago to the day, Quebecers voted on their future. We remember the result, a very slim win for the federalists, a win that changed nothing. We also remember the Prime Minister's promises in Verdun, just days before the referendum, meaningless promises that were never acted on. Since then, there has been an impasse, both in Quebec and in Canada.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, as the years go by and Quebec calls repeatedly for more power, so that it can be master of its own destiny, the offers made by the federal government and other provinces are shrinking almost to the point of insignificance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear the hon. member mention that Quebec voted to stay in Canada exactly one year ago today. It was the second time it has done so in 15 years, despite the very confusing question.
Yesterday, for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition actually used the word "separatist", something he had previously avoided. After two attempts, I hope that the members of the Bloc Quebecois will one day respect democracy.
Democracy means recognizing, after two votes, that the people have spoken. As for what we said a few days before the referendum, we said that we were going to recognize that Quebec was a distinct society and that is what we did in this House in December. I would like everyone, particularly Quebecers, to know that all the members of the Bloc Quebecois voted in the House against recognizing Quebec as a distinct society.
When we passed legislation giving the regions a veto, members of the Bloc Quebecois voted against a veto for Quebec, and they are completely ignoring the whole series of changes we proposed in February, in the speech from the throne.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has convinced himself that what he said happened is true. But Quebecers will remember that the Prime Minister launched his return to politics in February 1990 at the University of Ottawa with an attack on the concept of distinct society as defined at Meech Lake, before the Charest report. I know that we may not use a member's name, so I will say the report by the member for Sherbrooke. Quebecers also remember the infamous "Thank you, Clyde" and what happened in Calgary.
Why will the Prime Minister not admit, like his intellectual leader, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, that all he has to offer Quebec is the status quo, which is based on his 1982 Constitution thrown together that night at the Chateau Laurier and rejected by all Quebecers, federalists and sovereignists alike? From Lucien Bouchard to Daniel Johnson, nobody wants anything to do with that piece of work.
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, what is fascinating is that the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois opposed Meech Lake. They voted it down in the National Assembly. The leader of the party was an MNA at the time and he voted against it. It is a sin for me, but not for them?
What they are ignoring is that in February we made concrete offers to transfer responsibility for manpower. We put forward proposals in May. Discussions are still going on.
We have offered to withdraw from mining, forestry, tourism and public housing. We decided that spending authority would be conditional on participation by a majority of provinces. These are serious offers, that have never before been spelled out in such detail. Inevitably, when we make serious offers to Quebec, when we truly want to help, they are for the status quo. They do not want to see a single thing changed, because they dream of separation and they have struck out twice.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the Parti Quebecois was against recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, and that he was as well, because he has finally come out and told us. We heard him say that he too was against recognizing Quebec as a distinct society.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Now the cat is out of the bag.
Gilles Duceppe: So he has finally come out and said it. It took him long enough. We said in Quebec City that we were against it. He has just admitted it today. He is starting to see things as they really are.
Will the Prime Minister realize that his understanding of Quebec and of Canada bears no relation to reality? Will he one day understand that the reality is that there is a Canadian people and a Quebec people, whose homeland is Quebec, and that any link between Quebec and Canada supposes the recognition of two founding peoples and their respective inalienable rights to decide
their own future? Quebec has no need to ask permission of the Supreme Court, or of Winnipeg or of St. John's, Newfoundland.
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing the same thing for 30 years. Except that when we are in Quebec, Quebecers tell us they want us to work on improving the economy of Quebec and of Canada in order to create jobs for Quebecers.
Today, while these people are talking about independence, separation, and the Constitution, Quebec is foundering. We in the government have put Canada's financial house in order. That is why, for example, Quebecers are enjoying interest rates that are 3.25 per cent lower than in the United States. That is what Canada is doing to help Quebecers.
But the Bloc Quebecois is still harping on the Constitution. While we are working to create jobs for Quebecers, they are making jobs disappear.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister realize some day that Canada cannot be changed, because there are two visions of this country, one that is shared by a majority of Canadians who, rightly so, want to have a country that meets their needs, and the other that is shared by a minority, namely Quebecers, who also want a country that meets their needs?
Will the Prime Minister realize that nothing will change as long as he refuses to recognize this reality?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minority vision is the vision of separation, which is rejected by the vast majority of Quebecers when the question is put to them clearly. The vast majority of Quebecers want to keep on being Canadian. They want to celebrate their Quebec and Canadian identities as a strength, as a formidable complementarity that they will never give up if the question is put to them in a clear and honest manner.
Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, the minister can make all the nice speeches he wants, here or elsewhere.
But will the Prime Minister admit, one year later, that the promises he made just before the referendum, which were light years away from what Quebecers want in any case, have not even been fulfilled? Is this not the best proof that he has nothing left to offer, except futile comments on the Constitution?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, those who have nothing left to offer and who, in fact, never had anything to offer are the members of the secessionist bloc who sit across the floor.
Theirs is a party which, day after day in this House, cultivates jealousy, behaves like it is besieged and thinks it is a victim of discrimination. And who are the tormentors? I imagine it is the bad anglos, but the Bloc cannot support its contentions.
Quebecers have had enough of this narrow vision. More and more of them are distancing themselves from it and are preparing to enter the new century along with the other Canadians.
The EconomyMiss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he wanted to debate the issues in the House. Let us debate the issues in the House.
The reality is that 1.5 million Canadians are still unemployed, consumer confidence has plummeted even though we have such low interest rates, and Canadian families have suffered a $3,000 pay cut since 1993. Those are the facts. He knows them, I know them. Canadians are worse off now than when the Liberals took power in 1993.
Since these three years of Liberal economic mismanagement have failed to make a dent in unemployment, consumer confidence or the tax burden, why will the Prime Minister not do this: balance the budget, cut taxes and create real jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the facts of the matter are, since we have taken office, over 700,000 new jobs have been created by the private sector. Since we have taken office, the unemployment rate has dropped by a point and a half. Since we have taken office, Canada's current account surplus has been the highest that it has been since 1984. We have become one of the major exporting nations of the world. We have turned the economy around and it is felt from coast to coast to coast.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, only by tax relief are we going to see true job creation and people feeling better about themselves.
The reality Canadians are facing is this. People are working too hard to pay taxes that are too high. Paycheques are shrinking, job security is disappearing and family time is taking a back seat to overtime and tax time.
Reform will give Canadians $15 billion in tax relief, $2,000 for the average Canadian family by the year 2000, because leaving
more money in the taxpayer's pocket as the minister knows is more valuable than leaving it in the hands of a politician.
Why will the Prime Minister not give Canadians tax relief and create real, long term, sustainable jobs for Canadians?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, what the Reform Party is offering to do is to cut the Canadian health and social transfer by $3.5 billion. What the Reform Party is offering to do is to cut equalization payments for the seven provinces which require them without having the courage and the guts to stand up in the House and tell us what provinces they are going to do it to.
Will the Reform Party members from Saskatchewan stand up here and say that people in Saskatchewan are not entitled to the same level of public services as other Canadians? No, they will not do it. They are going to hide.
What the Reform Party has offered us is a massive attack on the middle class. What Reformers are offering to do is to pit region against region, Canadian against Canadian. They would destroy the Canadian dream. That is what they are offering us.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to take us down the same road that we went yesterday. I will not say what I said, but the minister must have some pretty serious concerns about that.
He says that we will cut health care. Maybe now it is becoming clear to me why this minister is the finance minister and why there are some serious problems. We are talking about putting $4 billion back into health care. He has cut $3 billion. That may be why we are having such serious problems within the finance department.
The Prime Minister last weekend told delegates that once the budget was balanced his government would return to its free spending Liberal ways. The Prime Minister could lower taxes if he was willing to kick his spending habit. That is the problem.
Why does the Prime Minister think that $15 billion in the hands of government bureaucrats or politicians will do more good than those $15 billion in the hands of Canadian taxpayers?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. What the Reform Party members are saying is that they will take $3.5 billion out of the Canadian health and social transfer and then they ask Canadians to trust them to put it back four years later. Four years, after how many hospitals would have been closed? Four years, after how many low income Canadians would have suffered? That is what the Reform Party has offered.
If we want to know what they really think, we could take a look at their first budget. Their first budget was a massive attack on health care. Their first budget said that we should have two-tier health care. Their first budget said that the principles of the Canada Health Act did not apply. Their first budget really gave what they really believe and that is an idealism that is not Canadian.
The Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an interview at last week's Liberal convention, the Minister of Heritage stated that she was not responsible-an opinion we share-for the fact that the CBC budget had been reduced by $127 million in 1996-97. According to her, the responsibility lay with the Minister of Finance.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Heritage explain to us today her flagrant lack of ministerial solidarity in dumping onto her colleague, the Minister of Finance, her own responsibilities and commitments toward the CBC?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was not interviewed at the Liberal convention.
Gaston Leroux: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions in this House she has fobbed off responsibility for the cuts onto the Minister of Finance. Her response indicates how little importance she attached to the reality of a recommendation, and of Liberal commitments, to find stable multi year funding for the CBC.
On the weekend, Pierre Juneau, the author of the Juneau report, was quoted in the Toronto Star as being concerned about the future of Radio Canada International, as was the Conseil de presse du Québec. So we are just where we were a year ago.
Will the Deputy Minister and Minister of Heritage commit now, before this House, to take all of the steps necessary to save Radio Canada International, instead of once again dumping it onto her colleague in finance?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my honourable colleague, as I assured those attending the meeting of national media women, that I am working in close collaboration with the Minister of Finance on our promise of a long-term stabilization fund. I am also doing the same with respect to the future of Radio Canada International.
The EconomyMr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not fooled by the Liberals' spin on their pathetic record.
Canadian families have suffered a $3,000 national pay cut per year, and since the Liberals came to office 1.5 million real people are still looking for jobs. The Conference Board of Canada is saying that the government's low interest rate policy has failed to inspire consumer confidence. According to Statistics Canada, this "reflects the ongoing dead weight of weak income and labour markets".
When will the finance minister admit that because his policies are not working Canadians are not working?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not quoting the conference board correctly. What the conference board has said is that there is a lag time between interest rate cuts and job creation. It pointed to the tremendous interest rate cuts as having been one of the main reasons that there has been stronger job creation in Canada than in any other G-7 country outside of the United States.
What the hon. member ought to do is to look at the fundamental measures the government has taken in terms of job creation; our external trade and the fact that we have become one of the major exporting nations of the world; the Team Canada missions led by the Prime Minister which have led to contract after contract; the summer jobs from the Minister of Human Resources Development; the amount of money we have put into research and development; the amount of money we have put into trade financing; the support of small and medium size businesses. All of this is leading to a very, very healthy economy.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I say to the finance minister, tell that to 1.5 million unemployed Canadians.
Canada Trust's chief economist has said: "Unless we have a real strong sense of job security, interest rates just are not going to entice people into spending".
The finance minister's job creation strategy is in the tank. When will he admit that what Canadians really need is smaller government and more job creating, confidence creating tax relief?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think one really ought to give the lie to the bogus myth that the Reform Party is putting forward.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Paul Martin: Give the lie to is not saying it is a lie. Try a little bit of English instruction.
What the Reform Party members are suggesting in their tax cuts is to simply shift the tax burden on to the provinces. They would cut federal taxes on the one hand and then they would cut equalization. When they cut equalization in Saskatchewan, do they not think that the Government of Saskatchewan is going to have to look at its own revenues? When they cut the Canada health and social transfer and they cut the revenues of the provinces by $3.5 billion, do they not think the provinces are going to have to look to their revenues? When they cut federal taxes, they are as well cutting the revenues that go to the provinces. Do they not think the provinces will have to increase taxes?
The Canadian Armed ForcesMr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The fact that francophones are consistently under-represented within the armed forces is common knowledge. We have known that for quite some time. What we did not know is that the army's chief historian concluded recently in a book of over 700 pages on the subject, and I quote: "If there is a problem, it is perhaps due to the fact that there is no motivation".
Does the new Minister of National Defence endorse the conclusions of his chief historian as to the cause of consistent under-representation of francophones with the forces, and if so, what does he intend to do about this problem?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that in a number of sectors, it has always been a challenge to ensure adequate representation of francophones, and that is the case in the armed forces. The historian in question mentioned a situation which, as the hon. member pointed out, is common knowledge.
We are trying to remedy the situation, and I can inform the hon. member that it has certainly improved. If we look at all the reports made over a certain period of time, there has been an improvement but, as in many other sectors, much remains to be done, and we will try to do it to the best of our ability.
Jean H. Leroux: Mr. Speaker, francophones in Canada and Quebec are sick and tired of hearing people say it is always a challenge to give us our fair share. The minister's chief historian also concluded that francophone officers always have to take most of their training in English. I may remind the minister that it was his government, the Liberal government, that
closed the Saint-Jean military college. That is certainly not going to reverse the trend.
What explanation does the minister have for a comment by his historian that the army never wanted to have francophones in the intelligence sector, for instance? Is it or is it not true that francophones are systematically kept out of certain strategic positions in the Canadian army?
Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I should start naming all the outstanding individuals who have ever held senior positions in the Canadian forces, in order to refute the allegations made by the hon. member.
I can tell him that today about 27 per cent of the people in the Canadian forces are francophones. I acknowledge the hon. member's concerns, and I want to give him the assurance that we are making progress with our recruitment both for the regular forces and for the officers corps, even after the closing of the military college in the province of Quebec.
Young Canadians who want to be part of the Canadian forces are very conscious of the challenge they are facing if they come from a francophone region in Canada. This has been going on for a long time, but it is improving. I am delighted to see that the hon. member is still interested in the future of the Canadian forces.
EthicsMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the Minister of Finance can do no better than to spew a bunch of misinformation about the Reform plan. That is really annoying. But my question is for the Prime Minister.
Canadians are begging this Prime Minister to keep his promise on ethics. On Monday the President of the Treasury Board said: "Government travel cards should be used only for official government business". However, the minister of youth knowingly signed expense forms claiming personal expenses as legitimate government business.
Why does the Prime Minister not discipline this minister for her misuse of public funds and her misrepresentation of the facts?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board replied very well yesterday to this problem.
There was a minor error made by the minister. We checked with the ethics counsellor and every cent has been reimbursed to the government. I have looked into the matter and I am sure that the same mistake will not be repeated.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about that minor error. This statement came from the credit card company directly to that minister's office. That minister did not deduct those personal expenses and submit only the ones that were legitimate. That minister submitted the whole bill and signed on the bottom "this is legitimate government business". If that is not a breach of ethics, I do not know what is.
I am asking the Prime Minister if he will fire that minister for this obvious and blatant breach of public trust.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in these cases, the card that we use as government travel card is the Diners Club enRoute card on which no interest has to be paid.
The normal procedure is for a member of Parliament to pay directly the amount with his or her cheque and then to send it to the department which then checks the expenditures. The process the member is talking about could not have taken place. I am assured that the member has paid all the payments that were demanded of her and that all her personal expenditures have been reimbursed.
Family TrustsMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Liberal majority on the public accounts committee tabled in Parliament another highly partisan report on the family trust scandal. The Liberals deliberately concealed serious violations by the officials-
The Speaker: My colleagues, the words "deliberately concealed" are unacceptable, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the word "deliberately".
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "deliberately".
The Liberals concealed serious violations by the officials involved, including those working for the deputy minister of revenue, Pierre Gravelle.
With all he has done with regard to family trusts, does the Minister of Finance admit that his government has done everything possible to bury this scandal, going as far as muzzling its own members and forcing them to submit reports that conceal the truth from Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject all the accusations that are part of this question. In fact, this file is an example of how a good government operates.
Let us review the facts. In 1991 there was a decision made by the former Conservative government on taxpayer migration. In May of this year the auditor general drew to my attention his concerns with some policy and administrative aspects. I acted immediately to direct my officials to improve their administrative process, and the Minister of Finance acted immediately to send the issues of policy to an open committee of this House, the finance committee. Having received its report he has closed that loophole. This is an example of how good government operates.
I am very proud that because of the actions taken by this Liberal government, a decision that was made in 1991 by the Conservatives cannot be made again.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister claim she has done a good job when we heard dozens of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and different versions from the senior officials who testified before the public accounts committee?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, let me make a comment here and quote from the auditor general: "I believe that a fairly thorough response to the concerns that we have raised has been taken. I am pleased by the seriousness with which our concerns have been taken". This is how good government operates.
I would like to ask the hon. member a few questions because he knows that in this country the province of Quebec has a parallel system that collects the income tax for Canadians in that province. He knows that the province of Quebec has that responsibility. He knows that system does not publish its rulings, nor has that system changed to close the loophole that we have done here.
The facts are clear. This government has acted. It is the PQ that has not.
AgricultureMr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board.
According to the Treasury Board, agriculture Canada currently collects more than $100 million annually through various cost recovery programs. Farmers are increasingly concerned about the multiple impact cost recovery is having on their ability to survive and prosper.
What economic impact analysis has been and will be done to monitor these impacts and is the minister prepared to redress any serious negative impacts should they result?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the first principle of course is that those who get the benefits of government services should whenever possible be those who pay for the costs. This is where the user pay policy comes from.
In the case of the various departments, the departments are responsible for deciding in which circumstances, for what products and for what groups of users charges are to be paid. Once this is determined they make impact analysis and if they realize that their user fees have affects that were not foreseen or are negative then they are free to change their policies.
For specific initiatives each minister is responsible for their impact analysis. The Treasury Board then looks at the overall policies and if there is any consequence that appears to be improper it is then changed and we amend the policy accordingly.
EthicsKen Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question was to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ducked the question, avoiding his responsibility, as he is the one who places the ministers in their positions and he is the one who answers for the question of ethics.
I have before me the actual statement that the minister for youth submitted to finance for payment. It has nothing to do with Diners Club. It is a personal American Express credit card, as far as we can tell.
My question is for the Prime Minister. This is so clearly a breach. It states: "I certify that the foregoing expenses have been incurred on official business", and it bears the minister's signature. It is blatant and obvious. Surely this government has enough ethic sense to act on this.
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, if it is a personal credit card I am not sure I see the problem.
In any case, could I ask the member to send me the papers so I can look at them. I will look at them to see what happened in this case. I think it is quite unfair to make an accusation on the basis of papers that people have not seen. Therefore, if he sends me over the papers I will look at them.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is getting a little bit bad here. Surely the President of the Treasury Board has access to this information. He should not have to ask me for it. He can ask his minister for it-
The Speaker: As you know, colleagues, the rules of the House are not to use props. If you are quoting from a document of course you may quote from it, but I would prefer that it not be used as prop. I would ask the hon. member to please put his question.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to state my question. We have a copy of the statement. The copy we have has a bunch of stuff blanked out but the total of $7,900 was submitted. Why was this paid?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, when the statement is made the comptroller's division in a department receives the account, looks at it, decides what is government business and then either reimburses or receives payment for whatever is a personal expenditure.
In order to judge what exactly happened in this case I would need the documents that are printed there. Once again, we have been assured by the departmental comptroller's division that all personal expenditures have been repaid.
Canadian Armed ForcesMr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Two days ago, the President of the Treasury Board came to the rescue of the Minister of National Defence by supporting his decision not to disclose how much General Boyle's generous separation package would be. The minister is hiding behind the Privacy Act. But the act is clear: discretionary benefits are not included in the definition of personal information. For the minister's information, I am referring to subsection 3( l ).
How can the minister stand by what he said when the act, on the one hand, does not recognize discretionary benefits as personal information and, on the other hand, explicitly authorizes the disclosure of any other type of benefit in the public interest? To be more specific, I am referring to subparagraph 8(2)( m )(i).
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has given us his own interpretation of the act. Let me share with you our lawyers' interpretation: "The fees and amounts an individual is entitled to constitute personal information, the disclosure of which is prohibited under the Privacy Act".
While he was indeed a government employee and an employee who served his country well, General Boyle is nevertheless entitled to the same protection against invasion of privacy as any other officer or employee of the government or anyone in the private sector.
Pierre Brien: To listen to the minister, Mr. Speaker, even salaries should not be made public.
How can the minister put his head in the sand like that when, only last month, in a Federal Court ruling in the McCreery case on MPs' pensions, opposing the privacy commissioner and the Department of Public Works, Justice Richard concluded that this kind of public interest information could be disclosed? What are they trying to hide behind this separation payment?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right when he says that even salaries would be protected against disclosure, because individual salaries are indeed not disclosed.
If you take a look at the orders in council that are issued, the salary range is provided, not individual salaries, for that very reason, to protect personal information.
BombardierMr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
This government continues to break major promises by approving an $87 million interest free loan to Bombardier. In this very House the Minister of Industry said: "We talked about cutting subsidies to business. That is what we stand for".
He also said: "We are not prepared to grant massive assistance to any company". Why, then, did the Minister of Industry cave in to corporate welfare interests rather than keep the government's promise to Canadians?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to explain to the hon. member, as I did to his colleague over the last couple of days, that the assistance that we have provided in the regional jet project is not a handout to business. It is not a handout to a corporation. It is an investment in research and development, fully repayable out of royalties on sales of aircraft.
This hon. member is the member of his party on the industry committee. I think he understands the importance of trying to develop industries within this country that can succeed.
I remind him that the only high technology sector in which Canada at this moment wins a trade surplus is the aerospace industry.
I remind him that every other country in the world with an important aerospace sector is involved in it by state ownership, by defence procurement or by other measures.
I remind him that as we invest in aerospace in Canada, we will be repaid with jobs and growth. If he wants to have his finance critic stand up and talk about jobs, then I suggest to him that he understand what it takes to create jobs.
Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. I know exactly what creates real jobs. Tax relief creates real jobs.
In the last 15 years the federal government, including this government, has pumped $1.2 billion into Bombardier. Yet when taxpayers want to know how much of this money is paid back, the taxpayers are told to take a hike.
If it is an investment, as the minister claims, why does this government refuse to divulge how much money has been paid back by Bombardier to the Canadian taxpayer?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all assure the hon. member that in introducing this new program called technology partnerships Canada we are looking only at those companies where we see an investment in research and development bringing in products to the marketplace that will have success in the international markets.
That is the same attention that I will pay to prominent firms in his own riding that are applying under technology partnerships Canada.
Let us look for a second at the $87 million in assistance which, as I have told him, is fully repayable and compare it to his proposition of tax relief. If we take the $87 million and divide it among the 20 million individual tax filers in this country, roughly $4.40 would go to each taxpayer.
I will take the investment in Bombardier, the 2,700 jobs it will create and maintain, over the $4 to buy a hamburger for everyone else in Canada.
Air-IndiaMr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. By the way, it is great to see the solicitor general back in the House. The Gander, Newfoundland air crash, the Hinton train wreck, the Dryden aeroplane disaster and the Westray mine explosion have one thing in common: inquiries were conducted into all four tragedies.
The Air-India explosion more than 11 years ago was the worst civil aviation disaster in Canada's history. Can the minister tell the House when Canadians can expect the long overdue inquiry into the Air-India tragedy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, the crash of the Air-India plane in 1985 was a terrible tragedy but it was also a terrible crime. Hundreds of Canadians lost their lives.
That is why the RCMP has been actively investigating the matter with a view to getting the evidence on which charges can be laid and those responsible for the bombing can be successfully prosecuted.
The government has not forgotten the victims or their families. For the first time a solicitor general, namely myself, met with the families. I directed senior RCMP officers to keep them regularly informed of the progress of the investigation. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, a $1 million reward has been offered. This has generated hundreds of leads which are being actively pursued.
It is not considered appropriate to have a commission of inquiry while there is an active investigation. However, the commissioner has confirmed to me that if there is an impasse in the investigation I will be informed. I want to assure my hon. friend that if there is such an impasse I will immediately discuss this matter further with the Prime Minister.
EducationMr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has announced that tuition fees for students at Canadian universities have increased by nearly 12 per cent over the last year.
Since the Liberal government took power and started hacking away at transfers for post-secondary education, tuition fees in Canada have increased by a total of almost 30 per cent. Increased fees mean more and more young people are being excluded from the opportunity to participate in the so-called knowledge based economy that we consider so important because they can no longer afford to go to school.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. If by continuing the cuts to education is it his intention to deny the children of middle class and working families access to education. Is it the government's intention to return Canada to the days when only the wealthy could afford to go to university?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, tuition fees began to rise in Canada long before this government took office. It was as a result of those tremendous increases in the tuition fees that the federal government, for example in its last budget, increased the tuition credits for students. We made it possible for single mothers, for instance, or custodial parents who require additional child care help to be able to go back to school.
I should point out to the hon. member that in his province the federal government contributes 65 per cent of the cost of post-secondary education.
Presence In GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to bring to members' attention the presence in the gallery of a delegation that will be involved in the choice of Expo 2005. As you know, Canada is involved in the bidding for Expo 2005.
We have with us the fact-finding mission of the International Exhibitions Bureau, headed by its president, His Excellency Ole Philippson.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I have notice of a point of privilege from the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. I would ask the hon. member, before he puts his point of privilege: Does this point of privilege arise from the question period today?
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, yes, it does arise from the question period today.
PrivilegeJohn Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege which is consistent with Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms , fourth edition, 1958, at page 95, section 104(4). This point of privilege refers to the matter which I want to raise today. It states:

Certain urgent matters, such as assaults upon or insults to Members if they should occur during a sitting of the House, may be raised at once in spite of the interruption of debate or other proceedings-

My point of personal privilege is in reference to a question put by the hon. member for Elk Island to the Prime Minister which was responded to by the minister in charge of the treasury board. I feel that members of the House, as well as Canadians, are insulted by the lack of action and response by the President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister.
In question period the hon. member for Elk Island raised the point about the Secretary of State for Training and Youth misusing her expense account and she has not-
The Speaker: The question was put in question period. It was directed to the government and at that time the government responded to the question.
I fail to see how this would be a point of privilege for the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. Privilege is a very narrow area. I would ask, if the hon. member still wishes to proceed, that he go directly to the point of privilege which affects him.
John Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just getting to that point.
The reason I rise on this issue is because I am insulted by the fact that the Secretary of State for Training and Youth has abused her position and has not accounted for her actions.
The Speaker: I do not have any evidence before me that there is any guilt of any member on any side. What I have in front of me, as your Speaker, is a question that was asked and a question that was answered. Outside of it being unparliamentary, which it was not, I judged it to be a parliamentary question and acceptable. I judged the answer to be parliamentary. Whether it is acceptable to one side or the other is neither here nor there. I judged it to be a normal response that the government gives.
At this point, at least, my dear colleague, I would rule, from what you have put before me, that there is no point of privilege.
Point Of OrderKen Epp: Mr. Speaker, I need your assistance on this point of order. I asked a question specifically of the Prime Minister in an area which is specifically his responsibility, that is the assignment of duties to ministers. He alone does that. Is that-
The Speaker: In the first two weeks I was in this House I was corrected by another hon. member because I thought just the same thing.
The fact is that a question is not technically put to any minister. A question is put to the government. At that point the government
may choose to answer or not to answer. Any member of the government may answer any question that is put to the government.
In response to your question, you can put a question to any minister or parliamentary secretary but they may or may not answer. Those are the rules of the House and that is how it works.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 23 petitions.
Committees Of The HousePaul Zed: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 41st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Industry.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in the 41st report later this day.
Quebec Contingency Act (Referendum Conditions)Stephen Harper: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-341, an act to establish the terms and conditions that must apply to a referendum relating to the separation of Quebec from Canada before it may be recognized as a proper expression of the will of the people of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, this bill outlines a process for dealing with any future referendum on the issue of Quebec sovereignty. There are three main features of this bill. First, it allows the Government of Canada to determine whether a referendum question in Quebec is clear and unambiguous. If it is not, the Government of Canada is required to undertake a number of actions, including the holding of a parallel referendum in Quebec which asks a clear question on separation from Canada.
Second, in the event of a yes vote, the bill authorizes the negotiation of separation subject to consultation with the provinces. Any final settlement would be subject to approval in a national referendum.
Finally, the bill affirms that a unilateral declaration of independence is ineffective with respect to Canadian law and does not affect the functioning of the Canadian Parliament, government or courts with respect to Quebec.
These proposals avoid the mistakes of the past, ensure a respect for our legal order and ensure that all Canadians, including Quebecers, have a role in shaping their future.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Fiscal Responsibility ActTed White: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-342, an act to establish principles of responsible fiscal management and to require regular publication of information by the Minister of Finance to demonstrate the government's adherence to those principles.

Mr. Speaker, this act would require, among other things, that the crown's financial reporting be in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices so the people of the country could see what the debts and assets of the country are.
In addition, it would require the government to publish before each general election an economic and fiscal update prepared by Treasury Board for the next three years and also to include forecasting of the estimated actual financial statements for the crown.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Citizen-Initiated Referendum ActTed White: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, an act to provide for the holding of citizen initiated referenda on specific questions.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be rising today to present this bill. It is 25 pages in length and was worked on by more than a dozen people over a two-year period. It is a workable initiative and referendum legislation that is based on working legislation in a similar parliamentary democracy. It includes new methods of voting such as electronic voting. It is very detailed and I urge all members to read it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Criminal CodeBrenda Chamberlain: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act to amend the Criminal Code (no early parole for those who murder a peace officer).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill which would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code. It would deny early parole for anyone convicted of the first degree murder of a police officer.
Canadians are aware that the faint hope clause included in section 745 allows first degree murderers to apply for early parole after 15 years. My bill would make sure that those convicted of the first degree murder of police officers, which includes police, corrections officers and customs officers, would be denied the right to apply for parole and would have to serve at least 25 years rather than a possible 15 years of their life sentence.
Our police put their lives on the line every time they go to work. They deserve our support. We must give a clear message to those convicted of killing them that Canadian society does not tolerate those who murder them in the line of duty. My bill is an important first step in a strong message of support for our police and others who serve on our behalf.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Credit Card Interest Calculation ActMr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ind. Lib.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates on credit cards.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to introduce my private member's bill today. This legislation is an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates on credit cards. The purpose of this bill is to significantly reduce the excessive credit card interest rates that banks and department stores are currently charging.
I am sure that members in the House will agree that the major banks are making unprecedented profits. Indeed last year the major banks collectively raked in some $15 billion in profits. This year the third quarter reported profits are 20 per cent over last year for at least two of the major banks.
Industry Canada officials have recently stated that credit card rates are persistently high. The major banks countered that their low rate cards are now in the 11 per cent range.
My bill would ensure that any credit card issued by a financial institution or a department store could not have an interest rate exceeding more than four or five percentage points over the Bank of Canada's discount rate.
Our economy needs a boost. My bill will greatly assist in jump starting the economy. If more Canadians have access to credit cards at a lower interest rate then obviously their purchasing power will increase.
It is time for all parliamentarians to put an end to the fat cats at the lending institutions reaping fat profits out of the pockets of Canadians. I look forward to unanimous approval of this legislation from all members in this House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a committee report.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Committees Of The HouseGhislain Lebel: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, and pursuant to the order of reference made under section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act, the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is asking the government to table a complete response to this report.
Paul Zed: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 41st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
PetitionsMs. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table petitions submitted to me by 3,600 residents of Windsor and Essex county. They are objecting to the mandatory 25 per cent tax being withheld by the United States on their U.S. social
security benefits. These petitioners call upon the Canadian government to renegotiate the Canada-U.S. tax treaty to stop this inequity.
I know the government is working on a solution to this situation. However I urge the government to do it very soon.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to this House two petitions signed by the residents of York North.
The first petition is about the Helms-Burton law. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Liberated) Act attempts to impose American domestic policy on other sovereign countries and therefore violates international law.
The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that Canadian interests, rights and businesses must be defended with strength and vigour. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to pursue all avenues available to ensure the rights of Canadians are protected.
Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, the second petition draws to the attention of the House the important role that small business plays in our economy.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to continue to create a healthy environment for small businesses and ensure they have access to the financing they need, and to help them explore and capitalize on new opportunities.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 969 constituents from the region of Durham.
This petition calls upon Parliament to ensure that the present provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide, or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a petition asking for the abolition of the Senate.
Over 30,000 petitioners, including 6,300 from the riding of Frontenac, support this measure to save more than $50 million in taxpayers' money. It goes without saying that I fully support this petition, which has been appropriately certified by the Clerk of Petitions.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions, the Bloc Quebecois and those whom I represent have questioned the raison d'être of the Senate. Its inefficiency and its unproductivity have been demonstrated time and again.
I submit a petition signed by 1,786 Quebecers from my riding of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans. They insist that the Canadian government use the salaries paid to members of the other place for reasons others than the enrichment of people who bring nothing to the evolution of the Quebec and Canadian societies.
Consequently, we ask that the Senate be abolished.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition from my constituents. The 567 signatures on this petition are in addition to the 30,000 ones from other ridings.
The petitioners ask for the abolition of the non-elected Senate and state that this spending of $40 million is unjustifiable, given the cuts affecting UI benefits, the lack of an employment policy and the cuts to seniors' benefits.
People in my riding say no to the Senate, because it costs too much.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 a petition with 74 names from the Vancouver area. This petition is sponsored by Sun Hope in memory of Andre Castet and it includes names from my own riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam.
These petitioners unequivocally reject Bill C-37. They call upon the government to enact legislation to address the public demand for substantial revision of the Young Offenders Act and substantial reform of the justice system.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you back in the Chair after an extended absence.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present today. The first comes from Wetaskiwin, Alberta.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Labrador City, Newfoundland.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Questions On The Order PaperMr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motions For PapersGeorge Proud: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Business Of The HouseMr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib): Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That all recorded divisions demanded today on Private Members' Business motion M-221 be deferred until Tuesday, November 5, 1996, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

(Motion agreed to.)
Point Of OrderMr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to two questions on the Order Paper.
The first is Question No. 9 of which notice was given on February 28, 1996 with a request that a response be made within 45 days. This same question was initially tabled in the House in September 1995. The previous parliamentary secretary to the government House leader assured me and the House that an answer was forthcoming. Apparently a couple of departments were not able to supply all of the information quickly. Following prorogation of the House, the successive parliamentary secretary assured me that an answer was forthcoming very soon.
We are now in October and a considerable time has elapsed since February, over half a year. I still do not have an answer to Question No. 9.
As well there is Question No. 60, for which notice was given on June 13. Again, much more than 45 days has elapsed and the question has not been answered. I would like to know why.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I will take the matter raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister under notice and will see that the message is delivered to the parliamentary secretary, being quite sensitive of course from his perspective of the length of time it has taken to get the answers.
On the other hand, quite often that simply reflects the complexity of the question. We will take all those things into consideration and get back to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Government Orders
Canada Labour CodeHon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Labour, Lib.): 
moved that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum wage), be read the third time and passed.

George Proud: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you and to the Minister of Labour for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-35.
This is an act to amend the Canada Labour Code to automatically align the federal minimum wage to the levels applied in the provinces and territories.
When I first realized that the federal minimum wage had not been raised in 10 years, I was totally amazed. A lot of things have changed in our country since 1986, both economically and socially.
All these years, the four dollar an hour federal minimum wage has not increased, and in principle is still at the same level as it was in 1986.
In the meantime, every single province and territory has upgraded its minimum wage and in some cases more than once. This means that all workers under federal jurisdiction who have been paid at the $4 an hour rate will immediately receive an increase.
We know that wage increases are much more important for those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder. For them, as for most people, every penny counts. We each have to stretch them to the maximum to make ends meet.
As former minister of labour for Prince Edward Island, I can assure members that the government has made the right choice by aligning the federal minimum wage to the rate applied in each province and territory.
The provinces clearly have the lead on this issue, as they govern 98 per cent of all minimum wage earners in Canada. It is a fact that industries under federal jurisdiction such as transportation, telecommunications, banks and some crown corporations have very few workers at minimum wage.
Indeed, recent estimates show that less than one-tenth of one per cent of the Canadian labour force falls into this category. The federal government could have followed the traditional approach and introduced a flat increase to set the minimum wage in the middle of the range of provincial and territorial rates and the government could have taken the path as it has done in the past.
Indeed, the government could have just done what past governments have done. But then, by the time the new rate would have been in effect, a number of provinces could have increased their own rates. A number of the provinces, including my own province of Prince Edward Island, have raised their minimum wage rates since this bill was introduced in the House last May.
The status quo was not a viable option either because the federal minimum wage was falling far out of line with overall social and economic conditions. This is very important because our government is committed to helping those who are most in need. We mean this.
This is why the Minister of Labour has seriously analysed the situation and has chosen a method setting the federal minimum wage that fulfils three important objectives: to ensure its continuing relevancy; to promote fairness by ensuring that workers, whether subject to federal or provincial labour laws, are entitled to the same minimum wage within the same labour market; to provide more incentive for people to seek work while balancing and limiting the negative impact of job creation.
We recognize that the economic realities and the labour market conditions are very often different from one region to the other. We also know that these factors are clearly reflected in the way different provinces set their minimum wage.
Adopting provincial territorial minimum wage rates maintains this balance across regions without punishing or rewarding anyone. Let us look at the figures.
Today the provincial and territorial minimum wage rates vary from $5 an hour in Newfoundland and Alberta to $7 an hour in British Columbia. This is a huge difference. But then, who would argue that the cost of living is not different in these regions of the country? This is a perfect example of why aligning the federal rate to the provincial rate is the best way to go.
I would like to address the issue of the efficiency of this bill.
I believe all members of this House want to make legislative and parliamentary procedures still more flexible and efficient. Each week we meet people in our riding offices with complaints about the current system. They feel it is too slow and a source of confusion, with too much duplication and overlap. I know this, because far too many such cases are brought to my attention.
Here is an opportunity for all of us to do something concrete and positive to streamline government activities. From now on there will be no need to amend the federal minimum wage regulations in order to adjust the federal minimum wage to the reality. It will be automatically updated on a regular basis in line with territorial and provincial increases.
I was also happy to hear the minister note that the new rates will apply equally to adults and to young workers. I must admit that I have great difficulty in accepting that a person should be paid less just because of his or her age. I also believe that such a practice may likely be discriminatory under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I therefore strongly support section 178(2) of the bill which states that where provinces have set rates according to occupation, age or work experience the general rate will apply. If there are different rates based on age, the highest minimum wage rate will apply to those in federally regulated industries.
I would also like to say a few words about the process the government followed with this bill. We had serious consultations will all of the stakeholders before choosing this formula. Every-
body has had the chance to express their view before the final decision was made, and the general reaction is very positive.
Sometimes employers become very apprehensive when they hear talk about raising the minimum wage. They are often afraid that these costs will hurt their competitiveness. Not in this case. The federally regulated employers, transportation, communication as well as the Canadian Bankers' Association have indicated they do not oppose the government's initiative. Indeed, business leaders recognize that it makes a lot of practical sense to harmonize federal and provincial rates since federal employers have done so in practice for some time.
Labour organizations welcome the move as a small increase long overdue. They would like to see a bigger raise in the minimum wage and of course so would everyone. But in this field we all have to move according to a pay set by the economic strengths and weaknesses of a specific labour market. In this specific case we have not met any significant opposition for the simple reason that Bill C-35 brings into force what has by and large already been practised across the country.
As the Minister of Labour was saying earlier, we are bringing the legislation in line with reality. There is also good support for this initiative because everyone recognizes that by harmonizing the federal rate with the provincial and territorial ones we will end the stagnation we have seen over the last 10 years.
Of course, some will say that the federal government ought not to transfer such responsibilities to the provinces and territories, because it would run the risk of ending up weaker as a result. We are not, however, giving up our authority, for we are retaining the legislative power to establish a different rate, if this decision were taken.
Should a province or a territory decide to bring down its minimum wage or set it to a level we estimate would be too low, the federal rate will stay at the higher level. We are not passing our responsibilities to the next jurisdiction.
What we are doing is working hand in hand with the provinces and territories to find the best and most efficient way to keep the federal minimum wage in line with reality in each and every province and territory of our country.
This initiative has been taken with the full knowledge and co-operation of all provincial and territorial governments which know that this bill will improve the system and better reflect the realities of our current marketplace. The bill has gone through the scrutiny of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and is coming back to us without a single amendment.
This shows clearly that the formula is the right one and that the consultation process was absolutely appropriate to develop a large and a strong consensus.
Given the Government's creative strategy with respect to the federal minimum wage, I feel that the future looks most encouraging.
In his speech at second reading of this bill the Minister of Labour told us about his plan to overhaul the Canada Labour Code in order to make it a more useful tool to move and adjust to the new realities of the workplace.
I am very confident that the minister will be successful. He will succeed because he is dedicated to dialogue and consultation. He will succeed because he is facing the problems head on in search of a practical, efficient and permanent solution. Bill C-35 is an excellent example.
Amending the Canada Labour Code is an important task because it sets the basic rules for the workplace for thousands of Canadians.
Today we are taking a small step to improve the working conditions for some Canadian workers who are under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. They are the ones at the bottom of the economic ladder. They work hard for their pay. They are proud workers. They participate in society and they contribute to society.
That is why I support Bill C-35. I am confident that every member of the House of Commons will also show their support.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak for up to a maximum of 40 minutes, and I will try to stay within those limits. You know how unpredictable this is, but before discussing the minimum wage, I shall, if I may, be out of order and offer my congratulations to a friend who works with us at the leader's office and has now become a father-talk about a positive element. David MacDonald, who is well known here on the Hill, is now the proud father of a baby girl.
That being said, my congratulations duly extended, we are now talking about a very serious matter. Our listeners know that when, as parliamentarians, we discuss the issue of minimum wage rates, we refer to three major factors. These are people who are less well off in society. There are people who often have no collective agreement, who lack this often elementary protection that puts it all down in writing. In that case they have to rely on legislation like the bill before the House today to amend the Canada Labour Code.
These are people who work part-time and who in many cases have difficult working conditions and hold down several jobs. For their sake it is certainly very important to try to impose a certain number of rules which according to the legislator set the absolute strict minimum.
As we have said on several occasions, we believe that Bill C-35 is a rather positive bill. It is positive, since it has six major characteristics. The first one is that to all intents and purposes, and I say this very carefully, the bill before the House today says that in every province where there are federally-regulated companies, the minimum wage rate will be aligned with the rate in effect in that particular province. The federal minimum wage was $4 and has not been increased since 1986.
Of course the federal government, and that is one of its prerogatives, retains the right to establish an hourly rate for companies under its jurisdiction, should there be no minimum wage rate in effect in the province, but to all intents and purposes, the bill will put an end to this aberration which we have condemned many times in the past, which meant that two groups of workers within the same territory and doing the same job could not be getting the same hourly rate, which made no sense at all.
Let me give you the broad parameters of Bill C-35. As I said before, and to make quite clear to listeners who have just tuned in, I repeat that the federal minimum wage is set at the hourly rate established by the employee's province or territory of employment.
Having said that, I think that, for the sake of clarity, we must bear in mind that the reality in terms of the Canadian labour market and the current minimum wage is a rather fragmented, uneven reality, since we are not in a situation where minimum wage rates are harmonized. Think that there are provinces where the minimum wage rate is barely above $4, while it is as high as $7 in generous British Columbia. But for this reality to be reasonably meaningful to our fellow citizens, I will nevertheless list the various hourly rates in effect in each province.
Alberta has set its minimum wage rate at $5; British Columbia, whose financial situation is the healthiest, has an hourly rate of $7; Prince Edward Island, $5.40, as the minister, who was himself born and raised on this island no larger than Montreal, pointed out; Manitoba also has an hourly rate of $5.40; New Brunswick, $5.50; Nova Scotia, $5.50; Ontario, the very conservative province of Ontario, where a lot is happening these days, as you know from following the news, has an hourly rate of $6.85; Quebec, $6.70; Saskatchewan, $5.35; Newfoundland, $5.25; the Northwest Territories, $7; and the Yukon, $6.86.
So, it was wise on the part of the government, as the federal legislator, to decide to bring its rate in line with the provincial rates, and that is an initiative we have applauded on several occasions.
It should be pointed out that the bill calls for the general rate to apply, regardless of the profession, status, or work experience of the worker, which has not always been the case. In the past, exceptions were made possible because of characterizations like the ones I just mentioned.
Also, and it was wise to provide for this, when workers are paid under a different criterion-there are places for instance where earnings are calculated by the piece, that is another possibility-they must receive at least as much as the minimum wage equivalent for the work in question.
Fourth exception, where the wage rate set by the province is based on age, the highest rate applies, and we think this is normal and desirable.
Fifth, as I said, the federal government may set the minimum wage rate with respect to employment in a province.
Sixth, the federal government specifies the conditions under which and the occupations in which young people under the age of 17 may be employed, but there may be no specific rate for them.
As you can see, one of the changes introduced with this Bill C-35 is that exceptions on the basis of age will no longer be allowed, contrary to what had been the practice until just recently, for fear that it would not meet the test of the Charter in eventual court challenges, as the chairman of the human resources development committee can imagine, he who, as we know, is very concerned about these issues.
As much as we applaud this legislation and feel it should be supported, it still has some flaws. We still did our job as opposition, because the opposition must work on improving the government. Of course, it is a full time job. With all we have ahead of us, no one could work only part time on improving the government. If we want a better government, the opposition must work very hard and full time, and be able to introduce amendments.
We proposed an amendment which the Liberals rejected with some weak arguments. We do not fully understand what drove them to it; Their justifications were somewhat vague. But we did put forward an amendment aimed at-it is still possible. Even if only 10 per cent of workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code, this does not mean we should not be concerned with them. Ten per cent of workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code.
Fifty per cent of this 10 per cent of workers are paid the minimum wage. This is another reality we must deal with. Since this is a federal jurisdiction, there are cases in which a worker may perform his duties in more than one province. There is the whole issue of trucking, of interprovincial transport.
We have concerns. We wondered what would happen when a worker does not have a fixed workplace and the employer himself can assign a workplace in Ontario, Saskatchewan or Alberta. Would the employer not be inclined to choose the workplace with the lowest hourly wage rate?
Because we are concerned with this social democratic aspect, we questioned the minister in subcommittee. I think the committee chairman will recall that some of our questions remained unanswered. That is why we felt it was our duty to move an amendment. So we put forward an amendment that was defeated by the Liberals.
In short, we still did our duty and I am convinced that we uncovered a flaw in this bill which was minor but nonetheless worth bringing to the government's attention.
But, to me, the most important issue in this fundamental debate is not so much the fact that the minister proposes a bill on minimum wage. It would have been interesting to put the issue of minimum wage in the context of impoverishment. This is the reality and we will keep repeating it as long as we sit in this House, because there are few people, with the notable exception of the official opposition, who are truly concerned about the plight of the poor. It must be understood that there have never been so many poor in Canada.
No one in this House, whether from the government, the Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois, can rise and say that, since the seventies, the Canadian and Quebec societies have become more affluent overall. It is not the case. Rather, there is an increasing number of poor, 4.8 million of them, in Canada.
I thank the Speaker for showing concern about my health. It is true that I was not feeling well the last few days. I had the flu. Had it not been for my robust health, I would not have recovered. But I am here to talk to you and to protect the interests of the poor.
Poverty is not disappearing. It is not diminishing. I am pleased to see the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, because I want to remind him that, while poverty is measurable, while it is a statistical data, it is also a human reality. Behind every graph, chart, figure and fraction, there are destinies, hopes, dramas and families.
We are told there are 4.8 million poor in Canada, and it is agreed that a Canadian is considered to be poor when 56 per cent of his or her income is spent on the three basics, namely clothing, housing and food. As you know, poverty, like unemployment, is not a genetic trait.
The labour, international trade and human resources ministers keep telling us about market globalization and interdependency, but the fact is that we have an unemployment rate which is chronically much higher than the average for OECD countries.
And while the average rate of unemployment in OECD countries stands at 7.8 per cent, the Canadian average is 12 per cent, and in certain parts of large cities, 13, 14, 15, 16 and even 22 per cent.
One day we would like an explanation as to why certain countries that are not on Mars but right here on Earth have achieved full employment, when it is still eluding us here in Canada.
For the official opposition, one thing is certain and that is that there is no getting around the fact that two governments get in each other's way, and that when you are without a job, when things have taken a turn for the worse and you have lost your job because of a disability, or have just been laid off, there is no one place you can go for help. There are a certain number of programs you may turn to if you receive income security benefits, but not if you are on unemployment insurance.
The only truly integrated labour market policy is one in which all related activities would be handled by a single authority, which can only be the provinces.
I would like to come back to the issue of poverty. It is not a question of genes. The parliamentary secretary, who generally has little to say when we mention figures, but manages to find his tongue in committee, will agree with me that poverty is not something you are born to. It is not as though some people are destined to be poor, while others are destined to be rich. However, it must be admitted that certain decisions drive people into poverty. I would like to give you a recent example. This is not an example from 50 years ago, but is something quite contemporary and immediate, and has resulted in a cloud of shame descending on this Parliament, particularly to your right, when the employment insurance legislation was passed.
The employment insurance reform is bad for two reasons. First, because it limits the accessibility of workers and of employees to the protection of unemployment insurance that they have paid for. It will be remembered, first of all, that the Canadian government has not, since 1992, contributed one red cent to the unemployment insurance fund, and it would be impossible to find comparisons within the OECD, to find any example of a country which has decided to disengage in such an irresponsible way from the unemployment insurance field.
The fact is, that with unemployment insurance reform, benefits, coverage and duration are being reduced. What does this mean? It makes it clear that there is a link between the constitutional framework and Quebec's sovereignist project. What did Louise Harel, the Quebec minister of employment and MLA for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve have to say in the last referendum? "We are investing $10 billion yearly for the Quebec labour market". This is not a trifle, $10 billion yearly. It is even far higher than the average amount invested in the OECD countries. Despite the fact that we are investing more in work force policies within Quebec, including
income security and unemployment insurance, we are faced with an unemployment rate that is higher than the OECD average.
What does this mean? It means that the continued unemployment is not a result of lack of money, or of resources. If there is this much unemployment, it is because programs have been poorly designed, because there is no possibility for a single decision-making centre to have an integrated labour market policy.
Think how wonderful it would be if, once a person was out of the work force, for all manner of reasons, more often than not reasons beyond his control, there were only one single centre of authority for that person, where he could be offered a broad range of programs and measures, where a true path back to work would be available to him. In other words, a given individual would be followed from the very beginning of his loss of employment, throughout the system, and right up until he obtained a new job, without any concern for federal-provincial overlaps, for this is where the damage is done.
We have two decision-making centres which are not co-ordinated, which do not speak the same language, which do not take the same steps, which discourage people, and which make it impossible for Quebec to have a proper integrated labour force strategy.
Still more serious is the fact that the policy proposed by the Minister of Human Resource Development is a one which contributes to destabilizing Quebec's public finances. I believe we must speak of this reality. Those listening to us have a need to know. With the restrictions that have been made within unemployment insurance reform, making it into employment insurance, 30,000 new households have been unable to qualify for employment insurance and have therefore had to apply for income security, which is a last resort.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote an eminent economist known to a number of us. His name is Pierre Fortin. He is an economist with the UQAM. He is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois. He is not a member of the executive of my riding association. He has no sovereignist leanings. He is a brilliant intellectual and a respected member of the academic community.
He was involved in drafting a report published under the title: "Pour un régime équitable axé sur l'emploi". This report, released not quite a year ago, was very critical of the employment insurance system. I would like to quote from the report.
It says: "In 1995, approximately 120,000 people were either unemployed and recently excluded from unemployment insurance or had dropped out of the labour market altogether as a result of these restrictions. Since it is usually estimated that 25 per cent of those who are not eligible for unemployment insurance end up on welfare, it is reasonable to believe that federal restrictions-and I will repeat this in an attempt to get the attention of the former parliamentary secretary, I feel sorry for him, but it is not our decision-it is reasonable to believe that federal restrictions have caused as many as 30,000 more households to go on welfare. The annual cost to the Quebec government would increase by about $240 million. The first estimates available indicate that the new changes in unemployment insurance announced for 1996 would add another 20,000 households to those already on welfare and would finally put the cumulative cost of these restrictions at approximately $400 million for Quebec".
Do you realize the tragedy behind all this? When you see the Minister of Finance with his grey hair and his unconscionable ego rising at the Liberal convention strutting like a peacock when he says that he made it, that he is about to achieve his budgetary objectives, there is something extremely troubling here which is almost dishonest, because the Minister of Finance did not tell us that, as he is about to achieve his budgetary objectives which were to bring the deficit down to 2 per cent of GNP, he did so with absolute contempt for the provinces, by offloading his problems and making the provinces poorer.
That is the reality, and when Pierre Fortin tells us that the reforms proposed by the Liberal government will add an additional $400 million to the cost of welfare payments, this is the most despicable, pernicious, unacceptable and irresponsible example of what Canadian federalism has to offer. That is why we are a sovereignist opposition and why we intend to achieve our sovereignty.
That being said, as long as we are in this House, as long as we are the official opposition, we will always be what the Reform Party and the government cannot be: the voice of those who are less well off in our society.
In the time I have left, I would like to draw a thumbnail sketch of poverty. I said earlier that poverty was a very specific reality affecting 4.8 million Canadians. But not all are affected equally. There are some classes of people in society whose social status makes them more vulnerable to poverty and financial setbacks.
For a very long time, seniors were seen as the poorest in our society. So much so that, when the Senate carried out a study on poverty in the 1970s, there was an old person on the front page of its report. I am not saying today that seniors are no longer poor or that there are no people who have trouble making ends meet, but the fact is that the face of poverty is changing. At this time, the poorest members of our society are young families headed by someone under 25. Canada's poverty rate is 17 per cent. If we had a sample of 100 people, 17 of them would fit the statistical definition
of poor, in that they must spend 56 per cent of their income on clothing, food and housing.
Well 44 per cent of young families headed by someone under 25 are poor, compared to 17 per cent of all Canadians. So, if you are a family head under 25, the more family obligations you have before the age of 25, the better your chances of fitting the definition of poor, since 50 per cent of young families are poor.
Even more so for single-parent families headed by a woman under the age of 65 who has a child under the age of 18. In that case, the poverty rate raises to 56 per cent.
Also, and this is a fairly new reality, the scope of which we are only starting to realize, fewer members of our society are getting married. The number of singles is on the rise. Not so much among Canadians, but still there is a growing number of single people, of people living alone. And people who live alone and are single have about a 40 per cent chance of living below the poverty line.
This profile should have been enough to convince the minister that it is not enough to table in this House a bill to bring the federal minimum wage rate in line with the rates in effect in the provinces and more should have been done.
You will recall what the Liberals promised. In the last election campaign, the Liberals were talking about establishing a national child care system in Canada. They talked about guaranteed minimum income. Their generous spirit during the campaign translated into extremely cheap and restrictive policies and decisions regarding those people who are the less fortunate, the most disadvantages.
I would like to address a number of myths concerning poverty.
In order to be clear, and since we can express them with numbers, let me say that, in 1994, poverty levels-these are the most recent ones established by the National Council of Welfare-in large urban areas were estimated at $16,511 for a single person and at $31,061 for a family of four.
So, in 1994, a person living in a large city with a total income of $16,511 was considered to be poor. Similarly, a family of four, that is two spouses with two children, living on $31,071 was also poor. This takes us back to the sad picture that I tried to paint earlier.
Let me tell you about a number of biases that prevail and that are, of course, promoted by the Reform Party, and sometimes, albeit to a lesser degree, by the government majority.
There is this thinking, behind the proposed employment insurance measures, that poverty is first a personal matter, that people choose to be poor, that it is a deliberate choice, as if people deliberately chose to lose their jobs, to become unemployed, or to be laid off.
I think there is something terribly hypocritical about the reform proposed by the government. It wants to impose penalties on people because they are unemployed, and asks them to find work, when we are not in a position to create enough jobs for all the people who want them. There is something profoundly unacceptable about imposing penalties on people who are looking for work.
There is also this whole idea that the poor do not pay taxes, that they are wards of the state and that they are not contributing their fair share. This is interesting, because the National Anti-Poverty Organization has reminded us that most people living in poverty work part time, and that over 60 per cent of heads of families living in poverty and over 70 per cent of single people living in poverty pay taxes. In Ontario alone, it is estimated that these people contribute $160 million in taxes. So much for that myth.
There is another myth that must also be dispelled, particularly now that the Canadian government has pulled out of the Canada assistance plan. Our viewers must know that under the Canada assistance plan, in existence since 1966, the Canadian government shared half the cost of funding provincial income security programs, and that terminating this program will not only destabilize budgets in the provinces concerned, but can only mean that there will be increasingly fewer funds available for those who have nowhere else to turn.
There is this idea that people on income security are receiving way too much money, enough to meet their needs and then some. What has to be said, in the context of social programs and a debate such as this one today in the House, is that all Canadians on welfare are living under the poverty line. The highest welfare benefits are still 20 per cent below the poverty line as defined by specialized organizations. This is another myth that must be dispelled.
Another point that must be mentioned is that, by adopting a bill like the one on employment insurance, the government is following a philosophy of auditing. The idea is that the unemployed, those receiving benefits, are cheats, and that this is a way to get money back, and thus a way to improve public finances, whereas studies have proven that, while not claiming there are no cases of fraud-for there are-they account for only about 3 per cent of all accounts.
How can anyone dream of establishing a policy for putting public finances back on their feet based on a philosophy of auditing, one as shameless as the one proposed to us by the Liberal government with employment insurance, while it knows full well
that barely 3 per cent of all claimants are involved in fraud, and knows equally well that the level for income tax fraud is 20 per cent?
How is it that the government has not had the same enthusiasm? How can it be that the government has not exercised the same diligence in trying to get tax money out of the well to do, in trying to go after the richest of taxpayers? We know that there is a 20 per cent fraud rate at Revenue Canada. This would offer an opportunity to make some savings and remedy shortfalls. The government has preferred to attack the most disadvantaged rather than shoulder its responsibilities, so much so that the last budget informed us there would be fewer and fewer audit staff at Revenue Canada.
The result of this is that prejudices continue, that we continue in a situation where wrong ideas are being entertained, and where there is no hesitation to go after the most disadvantaged, very likely the category of people who have contributed most to restoring public finances.
There is one extremely important statistic in this connection which we ought never to lose sight of, which we ought never to forget, when attempting to design social policies. It is a statistic reminding us that, in Canada, income, or in other words wealth, is very unevenly distributed. If we look at the total incomes of Canadians, we find that the wealthiest fifth of the population of Canada receives nearly half of all Canadian income.
The wealthiest 20 per cent of the population gets 50 per cent of this income, while the poorest 20 per cent gets only 3.4 per cent. In other words, the wealthiest fifth of the population gets 14 times as much money as the poorest fifth.
If we really want to be serious about what we do in Parliament, if we want to do something useful, this is where we should start. This is real injustice. We know the statistics, we know the most troubling facts about the distribution of wealth, but the government's complacency, in its refusal to deal with the problems and its habit of proposing measures that are less than satisfactory have meant that our society is becoming increasingly poorer, that wealth is unequally distributed and that the wealthiest continue to get wealthier and the poorest get poorer.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: I agree with that.
Réal Ménard: I seem to have the support of one of my Reform colleagues, which is certainly quite welcome, although as surprising as it is unexpected, but it certainly is inspiring to realize that when we discuss these things we can understand each other and convince our colleagues that certain things have to be done.
I believe my time is running out. I would like to add that the National Council of Welfare, a very serious and non-partisan agency which has been around for quite some time, since it was founded by a constituent act in 1966, the National Council of Welfare reminded us that Canadian society has never been as poor, that wealth has never been as unequally distributed, adding that if we had wanted to, we could have wiped out poverty.
I would like to quote what the National Council said in its 1995 report. It recalled the following facts: "Despite the sombre reality, it is not utopian to think that we can win the war against poverty. Statistics Canada estimates that it would have cost $15.2 billion in 1994".
I repeat: It is not utopian to think we can win the war against poverty. Statistics Canada estimates that it would have cost $15.2 billion in 1994 to bring all the poor above the poverty line. This is an enormous amount but certainly not too much, in a country where the federal government and the provincial territorial governments spent about $350 billion in 1994 and where the value of all goods and services produced exceeded $750 billion". We are living in a society where governments spend $350 billion and where we produce $750 billion.
If we had had the common sense to pool our resources and put $15 billion into active measures to fight poverty, today in this House we would not only be discussing the minimum wage, we would also be able to say how proud we are that as legislators, co-operating with all partners, we were able to wipe out poverty. For this scenario to become a reality, however, it is not enough to have a debate. It is not enough to have a government. It is not enough to have a democracy. We need an ingredient that is extremely important and also extremely rare in a democracy, one that is certainly lacking in the government before us. I am of course referring to political courage. Because to raise this $15 billion, we must also do something about the distribution of wealth. And if we want to do something about that, the government would have to have the guts to put a minimum tax on the table, something the opposition has been asking for three years.
However, a minimum tax means taxing a certain number of corporate citizens, who are of course friends of the present government.
Since my time is up, I will say in concluding that we will never do enough to fight poverty.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I support the overall intent of Bill C-35 because it makes at least a tentative move toward the elimination of outdated regulations. It is a step in the right direction. It shows the provinces that the Government of Canada is willing to recognize, at least in part, their ability to make sound financial and humanitarian laws.
However, the bill has one glaring flaw. As I mentioned during second reading debate and as my colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia said yesterday, section 178(3) gives the cabinet the power to set rates if it disagrees with the rates established by the provinces or territories.
We proposed an amendment which would remove this clause and give full jurisdiction over minimum wage rates to the provinces. Surprisingly, though, members of the official opposition did not support our amendment. I can only assume that they are really not in favour of giving more autonomy to the province of Quebec in labour matters. That surprises me. I have always been under the assumption that the devolution of powers was something that was very near and dear to their hearts.
Government members also refused to support our amendment, showing that they are really not sincere about giving more responsibilities to the provinces. Instead, the government continues to waffle on the issue of decentralization. Like parents who try to prolong their kid's childhood, this Liberal government is refusing to acknowledge that the provinces have come of age. Not surprisingly, this is contrary to the red book promise.
Broken promise No. 14 reads: "A Liberal government will work closely with provincial governments to reduce duplication and improve service delivery in all areas where governments are involved".
By clinging to the "Father Knows Best" tradition, the government is failing to live up to yet another campaign promise.
With this bill, the government is implying that it wants to better the lot of workers yet it stubbornly clings to the old myths. It wants wage earners to believe that by retaining the right to set minimum wage rates that it has their best interests at heart. It is just like it wants workers to believe that somehow governments can create jobs.
A study released this week by a Halifax based think tank concludes that large increases in regional subsidies to Atlantic Canada have had a perverse effect, retarding economic growth rather than spurring it.
After 30 years of failure, people from coast to coast are recognizing that the policies promoted by this Liberal government have increased the debt load on Canadians and on the federal treasury, a double whammy. So much for red book promises.
If the Liberal government is really sincere about keeping at least the red book promise or the throne speech pledge of cutting red tape and ending duplication, now is the time to show good faith and give the provinces the sole governance over minimum wage rates. If the spirit of co-operation really exists, section 178(3) can be deleted and a memorandum of understanding negotiated to ensure that provinces maintain reasonable minimum wage standards. This would protect Canada's international commitments and free trade agreements.
Today of all days, on the first anniversary of the Quebec referendum, the government should be aware of the need to initiate some form of decentralization of some federal powers. The fact that the Prime Minister ignored the unity issue last year almost resulted in the break up of the country. The government must now recognize that the status quo will no longer keep Canada together.
The Reform Party has a plan which we think would be acceptable to all Canadians. In recognition of the need for decentralization, we developed a bottom up agenda for change that does not require amending the Constitution. The Reform Party's fresh start platform commits us to rebalancing powers, moving governmental responsibility closer to the people and strengthening Canada's federal nature and institutions.
As long as the government insists on retaining the right to revert to cabinet decreed minimum wage rates, the Reform Party cannot support this bill.
Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
This amendment speaks to the type of government this is. It is a government that seeks justice, opportunity and recognizes that hard working Canadians need to be rewarded for the work they engage in. The legislation would automatically align the federal minimum wage rate with the general adult minimum wage rates of the provinces and territories.
I am sure hon. colleagues were quite surprised to learn that the federal minimum wage as of July 17, 1996 had not increased in 10 years. I am sure hon. members will agree that just about everything else increased during the past decade.
This legislation is most certainly overdue. It is time the federal minimum wage was brought into line with minimum amount workers under provincial jurisdictions receive for their labour.
The federal minimum wage was $4 an hour until July 17, 1996 when it was raised to provincial and territorial minimum wage rates effective at that time. I note that five provinces have increased their minimum wage rate since July 17.
The minimum wage affects our most vulnerable workers, those who are most in need of receiving a reasonable hourly income, those hard working Canadians who are contributing to the economic growth of our nation. I really believe they deserve better.
For the most part these workers are non-unionized. Passage of Bill C-35 will help protect Canada's unorganized workers. Since non-union workers make up about two thirds of the Canadian workforce that is a substantial number of people. Of course in practical terms aligning the federal minimum wage to the provin-
cial and territorial rates affects only a small portion of workers; all the more reason to ensure passage of Bill C-35.
These men and women deserve to be guaranteed the same compensation for their labour as is received by their provincial counterparts. Furthermore, this legislation establishes a level playing field for all Canadian employers and employees with regard to minimum wages.
Businesses will be protected nationwide from unfair competition, at least as far as payment of basic wage is concerned. There is no danger of us opening a Pandora's box of economic uncertainty. In fact, as hon. colleagues have pointed out previously, most employers under federal jurisdiction are now paying their lowest paid employees the equivalent of the provincial rate. Passage of Bill C-35 will ensure that this practice is applied across the board. It will benefit those workers who enjoy little or no bargaining power.
As soon as the act comes into effect, all workers under federal jurisdiction will be paid the respective provincial or territorial minimum wage.
Another positive aspect of this piece of legislation is that it gives further impetus to the government's desire to bring greater harmony to the federal and provincial laws governing the workplace standards. By aligning the federal, provincial and territorial minimum wage rates the rates will correspond more directly, more precisely with the realities of each region's economy.
I believe it is important for hon. members to note that the provinces and territories govern 98 per cent of Canadian workers who are paid minimum wage. Those under federal jurisdiction represent less than 10 per cent of the Canadian workforce. That is one reason why the Minister of Labour did not choose to follow tradition and simply increase the former federal minimum wage rate. Had the minister taken this approach, before long provincial and territorial rates would increase and once again the Government of Canada would find itself lagging behind some of the provinces.
Passage of Bill C-35 will resolve the quandary once and for all. Bill C-35 will ensure that every time a province or territory upgrades its adult minimum wage the government of Canada's minimum wage will follow suit.
I am sure hon. members can see that this approach will be much more administratively efficient. Let us consider for a second that rules will be simpler. Eliminating duplication in minimum wage rates will mean less paper work. Federal, provincial and territorial government activities regarding minimum wage will be harmonized. Both management and employees will know exactly what to expect when there is an increase in a provincial or territorial minimum wage rate. All businesses in the same region will be required to pay the same minimum wage for the same kind of work. Records pertaining to minimum wage for all workers will in fact be the same.
Since I pointed out a moment ago most employers under federal jurisdiction already pay wages according to the prevailing provincial and territorial minimums, then it is simply good business practice to have a minimum wage that reflects local market conditions.
To consider Bill C-35 from a socioeconomic perspective, the increase in the minimum wage that will result from this legislation is in fact fair and reasonable. By giving due regard to provincial and territorial economic conditions the respective increases simply reaffirm the right of workers to be paid the same minimum wage for the same kind of work.
I think hon. members will find it self-evident that an attractive minimum wage adds to incentives for individuals to continue to work or to seek employment and thus a move toward self-sufficiency.
Helping the private sector to create jobs is a priority of this government and while admittedly only a small step, harmonized minimum wage rates with our provincial partners is definitely a solid step in the right direction.
Furthermore, hon. members can be assured that the resulting increases to bring the federal rate in line with respective provincial and territorial rates will not result in a loss of jobs or encourage inflation. That is I think self-evident given the small number of federal minimum wage earners and the fact that virtually all federal jurisdiction employers pay provincial minimum wage rates.
At the same time, the Government of Canada is not relinquishing its fiduciary responsibility under the Canada Labour Code. Should a situation arise where it became necessary, the government retains the legislative power to regulate a federal minimum wage for the entire country or in fact for a specific region.
In closing on this subject matter, I would encourage all members of Parliament on both sides to support Bill C-35. This amendment to the Canada Labour Code I believe is complementary to the Minister of Labour's plans to modernize Part III of the Canada Labour Code. It is legislation I firmly believe is well overdue. It will demonstrate internationally that Canada is a leader in labour standards among industrialized nations.
It is this spirit of governing that I think is welcomed by the people of Canada. I think Canadians have realized that this government where it sees social and economic injustices tries to address them through creating a better climate for economic growth, expanding opportunities for Canadians. There is no question we made some commitments to the Canadian people three
years ago almost to the day when we sought to become the government.
Look at some of the issues that we have had to deal with. For example, Canadians asked for no personal income tax increase. The government delivered on that promise. They told us to be unlike the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney which missed every single deficit target it proposed in every single budget. The government has in large part achieved the deficit reduction targets. We are heading toward a balanced budget.
The government has reduced its spending which was part and parcel of its agenda for change. It has created an environment conducive to job creation. Over 650,000 jobs have been created.
Let me be very clear. I wish the unemployment rate would fall even further, particularly as it relates to the high unemployment that young people in our country face today. The government has made some steps to alleviate the problem. We have increased by 57 per cent, for example, the amount of money and investment we make with Canada student loans over five years. That is a $2.5 billion commitment by the federal government.
The government has doubled its commitment in summer jobs for students, fully understanding that summer jobs represent a very important part of employment prospects for young people. As they receive a summer job and participate in a summer job these young people are acquiring valuable skills and also earning money required for them to return to school.
Above and beyond that, some of the programs I am quite excited about in relation to young people are Youth Service Canada and the youth internship program.
The youth internship program is tied to growth industries through our national sectoral council initiative where we have identified 33 growth areas in our economy. These areas are creating approximately 50,000 jobs for our youth. That speaks to the type of job creation required to make sure sustained economic growth occurs in our country.
I do not mean to belabour the point but Canada is viewed as one of the top G-7 countries. We are looking toward perhaps the fastest growth of any of the G-7 countries. Why is that? We have been able to increase our exports. We have been able to provide world class infrastructure for our companies.
The Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade have taken it upon themselves to market Canada abroad. The contracts that were generated in the trade missions to China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Latin America have brought home $20 billion of new business. Every $1 billion creates approximately 11,000 jobs in Canada. Mr. Speaker, you would have to admit that it is really helping the Canadian economy.
The government has been able to keep its promises. It is reducing the deficit, which is quite important to put the fiscal house in order. We are expected to rank first, No. 1, in economic growth of the G-7 countries in 1997. Jobs have been created to the tune of over 650,000.
I am sure the members of the viewing audience from my riding of York North want to know how all of this manifests itself at the local level, which is usually how government policies are gauged on whether they are having an impact. I am happy to say that in my riding the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.3 per cent. That is well below the national average. Over the years we have been able to build the type of socioeconomic infrastructure that speaks to three major priorities: youth, trade and technology.
We have been able to equip the riding with a type of infrastructure that speaks to the creation of 21st century jobs which will be highly skilled, highly paid and will produce the high value added products we will need if we want to maintain our social programs and the type of quality of life to which the people in my area and indeed across the country have grown accustomed.
The infrastructure program has helped our local economy. In my riding over 1,200 jobs were created as a result of that program. The program works because it addresses local realities. Working with provincial counterparts and the municipal governments we were able to set the local priorities and identify what we should do to make sure we modernize the infrastructure of the area with the hope of creating a better quality of life and enhancing job creation.
I have already touched on the issue of youth. Many programs initiated at the national level have found their way back to the local level. Whether it is summer jobs for young people, the youth internship program or Youth Service Canada, these programs are at the local level.
We need to understand the issue of technology. The government and its partners have understood the importance of developing and enhancing a technological revolution in our country. For example, we are leading the rest of the world with SchoolNet. We know we are leading the way when all schools and libraries will be connected. We know we are leading the way in providing good service and a good infrastructure for future generations.
I have been closely involved with the social security review. We have done what I think was the proper thing to do. We have modernized our unemployment insurance program moving toward an employment insurance program that is much more active and less passive than it was in the past. We are providing tools for our
unemployed workers which they will need to re-enter the workforce.
When we look at the new employment insurance program we see things like wage subsidies; we see skills and loan grants. Greater opportunities are being created in an active way to ensure that the-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which raises the federal minimum wage rate, has been long awaited by the people concerned. The federal minimum wage rate is now $4 an hour, compared to $7 in British Columbia, $6.85 in Ontario, and even $5.25 in Newfoundland.
Needless to say, this minimum wage is extremely low, and it is high time that this so-called modern government adjusted it.
What is interesting is that, in adjusting the minimum wage, the federal government has chosen-thereby breaking with tradition-to align it with the minimum wage rate paid in the province where the employee under federal jurisdiction works.
This is extremely interesting because it shows how, with these different labour markets and labour laws, when the federal government does not do the same thing in other areas, workers in the same province end up with two different labour systems.
As a result, a Quebec worker under federal jurisdiction-depending on where she works-does not have the right to preventative withdrawal from work, even if she and her doctor feel that staying in the workplace might be dangerous for her and the foetus. The only thing she can do is ask for unpaid leave. Quebec law allows her to start by asking to be transferred elsewhere in the business, and if the employer has no job to offer that does not present a risk to her and the foetus, she can stay home and wait for the birth while receiving benefits amounting to 90 per cent of her gross salary.
My point is that the central government should align itself with the other labour systems and conditions set out in the Canada Labour Code. We will see what it does after the committee tables its amendments to the bill and what the minister does with them. The time when there could be two different systems in the same province is over.
I should stress that the federal government's decision to align the federal minimum wage for the workers affected with the minimum wage in the provinces deserves to be acknowledged. This is a historical moment.
Why? This is the labour relations professor in me, who sees values in tracing things back in time. It is in fact interesting to note that, in the early 1900s, the federal government took steps to regulate labour conditions. In 1907, the Lemieux act was passed to try to impose a bargaining system in enterprises that may be generally described as public-oriented or public sector enterprises.
The Lemieux act was challenged. Finally, the Privy Council in London-it had not been patriated yet at the time, in 1925, the act having been passed in 1907-ruled that the provinces should have jurisdiction over labour relations as well as the standards and acts dealing with the relationship between individual workers and businesses within the province.
Ever since, this area has come under provincial jurisdiction, based on the interpretation of the Constitution given by the Privy Council clearly stating that it should be so.
There was one other time in our history when the central government attempted to interfere in this area. It must be recognized that it was for a good cause, at the days when we were still knee deep in the depression and, in the U.S., President Roosevelt was just starting to pull his country out of the slump, if not the recession, with his new deal, establishing the right to organize, a minimum wage and labour standards for workers. I will repeat that, in order to pull his country out of the slump in 1993, the President of the United States of America proposed what we would call today regulations.
To pull Canada out of the slump, a severe slump, with job creation only starting to pick up-in fact, the pre-1929 level of employment was not be regained and clearly exceeded until the war-the Bennett government also came up, in 1935, with a series of measures including legislation on the 48-hour work week and other provisions of the sort.
Basically, as I said, they introduced regulations to ensure that workers get a larger share of wealth so that, in turn, they could spend and get the economy rolling again.
I point this out because, as we know, the current economic talk is to the contrary. So, when you look at history, it is somewhat ironic to see that the government is trying to overcome the current crisis by doing exactly the opposite of what helped us put an end to the Great Depression.
The fact that workers do not get the same treatment in a province, depending on whether they come under provincial or federal jurisdiction, has a negative impact.
I make this comment because, as you know, some challenge the very existence of minimum wage, or want it to be the lowest possible. It is interesting to note that, in a business, competitiveness must not be based on the cost of work.
If we accept that the price of hydro and the cost of basic resources should be the same for all businesses, it only makes sense that the work itself should also be paid the same price, and that competitiveness be based on the ability to organize, to choose good products, to develop them, to innovate, to identify markets and to benefit from them. Productivity should not be based on a form of discrimination affecting the price paid for work.
So, this legislation is a step in the right direction. However, there is an issue that remains unresolved, namely the implementation of federal and provincial minimum wage laws.
One has to realize that, even if there is a minimum wage act in effect, pressures can be exerted on workers so that they do not ask to be paid this minimum wage or, if one does not want to directly contravene the act, one can pay minimum wages to workers and then demand money back under the table.
Such practices have been reported many times. We know they exist. So, any pressure to help restore the balance in favour of workers is welcome. It is important to note that consumption plays a major role in the economy.
As you know, I worked very hard to make sure that all those who can work are able to find jobs and to ensure that job creation is a concern to all. However, when well-paying jobs are not available, people earning minimum wages, and also UI and welfare recipients, help the economy, since their money goes directly into it.
I will just take 30 seconds out to greet you, Mr. Speaker. Is this your first time in the chair, Mr. Speaker? I am talking to you. I believe this is your first time in the chair.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Yes, it is.
Francine Lalonde: That is why I am greeting you. You have thrown me off my stride slightly, but I will try to interest you, and I will take this opportunity to say that when members speak in a House with the composition of this one, it is always interesting to have the Speaker take an interest in our remarks, even if he does not agree with them. I am quite aware that it does not matter whether or not the Speaker agrees with what we are saying, but I feel that his interest is very supportive for members who rise to speak and to try to defend the interests of their constituents and of the public generally.
That being said, I will return to what I was saying about the federal minimum wage bill, which will bring the wage paid workers in areas under federal jurisdiction into line with that paid in areas under provincial jurisdiction. I was saying, then, that those who are not in agreement with a decent minimum wage should remember that all those without an income, wherever they may be, are largely responsible for driving the economy, particularly in slow periods. You do not invest in Honolulu on a minimum wage. Your investments are limited to paying your grocery bills and buying the necessities of life for your children.
I would also like to take this opportunity to draw attention to something that is extremely troubling. In one of the latest publications of the OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, of which Canada is a member, one of 28 members, there is a table showing the percentage of low wage earners in all OECD countries. Believe it or not, Canada has the second highest, right after the United States. This is very troubling.
Obviously, when you realize that the minimum federal wage is $4, you might say it is understandable. However, I know that this category of minimum wage earners is so small in number that it could not have had an impact; nonetheless, the fact that Canada is the second country after the United States with regard to the prevalence of low wages is significant.
But worse yet, Canada is the country were the gap between incomes in the first quintile and the fifth quintile is the widest. This means that on a income scale of five, it is in Canada that the gap is the widest, wider that in the United States. This is what I noticed in that same table. I know that the OECD compiles statistics from data freely provided by member countries.
This is an extremely disturbing fact, which makes this bill even more necessary, even though it is only a tiny drop in the bucket.
This is not all. The parliamentary secretary stressed how important the reform he called "updating the employment insurance" was. I would like to mention two things. According to a report published yesterday by Statistics Canada, its second job survey-it conducts two surveys, one by phone to compile the monthly statistics and a more lengthy one using employers's payrolls-shows that in the past year the net job loss in Ontario was 50,000 while it was 34,000 in Quebec, this according to payroll data.
This is in blatant contradiction with the government's boastful pat-on-the-back attitude with regard to the economic situation. The truth is ordinary people do not believe the recession is over, no matter what statistics say. The truth is there has never been such a wide gap among Canadians in terms of income, as shown by the statistics published by the OECD.
The truth is averages often hide gaps which might be extreme, which brings us back to basics, namely, the situation of those in need. This in turn brings us back to the need for job creation.
I will not be able to talk long about the fact that the employment insurance premiums now required of SMEs which were previously exempted for employees working less than 15 hours are having a
serious impact on these businesses, as is the case in my riding and as my constituents told me this week.
In conclusion, I will say that this bill is long overdue, but that it is only a drop in the bucket to improve the situation of ordinary people and promote job creation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): At the request of the chief government whip, the vote is deferred until 5.30 p.m. this day.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-34, an act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products, to repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-34.
Motion No. 1 cannot be submitted to the House as it did not receive the Governor General's recommendation. Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice be given of the said recommendation no later than the sitting day before the day on which the report stage is to commence.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motion No. 3.
I will now submit to the House Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
Elwin Hermanson: moved:

Motion No. 2
That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will be lenient and give me 11 minutes because I would like to take a minute to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you were listening to my speech last night and while I had some concerns about the way that you were appointed to the chair and the fact that it broke some Liberal promises, we certainly do respect your ability and we wish you well in that position. I hope you get your outfit in time for Hallowe'en. I am sure you will look very officious in the chair in your outfit.
I do have to admit that you were one of the best hecklers, one of the most aggressive hecklers on the other side and it will certainly be a change for you to be sitting in the chair. We know that you will restrain yourself and we will miss that boisterous echo we used to hear from the other side. Sincerely, congratulations and we wish you well.
I rise today to discuss Bill C-34, important agricultural legislation that proposes the amalgamation within the various sectors of agriculture marketing. As my colleagues are aware, this bill will combine four separate agricultural acts and one program into a single act.
Reform generally supports this motion in principle. However there needs to be some amendments in order for the act to best assist farmers, financial institutions and other organizations that are affected by the act.
We brought some amendments to the committee. By the way, the bill followed the new route that you, Mr. Speaker, so heartily endorsed. The bill went to committee prior to second reading in the hope that there would be more opportunity for amendments in committee.
Unfortunately, the amendments were not accepted by the government side. We were a bit surprised. We thought perhaps under the new formula at least some amendments would be accepted but they were discarded without any due consideration. We really do feel badly about that because some of them were excellent amendments. I believe they all were, but certainly some of them were.
We have put three amendments forward today. Mr. Speaker, you correctly ruled that the first amendment cannot be considered because it did not receive a royal recommendation. That is unfortunate because the minister and government had the opportunity to grant it a royal recommendation and we could have at least debated this amendment in the House. I do not know why the Liberal government is afraid to debate new ideas in this House, why it would use the technicality of rejecting a royal recommendation to get itself off the hook.
Our first amendment would have permitted in cases of emergency where an emergency advance was issued on an agricultural commodity, that $25,000 would be included in part of the $50,000 interest free portion of the cash advance. The rationale and the thinking of the Liberals on this issue is beyond logic. Here we have a bill which suggests that a $50,000 interest free cash advance be provided to producers on the first $50,000 that they accept in advance and that interest be paid on subsequent amounts advanced, up to a maximum of $250,000.
If there is an emergency, if there is trouble in the industry, if there are dire situations, when the farmer is down and out, does the Liberal government extend any consideration? No, it gives them a knock out punch. The government says if there is an emergency situation, $25,000 will be advanced but it will not be interest free.
If the government allowed the $25,000 to be advanced and said: "You pay interest but the next $50,000 will put you on par with other producers who qualify for $50,000 interest free", that would be fine, but the Liberals did not see it that way. They said: "If there is an emergency, we will just knock the farmers a little harder. We will try to keep them down and we will charge them more interest than we will charge farmers who are not facing an emergency". This is blatantly unfair.
I do not understand why the Liberals were afraid to debate this issue in the House, why the minister would not permit a royal recommendation to my first amendment that was tabled in the Notice Paper. He chose not to and he will have to answer and be accountable to producers for his actions.
I want to get to the second and third amendments which were grouped together. In a nutshell, these two amendments eliminate the government purchases program. This program has not been used for years. The last time it was used was in 1985. It has only been used once or twice in the last 20 or 30 years. It is a relic. It is a bit like the Conservative Party; it had its day, but it is gone.
We asked the officials why the government purchases program is in the new legislation, the new reorganization of cash advances. They said they did not know why it was there but that maybe sometime they would have to use it. It is the same as saying that maybe sometime we will have to impose the speed limits on horses and buggies that are in the bylaws. We may just have to use that sometime.
Knowing the way government works, I am sure they need a few bureaucrats in charge of the government purchases program even if it is not being used. Therefore they will expend some money just to monitor the situation. Of course that will be money that cannot be spent in more useful areas.
The government purchases program provides the minister with wide ranging authority to buy, sell or import agricultural products, to stabilize domestic market conditions and to conclude sales to other governments or government agencies.
I have heard members from the other side worry about vertical integration in the agriculture sector. If members want to talk about vertical integration, this is it. The government can be in total control: buy, sell, import products. This is not a good situation. The federal government has no business being in a government purchases program for agricultural products. It is not using the program. It is history. It is ancient. It should not have been included in the bill. All it will do is provide work for a few people in the department when they could be better expending their energies in another area.
Therefore we brought forward very reasonable amendments which would delete this part of the bill. Those two clauses are the only clauses which deal with the government purchases program and we believe they should be deleted.
We talked about the wide ranging power that it gives to the minister. It also affords zero accountability. Although there are no resources budgeted to this program, the government has been unable to adequately justify continuing it by entrenching it in the new legislation.
There is some unusual terminology in it which quite frankly could not be defined. They could not say what unusual market conditions were.
Given the technology at the end of the 20th century as we approach the 21st century, any attempt to justify the continuation of this program is shallow to say the least.
Ten minutes is not a lot of time in which to discuss the bill. However, we did talk about other areas of the bill as well as the government purchases program and the fact that the emergency
advance should be interest free. We will have an opportunity to debate those issues further at third reading.
We were concerned about the fact that the minister has the power to increase the contingent liability. We made the argument in committee that if the contingent liability needs to be increased, that means the industry is doing well. It does not mean there is a crisis or an emergency; it means that producers' income is increasing. We felt that there should be provisions in the bill which would make the minister more accountable to the industry and to the House with respect to the contingent liability.
We were concerned about the fact that there was some inequity in the bill. Not all producers and organizations were treated equally. It seemed the problem was the Canadian Wheat Board. It has a higher default level than other producer organizations and administrators who administer the cash advances. Because it could not get its act together quickly enough, it was provided with special provisions to account for its difficulties. That of course is to the detriment of other sectors within the industry. When we favour one group we always hurt someone else.
The penalty for default on Canadian Wheat Board advances was, I believe, based at zero per cent while others were higher. The Canadian Wheat Board was given a two-year period to get its act together. I would have thought that the Canadian Wheat Board, being the wonderful institution that it is, would have had its act together more quickly and would have been administering the cash advances on a more prudent basis.
I would ask the House to consider the two amendments to eliminate the government purchases program. We believe it is the prudent thing to do. This is 1996. Why are we implementing something that should not be used and probably will not be used? However, it is in this piece of legislation and it requires the attention of the department. It requires consideration from time to time simply because it is in the legislation.
I ask the House to consider supporting the two amendments under consideration at the present time.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair. I have watched over the past eight years and have seen how well you follow parliamentary procedure and how good you are in that area. I know that you will be a bonus to the House and that you will administer your job in an extremely good manner. Congratulations.
The motion before us is to delete clause 31 of the agricultural marketing programs bill. The deletion of clause 31 in effect deletes part III which deals with the government purchases program. This part provides the authority that is currently contained in the Agricultural Products Board Act. The only amendment being made to that act is the removal of the board to administer the act.
The government purchases program gives the government the flexibility to deal with special purchases, but only with governor in council approval. Authority of this nature is not available in other pieces of legislation. The authority would cover the following:
To sell Canadian grown agricultural products to other governments or government agencies. This authority is very important when making trade deals with countries that are not comfortable in dealing with private industry within another country. Such marketing opportunities will be lost without this flexibility. The deletion of this authority will eliminate sales made to central planned economies and other countries where for various reasons the intergovernmental sales are required. For example, in 1990 and 1991, $16.5 million of pork was sold to the USSR under this act.
To remove the surplus product from a depressed market generally caused by unusually large production, to be sold back into the market at a later date when market stability has returned. For example in 1993 due to unusual weather conditions a large surplus of juice apples were processed into apple concentrate and sold into a different market through this act, allowing the apple juice market to stabilize.
To provide emergency food aid to countries not named under the Canadian International Development Act. The act was used for this purpose as recently as 1990-91 and again in 1991-92.
Under the act the government cannot sell the product for a lower price than the purchase price plus costs, without the approval of governor in council. Since there is no such budget attached to this part of the act, ministers through GIC approval would have to approve any funds for this part.
The major changes and liberalizations in international and domestic trade still leave a need for programs of this nature to facilitate international transactions and to help stabilize domestic markets where unusual conditions exist. Therefore it is the recommendation of myself and the government to defeat this motion.
With regard to the motion to delete clause 36, this clause describes the penalties that result from failure to provide information under the government purchases program. For the proper administration of this program, it is essential that the government be provided with sufficient accurate information to be able to determine the need to use this program in any particular circumstance. This clause is essential to ensure the provision of this information.
Clause 36 is linked to clause 31. The arguments for keeping clause 31 apply equally to the retention of this clause. It is therefore the recommendation of the government to defeat the motion.
I want to correct a point that was made by my hon. colleague across the way when he introduced his motion. It was on the emergency funding of $25,000. That emergency funding would be rolled into the $50,000 under the present act and would well support any emergency dollars, plus give the benefit that is equal under the act consistent to all farmers in the country. I think a very great misinterpretation has been given to that aspect of the act. Quite frankly, I am not clear why the member did that.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum wage), be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum wage).
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
It being after 5.30 o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 20, 1996, consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the motion submitted by my colleague, the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, should be rejected.
However, I will not criticize it too harshly because I would not want to curtail the new enthusiasm of the member for the renewal of our federation. I would like to tell the member that, even tough I cannot approve the substance of the motion, I agree wholeheartedly with the intention behind it.
I can easily understand why my colleague from the official opposition believes it is worthwhile to renew the country. I am happy that he would make such efforts to represent the majority of Quebecers who support the renewal of our federation.
A poll conducted last March for CBC and Radio-Canada showed that 60 per cent of Quebecers believe that premier Bouchard should work hand in hand with the federal government and the other provinces towards renewing the federation.
Why is it that a majority of Quebecers believe that Canada is worth renewing? Because, year after year, the United Nations rank Canada as the first country in the world as far as quality of life is concerned and fifth among advanced countries for per capita income.
For the past 30 years, from 1960 to 1990, Canada has been second among the G-7 countries in the area of economic growth.
For three years now, Canada has had the second lowest inflation rate among the G-7 countries. Our inflation rate is lower than those of France, Germany and the United States.
Since the election of the Liberal government in 1993, the overall unemployment rate has decreased and at least 650,000 new jobs have been created.
The GDP shows that Canada's financial situation is improving more rapidly than that of other G-7 countries. In 1997, Canada will have the lowest total deficit to GDP ratio of all the G-7 countries. It will be lower than the one in France, in the United States and in Germany.
Canada has the reputation internationally of being a tolerant and open country, which makes all of us very proud. Canadians are recognized all over the world for their commitment toward the values of justice, compassion and solidarity.
As the French Minister of Culture indicated last May: "Canada is an example of successful answers to questions that are being asked in each of our societies".
However, I do not mean by that that we should be complacent, far from it. In response to the desire expressed by Quebecers and other Canadians for the renewal and modernization of the federation, the Government of Canada has undertaken a wide series of initiatives. These initiatives will ensure us that the federal system will operate at its full capacity, thus allowing us to face the future challenges with much confidence.
We have a firm renewal plan for the country and we are on the right track regarding our plans.
Within the Liberal plan for the renewal of the federation, we are working toward a more effective balance of roles and responsibilities between the federal government and the provinces. At the premiers' meeting last June, our initiatives were well received by the great majority of provincial premiers and, in some cases, they were approved unanimously. Provincial premiers took action to follow up on these initiatives during the annual conference of provincial premiers in Jasper.
We proposed to transfer the responsibility of all active employment measures funded by the employment insurance fund to the provinces, which, in many cases, want a greater control over manpower development. This provides the provinces the opportunity to manage the some $2 billion that the federal government spends each year on employment assistance measures. This means that, if they so wish, the provinces will be free to implement their own programs in areas such as wage subsidies, job counselling and placement.
Our government is also willing to withdraw from mining and forestry development, thus allowing the provinces to develop their own programs in these sectors of activity, according to their priorities and to local needs. We also propose to transfer the administrative authority over social housing to the provinces, as well as the $1.9 billion used to fund this sector.
Last May, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, including the Quebec Minister, decided to work toward a detailed multilateral umbrella agreement between the government of Canada and the provincial ministers of the environment. That agreement was to ensure a healthier environment for Canadians. A better clarification of the roles and responsibilities of everyone involved would help to reduce the operational costs of the private sector. Lower costs for the companies would not only ensure better protection for our environment, but would also mean more money for these companies to create jobs.
We are not only focusing on national issues. We are also trying to meet the specific needs of each and every one of the provinces.
For instance, in the weeks following the conference of the first ministers, the federal government and the government of British Columbia signed an agreement on a very important issue for many residents of that province. Both governments agreed to a detailed bilateral review of the roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments in the management of the Pacific salmon fishery. Recently, the premier of British Columbia said that significant progress had been made and that the Prime Minister of Canada was to be praised for his contribution to this issue.
All the initiatives I mentioned stem from our willingness to build a much more efficient federation. However, efficiency cannot in itself renew our federation. A modern federation needs to be flexible. And I am glad to say that we have also made progress in that direction.
The Canada health and social transfer is a good example. Provinces used to receive federal transfers for social assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan and funding for health and post-secondary education under Established Programs Financing. These programs were subject to complex rules that determined, for example, which expenditures were eligible to a share of public assistance. In summary, the whole system was quite cumbersome.
This is why, last April, the federal government replaced these two different types of transfer by a block fund called the Canada health and social transfer.
This fund will give more leeway to provinces in the design and implementation of their social programs.
Moreover, we have made a commitment to provide stable and predictable financing into the next century. The new transfer will help provinces plan health, welfare, and post-secondary education in an orderly fashion.
We are making these moves to renew the Canadian federation in order to meet the expectations of the vast majority of Quebecers and other Canadians who want their federal, provincial and local governments to work in a spirit of co-operation to meet the challenges of the next century.
With these comments, I congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup on his efforts to renew our federation. I hope his attitude will prove contagious with his colleagues in the official opposition.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to address you in the chair this afternoon, sir. I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motion No. 221 put forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
As I travel throughout my constituency and performing my duties as a member in other parts of the country, I am amazed at how distrustful and concerned people are at the way politics are being carried out. One of the popular topics of discussion is integrity. People are determined that their leaders and their institutions be responsive to their needs and to their wishes. Presently Canadians are very distrustful. There is an air of cynicism that I find disheartening. People put little or no faith in the promises of politicians or the activities of political institutions.
Every time an election comes around so do the politicians, making all kinds of promises that are sure to be broken when no longer convenient. That is the attitude that people express. People want their leaders and their political institutions to represent themselves accurately and to be accountable to the people they represent.
That is why the debate today on the Senate is such an important one. The Senate is a political institution that has for far too long neglected the needs and the interests of Canadians. It is an institution that is accountable to political parties, nothing else and no one else. That must change. Our country needs servants of the people, not servants of political parties.
The solution to the Senate accountability problem is not Senate abolition. The solution is Senate reform. For this reason, the Reform Party and I cannot support Motion No. 221, although we understand the frustration that motivates the presentation of this motion.
Before I discuss the reason Reform cannot support this motion, let me give a brief background, if I may, about the Senate. Every large nation, such as Canada, with an uneven population distribution, must find a way to balance and effectively represent the interests of both the thinly populated and the heavily populated regions of the country in national decision making. To meet this challenge, the architects of Canada chose the classic federal system of government, that is, they established two levels of government, one national and the other provincial, with a division of powers between the two.
A democratic bicameral national Parliament was also formed in which the composition of the lower house, the House of Commons, is based on representation by population. The composition of the upper house, the Senate, is based on representation by region. Legislative proposals do not become law until they are approved by both houses.
The purpose of the Senate is to represent the regions of the country, especially those sparsely populated regions which have fewer seats in the House of Commons than the more heavily populated regions such as southern Ontario and southern Quebec. Therefore if the Senate were abolished there would be absolutely no way of safeguarding the interests of the thinly populated areas of the country. That is the major reason that we cannot support Motion No. 221.
I know the argument will be raised that the Senate does not represent the interests of the regions as it now stands anyway, so let us just abolish the Senate. I understand that frustration. The people who argue this point are absolutely correct about one thing: the status quo is not good enough.
The Senate exists today as an ineffective and unaccountable institution. It does not balance the interests of the thinly populated resource producing regions of the country such as the west, central and northern B.C., the north, Atlantic Canada, rural and northern Ontario and Quebec. It does not balance these areas with those heavily populated regions of southern Ontario and southern Quebec.
There are two reasons for the Senate's ineffectiveness and lack of accountability. First, the Senate is undemocratic. Its members are appointed by the Prime Minister and it has become the patronage heaven for old and tired politicians and political fundraisers. Senators are accountable to no one except their political party.
Second, the Senate is regionally unbalanced. That is, almost 50 per cent of senators come from the already more heavily populated regions of the country. How with our present Senate can the thinly populated areas of Canada like rural British Columbia have balanced representation with Ontario and Quebec? It is impossible.
We have seen over the years many examples where decisions have been made by Parliament that have weighed heavily in favour of central Canada. Last year the federal government secured parliamentary approval for Bill C-68 on universal gun registration and the distinct society clause for Quebec. In the 1980s the national energy program, the Meech Lake constitutional proposals, official languages legislation and the CF-18 decision all received parliamentary approval. These policies and decisions completely ignored
the interests and desires of many Canadians living in the thinly populated regions of Canada.
The Senate is an ineffective body. However, as I mentioned a moment ago, the solution to the Senate's ineffectiveness is not abolition. Abolishing the Senate would leave no means of balancing and effectively representing the interests of both the thinly populated and the heavily populated regions of the country in the national decision making process.
Most important, however, abolition of the Senate is not what Canadians want. I sent out a questionnaire in my riding earlier this year about the Senate. I asked people whether all future senators should be elected before being appointed by the Prime Minister. Eighty-four per cent of those who responded said yes. Let me read some of the comments which accompanied these responses.
A lady from Eagle Creek, British Columbia wrote: "The Senate should be much more regional in its make-up". A person from Clinton, British Columbia wrote: "The Senate has been stacked with people used to further the agenda of the government of the day, which has not always been good for the country".
A man from Williams Lake, British Columbia wrote: "The Senate has proven to be ineffective". Another person from Williams Lake wrote: "An elected Senate would mean that. The Senate vote would be a truer vote than the one taken by the Prime Minister's cronies".
A couple from the 106 Mile Ranch in British Columbia wrote: "Stop political patronage". A man from 100 Mile House, B.C., wrote: "I feel that an elected, more equal, more effective Senate would be a good thing".
The Reform Party of Canada has been listening to these voices and the voices of many other Canadians who want their political leaders and institutions to be more accountable, who want the Senate to truly represent regional interests and who want the Senate reformed, not abolished.
The Reform Party of Canada has developed a plan to help Canadians. This plan is detailed in our fresh start program. It is called a fresh start guarantee. This guarantee will give Canadians the tools to ensure that politicians and political institutions will be accountable to the Canadian people. These tools include recall, freer votes, referendums and citizens' initiatives. Most important, our fresh start guarantee will include a commitment to achieve Senate reform, not Senate abolition.
Senate reform means a triple-E Senate, a Senate that is elected with equal representation per province and with effective power to
represent regional interests. To my Liberal colleagues, the Prime Minister even supports the triple-E Senate reform. He said in his speech to the House of Commons in 1991: "To meet the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and in the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equal".
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me take this occasion to say how happy I am to see you in your place.
I propose that Motion No. 221, tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, be rejected for a number of reasons. However, let me say how pleased I am that by proposing an amendment to this fine institution the Bloc is recognizing the legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution.
Opening up the constitutional debate at this time, even for the purpose of abolishing the Senate, is far removed from the concerns and aspirations of ordinary Canadians. Indeed it is unfortunate that the Bloc is ignoring the real needs of its constituents who are looking for jobs, who want to achieve a decent standard of living, who are concerned about the future of social programs and who want their governments to work together constructively.
On this side of the House we firmly believe that job creation, economic and social development should be the top priorities of all elected members. They are the top priorities of Canadians.
Since the Liberals were elected we have kept our commitment to work toward the creation of a climate for opportunity for Canadians. We have put forward tangible measures to help make government more efficient, renew the federation, keep the country united and forge new partnerships with the provinces. All Canadians, including Quebecers, want change. They want Canada to work better. They want the different orders of government to be more efficient and to fulfil their respective roles more effectively. Much of it can be done without constitutional amendment.
Accordingly, the government has made a commitment to modernize the federation step by step, focusing on co-operation with the provinces and territories to serve Canadians better. Canadians have said they want to see government roles and responsibilities clarified, and the government has responded. We are withdrawing from areas of activity that are more appropriately the responsibility of the provinces or the private sector, forestry, mining development, recreation and some aspects of transport.
In the area of labour market training the government submitted a proposal to the provinces in May and this enables them to takeover responsibility for active employment assistance measures. The provinces can therefore, if they wish, manage the approximately $1.9 billion per year the federal government currently spends on active employment assistance measures and implement their own programs such as wage subsidies, income supplements, self-employment assistance and private sector job creation partnerships, as well as many other labour services such as screening and job counselling.
The framework we are putting in place will provide a maximum flexibility for the provinces, making it possible to meet local and regional needs more effectively.
At this June's first ministers meeting, new avenues for partnership with the provinces were explored, including initiatives in the fields of social housing, freshwater fish habitat and environmental management.
In the area of social housing, negotiations have started with the provinces including Quebec on the orderly transfer of social housing management and the billions in grants that go with it.
In the sector of freshwater fish habitat, the federal government tabled a bill in the House of Commons on October 3 to amend the Fisheries Act. This bill will substantially modernize and update the legal framework for fisheries, conservation and habitat management in Canada. It will allow industry, including fisher people, to participate directly in fisheries management through partnership agreements. Discussions are under way with interested provinces.
With respect to the environment, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment adopted a work plan on May 31 which was approved by the first ministers meeting on June 20 and 21 to strengthen co-operation and eliminate duplication while maintaining the highest standards. Progress was made on developing a framework agreement, setting out principles and objectives for co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. Progress was also made on negotiating two subsidiary agreements on effective inspection and high environmental standards.
With the Canada health and social transfer we have also ensured that the principles of the Canada Health Act will be respected throughout the country. In this way we will ensure the universality of health insurance and social programs in line with our commitments and the values that Canadians cherish.
The government has also for the first time in history made a commitment to limit its spending power. We have said that we will no longer use that power to establish new, cost shared programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces. Provinces which do not wish to participate but which nevertheless choose to implement a comparable program will be compensated.
The Bloc should acknowledge that our plans for renewal are serious, concrete and affect the day to day realities of all Canadians including those it represents.
A bill has been tabled to bring all food inspection services, comprising 4,500 employees, under one body. This move is yet another step toward working more effectively with provincial agencies to set up a co-operative Canada-wide food inspection system that will lessen the regulatory burden on the food industry.
Discussions are continuing with those provinces interested in this project and in other federal-provincial joint initiatives such as a national revenue collection body and a national securities commission.
All our initiatives will help eliminate overlap and duplication, thus yielding substantial savings and more efficient services for Canadians.
Canadians from coast to coast want their government to make the country work better. They want their governments to put their public finances in order, improve economic growth and bring about an economic climate conducive to job creation. In fact, I am surprised to see that Bloc, in tabling this motion, is out of touch with the concerns of the very people it represents.
For its part, this government is already working closely with the provinces and all its social and economic partners to explore new options and find new ways to do things so as to serve Canadians better and respond to their immediate concerns.
I therefore consider the motion tabled today by the hon. member from Rivière-du-Loup to be inappropriate. For that reason, I call on the House to reject it.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. But first, allow me to congratulate you on your election to your position. I know that it was arduous but, nevertheless, I think the majority of the members of the House have recognized your qualifications, and I am happy to join with my colleagues in wishing you every success in your new duties.
That being said, I repeat that I am pleased to take part in this debate. I know this issue is of great interest to you, Mr. Speaker, since, together with some of my colleagues, I have already had the opportunity to debate with you in this House the appropriateness of maintaining the institution we call the other place, the Senate.
I listened very carefully to the remarks made by some colleagues from the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, whose remarks I will get back to later, and the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury. Incidentally, in the case of my hon. colleague for Fredericton-York-Sunbury, with all due respect I have for him in certain circumstances, if a rule of relevance applied in these debates, I think you would have interrupted him very early in his speech to call him to order because, from what I understood of his remarks, except for blaming the Bloc for putting forward the motion that is before the House, he confined himself to masking the facts with regard to the reform of our institutions, the reform of federalism.
He set out a series of measures that, according to him, would have the advantage of improving the efficectiveness of our federation. The reality is altogether different.
However, I want to get back to the issue we are debating now, the motion put forward by my hon. colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup that, in essence, asks for the abolition, the end of the Senate. First I want to congratulate my colleague on this initiative, since, contrary to what our Liberal friends may suggest, it answers an often repeated wish by all our fellow citizens in Quebec, for sure, but also in the whole country.
When we talk to people back in our ridings, there are tens and hundreds who ask us to demand that the Senate simply be abolished. Why? For several reasons.
First, the Senate's provincial counterparts-everybody remembers the legislative councils that existed in each and every province with basically the same role as the Senate-the legislative councils were abolished one after the other in all the Canadian provinces. The legislative council was abolished in Quebec in the late 1960s.
What happened after the legislative councils were abolished in the provinces? There was no revolution, at least not in Quebec. Nobody started fights on buses or got in a state because the legislative council had been abolished. On the contrary, nobody, maybe with the exception of the members of these legislative councils and their entourage, realized in the end that these institutions had disappeared. We can also question the usefulness of that institution of the Senate.
If we were to go back to the time when the Liberal members were in opposition and read their speeches, we would certainly find that some of them shared our point of view on the usefulness or lack thereof of the Senate.
In the last years, the auditor general criticized repeatedly the workings of the Senate. He criticized the fact that some funds go to the maintenance of this institution.
Last May, I rose to speak on a motion by one of my colleagues who criticized the use of tens of millions of dollars to this end. Year in and year out, the institution of the Senate has a budget of over $40 million.
There are now in our society people who cannot afford to feed their children or clothe them for school or other activities. Every-
day in Montreal, in all of Quebec's and Canada's major cities and even in the smallest ones, we see people having to go to food banks, to organizations which will feed them at least a minimum. Everyone acknowledges that the economic situation we are living in at the present time is a difficult one.
This very morning in Quebec, as we speak, yesterday rather, marked the opening of a summit bringing together all those involved in the socio-economic sector in Quebec. They will be spending three days discussing how to improve the situation of all of our fellow citizens, particularly those who are the least well off, in order to find ways of getting them jobs, in order to provide them with quality government services. During this exercise, which is being held in Quebec right now, but could be held anywhere in Canada, efforts will also be made to find ways of doing less harm to the disadvantaged during the process of putting our public finances on a better footing.
Meanwhile, the unemployed and people on welfare are being asked to tighten their belts even more so that we can have a zero deficit, but when these good people come home at night and watch television, when they watch the newscast, they will realize that, at the federal level, we are maintaining an institution that although there are some senators who are competent and have experienced, and are trying to do a good job for our country, nevertheless, the most vulnerable in our society who watch this debate will realize that we are maintaining an institution which the vast majority of the population feels is completely useless.
So the hon. member's motion is a very important one. And when we in the Bloc Quebecois ask for the abolition of the Senate, we do not want to renew federalism, we do not want to get involved in a process to renew the federation, we are simply making the point that money are spent on this institution could be better spent elsewhere.
That is what we are saying to the federal government. Instead of cutting payments to the most vulnerable in our society, as we have seen in the last three budgets of the Minister of Finance who, year after year, has cut unemployment insurance and transfer payments to the provinces for welfare, post-secondary education and health care, we say again to this government: clean up your act and do something about your own institutions.
So the motion moved by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup is a piece of advice to the government on how to save money, and they can do that by abolishing the Senate. Take this money and let it be used to help the people who need it most in our society. That is how we should understand my colleague's motion.
If hon. members would set aside partisan considerations and go to their ridings and listen to their constituents, they would hear from them, day after day and week after week, that this motion makes sense. I sincerely hope that the government will take this into consideration before the next election.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before I begin, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair. It is a much deserved appointment and I know you will serve this House and the people of Canada very well.
Canadians have mixed feelings about the Senate. There are three attitudes: those who feel it should be abolished; others who say no, it should be maintained but elected; still others who are happy with the status quo.
Let me remind everyone that this House cannot simply act unilaterally to abolish the Senate. That would require a very complex series of constitutional negotiations involving the provinces and could only be affected through an amendment to the Constitution. Therefore Motion M-221, which proposes that the government should abolish the Senate, is not something that we can do and it should be rejected by the House.
I find myself wondering how many letters the members of the Bloc have received from their constituents recently demanding that they spend their time pushing for the abolition of the Senate. Are the cafes on Quebec's Grande-Allée or Montreal's rue St. Laurent abuzz with discussions on the future of the upper Chamber? I think not.
I suspect that if the members sitting opposite to me listened to their constituents with a little more care they would find that the people in their ridings are much more interested in other issues: economic growth, job creation, government deficits, protecting our social programs and medicare, and relaunching the economy of Montreal to name a few.
Their constituents would be pleased to know that the Liberal government shares these concerns, even if their elected members in the official opposition have become somewhat out of touch.
Since elected, the federal government has been getting its fiscal house in order. During the election in 1993 it was clear that this was a major concern for all Canadians. We responded.
According to forecasts the objective for 1997-98 of reducing the deficit to $17 billion or 2 per cent of GDP will be met, down $25 billion from 1993-94 when the deficit we inherited represented 6 per cent of GDP.
Thanks in large part to the measures taken by the federal government to put public finances in order, interest rates have dropped 17 times in the last 17 months. Lower interest rates mean that more benefits will be generated than any program or tax cut could possibly bring in. For ordinary Canadians, this means that
someone renewing a $100,000 one-year mortgage will save over $3,000 a year. In addition, the lower interest rates have been a big help to the provinces in reaching their deficit reduction objectives. Between January 1995 and June 1996 the provinces saved $1.3 billion in debt servicing charges. Quebec alone saved some $625 million.
The Liberal government knows that Canadians want to work. That is why we have been working so hard with our provincial partners to promote a climate favourable for job creation. Our efforts I am pleased to say have met with success.
Certainly there is more to be done. We all know that. But no less than 650,000 new jobs have been created in the Canadian economy since the government took office. Unemployment is under 10 per cent for the first time in half a decade. These are achievements of which all Canadians can feel proud.
Internationally Canada's reputation as a country with low inflation is beginning to attract notice. In December 1993 the federal government and the Bank of Canada set a target to keep inflation between 1 and 3 per cent through the end of 1998 and we are on target.
Having a good international reputation like this is vital for Canada's economy and that of the provinces.
In recent years, exports have been the main engine of the economic growth necessary to decrease our unemployment levels even further. An important part of our strategy for promoting exports has been our Team Canada trade missions.
Their value is widely appreciated. It is certainly hoped that all 10 provincial premiers this time will be accompanying Canada's Prime Minister and a large delegation of Canadian business people on the next mission to Korea, Thailand and the Philippines.
During the missions to date, Canadian businesses have announced 369 business deals worth some $20 billion. Furthermore, Canadians have had the opportunity to see what the federal government, the provincial governments and the private sector can achieve when working in a spirit of co-operation.
Canadians want their country to work like this. They want their governments to work together efficiently and effectively to respond to their concrete everyday needs. I hear this all the time: "Why do the governments of Canada not work more effectively together?"
With the leadership this Prime Minister and this government have brought to bear on this situation, that is exactly what we are starting to see, and it is high time.
This motion under consideration today does not address the real, everyday fundamental concerns of Canadians, including those Canadians in Quebec, their economic concerns. It certainly does not address the concerns of the member's constituents. Therefore, with respect, I cannot support the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 6.46 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have it.
(Amendment negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
(Motion negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 6.47 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)