1998-02-13

Government Orders
SupplyHon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): moved:
That this House condemns the government for promoting an economy where the gap between the superrich and ordinary Canadian families is widening, risking the future of our youth, and strongly urges the government to introduce in the coming budget measures ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, we have introduced a topic in the House for debate today which is a very important and growing issue right across the country, the issue of increasing inequality.
For many years in the sixties and seventies the gap between the rich and the poor was narrowing in this country and we were proud of some of the progress we had made. New social programs like the Canada pension plan and universal health care had narrowed the gap between the wealthy people and the poor people of this country. It was a legacy that we were all proud of as Canadians.
I remember very well back in 1968 when the then leader of the Liberal Party and the prime minister of the country, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, campaigned across this country about a just society and decreasing these disparities. That went on for a while, but in the last 10 years or so, and in particular since this Liberal government came to power, we have seen the creation of what I call the unjust society where the gap is widening once again between the wealthier people and the poorer people in Canada.
As we are only two weeks away from the budget, it is important that we start putting some of these issues into the public record and debate what I think is a big issue in this country, two classes of Canadians, the wealthy Canadians, the very wealthy Canadians and the rest of Canadians, particularly the poorer side of the spectrum.
What I want to do this morning very briefly is put some information into the House and hopefully put some parameters on the debate we are having today.
Since 1989, which I am going to use as our base year, average family incomes in Canada have fallen by roughly 5%. They have gone down, not up. This is despite the fact the Minister of Finance says the economic fundamentals are right, unemployment is finally starting to go down, inflation is below 1%, that the budget is going to be balanced and there will be a fiscal dividend.
Despite all that and despite the fact the economy, as the minister says, is doing better, the question is better for whom. It is certainly not better for the average Canadian family whose income has gone down by 5% in the last seven or eight years.
Since 1989 we have 538,000 more children living in poverty in this country, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The number of food banks has tripled in Canada since 1989. The number of people filing for bankruptcy has tripled since 1989.
We also see that the number of low income persons in 1996 was 40% higher than in 1989. What we are seeing now, I maintain, is the creation of an unjust society that is going to be the legacy of this Minister of Finance unless he changes his priorities and starts to redistribute income and opportunities in Canada. That is what this debate is all about this morning.
What are the reasons for this? I think there are four or five very obvious reasons. One has been the determination of the Bank of Canada over the last number of years, with the support of this finance minister and previous finance ministers, to fight inflation and put inflation ahead of the creation of jobs and economic growth. That has slowed down the economy, created unemployment, made the borrowing of money more expensive and slowed down the expansion of small businesses and the farm economy right across the board.
Second, there is no priority in this country to create jobs. There are no targets for reducing unemployment and poverty like we have had targets for reducing inflation in Canada. The big one has been the cutback by this Minister of Finance in the transfers to the provinces on health and education. This has increased disparities right across the country.
In addition to that, we have had the gutting of the unemployment insurance system by the Minister of Finance in an effort to save money to balance the budget.
Finally, I suppose the symbolism of what is happening where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer was the announced proposed merger of the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank about two weeks ago. I predict that unless the Canadian people and the Liberal backbenchers in Parliament get up and speak about this, the Minister of Finance will acquiesce to this demand of his friends in the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank come about October or November of next year.
These are some of the reasons why the disparity is growing. I have had a chance to look at focus groups over the last couple of months and a major concern has been the growing gap between the rich and the poor, growing inequities which have created despair and poverty and crime and the social unrest we are starting to see not only in our big cities but right across the country.
When we talk about income disparity, this is something we should all be concerned about. Last year the top 20% of the Canadian people saw their incomes go up by almost 2%. The bottom 20% had a decrease in their incomes of around 3%. The disparity widens and it widens under the tutelage of the Minister of Finance. We see tremendous disparities.
Chief executive officers had a 14% increase in salaries in the last year while their workers had an increase in salary in those same factories and same companies of some 2.1%. CEOs received 14% and workers received 2.1%.
The CEOs of the Toronto stock exchange 300, those companies in TSE 300, who exercised their stock options in 1996 enjoyed an average increase of $653,700 in the last year, up from $238,000 in the previous year. In contrast, the wages of the CEOs' employees were raised by an average of 2.1 % in 1996, again a tremendous disparity that all Canadians should be concerned about; once again, the creation of what I call the unjust society.
Another good example is the whole question of some of the salaries of some of the leading CEOs in the country. I can mention Matthew Barrett, the president of the Bank of Montreal or John Cleghorn, the head of the Royal Bank in Canada. Both of them, with stock options and salaries and bonuses, enjoy salaries of well over several millions of dollars each and every year.
Then of course there is our good old friend Frank Stronach, the president and CEO of Magna International. I want to tell a little about Frank Stronach, the friend of the minister across the way of financial institutions. Frank Stronach had compensation last year of $43.2 million. Frank Stronach said: “If I add up all the hours I've spent working over the last 40 years, I probably haven't made much more than the minimum wage”. That salary is $43.2 million.
Let us do a little calculation. At $7 an hour, minimum wage, it would take Stronach, even if he worked 24 hours a day each and every day of the year, some 688 years to make some $43.2 million. And the ministers across the way just smile and they say that is fine, they contribute to our party. That does not matter. We are friends of Frank Stronach, we are friends of John Cleghorn, friends of Matthew Barrett. Whatever they want they will get.
These growing disparities in our country ought to be of great concern to us. It is not just Frank Stronach or the Cleghorns or the Matthew Barretts, but wealthy 2% or 3% of the people in this country are increasing their salaries, increasing their compensation, increasing their bonuses month after month and year after year and the disparity is widening. That is not a very good legacy to leave to the next generation.
I want to close, because I want to share my time with the member for Vancouver East, by pointing out some international statistics that we should take note of in terms of the gap between the rich and the poor. This is based on household income. We will find here that Canada has the second largest gap of the seven or eight countries in the OECD.
In the United States the gap between the rich and the poor is over $54,000. In Canada it is $42,500. It is the eighth largest gap of these nine countries. We are the second worst in terms of the gap between the rich and the poor.
I plead with the minister who is going to respond today on behalf of the Minister of Finance, the minister of financial institutions, to get up and tell us how they are going to create in this country more equality and more fairness between the rich and the poor. It is an extremely important issue. It is a sad commentary on our country, a country of great prosperity, with great potential, to see that out of the nine leading countries like France and Britain and Germany and the United States, we have the second largest gap between the rich and the poor.
What we are seeing now is the creation of the unjust society, the legacy of this Minister of Finance and the legacy of this Prime Minister.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member spoke at length about CEOs and how much they earn. I wonder what he is exactly suggesting here. Is he suggesting that we just print money and pay everybody $2 million a year? In which case we know for certain that it will not be long before we will be like Russia, communism all over again with total collapse of the economy, no incentive to work, no incentive for private enterprise or business whatsoever. I would like to know if he is suggesting that. If not, I would like to know whether he is suggesting that we reduce everybody's wages to $10 an hour, in which case I hope he and his colleagues would set an example by getting out of their business class seats on their flights back to Vancouver and by starting to act like socialists.
Surely they can see that 30 years of government overspending to get us $600 billion in debt did not create any jobs. We had the worst unemployment when we had $40 billion deficits every year. It is only now that unemployment is coming under control, thanks to Klein and thanks to Harris who finally have brains in their heads unlike the socialists who were in power.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am always very happy to receive a comment and a question from the Reform Party. People watching the debate should know that Reformers are against this motion. They want to create more inequalities, more disparities, more money for the rich and less money for the poor. That is exactly what he is saying in criticizing our approach.
We are not talking about printing money. That is where he came from: Social Credit and funny money back in B.C. and Alberta many years ago. That is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about a Canada in which disparities will be decreased as they were in the 1960s and 1970s when the disparities between the rich and the poor were gradually decreasing because of programs and tax policies that were of more benefit to lower income people than they were to wealthy people.
That is the direction we want to go in. We can do it through the tax system. We can do it through emphasizing growth and the creation of jobs. We can do it through the federal government spending money on health and education. That is what Canadians want according to all the polls we have seen and all the people we have spoken to. They want more money put back into health and education.
The Minister of Finance has cut back on health and education. Reformers would want even more cutbacks on health and education. They worship at the altar of Mike Harris. They worship at the altar of Ralph Klein. They worship at the altar of the far right in the world like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan, but that is not the way the Canadian people want to go.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments made by my two colleagues, one from the Reform Party and the other from the NDP, and I see two worlds. One is the capitalist world so aptly described by my colleague from the NDP, which is heartless and would have us take as much as we can out of the pockets of the poor.
Let me give you an example. There was a report in yesterday's Le Soleil about a family of five in Rivière-à-Martre, in my riding, that had lost their home. This happened just recently. This is not a hypothetical case. They lost their home because someone did not have enough hours to qualify for employment insurance, which to me will always remain poverty insurance. This morning's Le Soleil reports the case of a lady in Carleton who also lost her home. These are facts.
My hon. colleague from the NDP said that banks are allowed to make billions while the government is withdrawing from everything. Would he agree that—incidentally I congratulate him on his speech—when we try to help out a small business, there is so much red tape and government standards are so high that we end up doing more harm than good. I would like to hear what he has to say about this.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with my hon. colleague from Quebec.
From time to time, things do get too complicated at the federal level and in many provinces. I also agree with my colleague when he says that the Reform Party stands at the extreme right of the ideological spectrum in this country. It is an old-style ideology, a Margaret Thatcher ideology. We saw how the Reform Party reacted when I mentioned Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The Reform Party is also good friends with the likes of Frank Stronach and Conrad Black, the very rich in this country. Those are differences. But the extreme right is not at all the position held by the people of Canada.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the NDP opposition motion before us today is an important one because it comes just before the introduction of the budget. It gives us an opportunity to take stock of the reality facing most Canadians.
There is more than enough evidence to show why the government should be condemned for promoting an economy where the gap between the rich and ordinary Canadians is widening. As my colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, has so eloquently pointed out, there is enormous statistical information and evidence in our local communities about what the impact of Liberal government policies has been in every part of the country.
The reality is that between 1973 and 1993 the richest 30% of Canadian families saw their share of the nation's income increase by 5.4%, while the poorest 50% saw their share drop by 9%. This represented a $14 billion transfer from low and middle income Canadians to high income Canadians. We have information and evidence to show that over the last decade there has been an enormous growing disparity, something that Conservative and Liberal governments have abysmally failed to deal with.
We hear a lot of rhetoric in the House about the growing concern for children living in poverty. We have to understand that because of the policies of the government we have seen an increase in the number of poor families in Canada. Most of us would find it shocking to know that in this wealthy country we now have five million Canadians who live below the poverty line. Recent statistics from the Canadian Association of Food Banks show that the number of Canadians who depend on food banks is now something like 2.5 million people.
At our last caucus meeting we had a delegation from the Canadian Association of Food Banks that rightly told us its mandate was to see that food banks were eliminated. The main issue in terms of what causes the need for food banks is income inequality, the lack of income for poor people, the working poor and the unemployed. That has to be addressed in the upcoming budget.
The reality is that in Canada there are now half or more children living in poverty. In a country such as Canada that has tremendous wealth and resources this is something we simply cannot tolerate.
We have to ask what are the reasons for this growing inequality. It was very interesting to read a recent Angus Reid poll in the Globe and Mail which showed that 69% of Canadians felt that the federal government was deliberating pursuing economic policies that were widening the gap between rich and poor Canadians. This growing understanding within local communities and within Canadian society as a whole has been completely ignored by the Liberal government.
The Minister of Finance and other members of government continue to say that they are the defenders of social programs, young people, seniors or the unemployed. The real evidence is in the changes to our employment insurance program. The report tabled yesterday in the House demonstrates in a very tragic way that 37% of people who contributed to EI are now eligible for it, whereas a few years ago it used to be 87%.
We have seen a situation where the cuts in the Canada health and social transfer have had a devastating impact on our health care and education programs. More than that, we have seen debate take place about the multilateral agreement on investment. There is a seriousness about that debate. Canadians understand the Liberal government is pursuing with an aggressiveness we have never seen before a race to the bottom or a race for globalization, which means there will be a transfer of power to vary powerful corporations and a growing income disparity within our country and in global terms.
The hon. member who spoke before me addressed the very serious situation of the last few weeks with the merger of banks or the proposal to merge two of Canada's major banks. It was a real test to see whether or not the Liberal government was willing to stand up for the people of Canada and to say that the merger was not in the best interest of any Canadian, that it was not in the public interest.
Instead we saw a response that was ambiguous, that was waffling, and that called for review and study. We want to see leadership such as we have seen from the New Democratic Party. The government should state clearly that the merger of these banks will fail the Canadian people and will increase the growing inequality in our country.
I wanted to spend a few minutes talking about some of the local impacts of the policies of the government and why its economic policies should be condemned by relating them back to my own riding. My riding of Vancouver East includes the lowest income neighbourhood in Canada, the downtown east side. Every day I meet constituents who come to me with their issues and concerns.
I am reminded of Frank who came in to see me and told me that his income was $770 a month. Of that he is paying $540 a month in rent. That is an issue of being one step away from homelessness. That is an issue of stark reality in my riding. It is not just my riding. It is right across the country.
There is also a man I meet on the street from time to time whose name is Gary. He lives in a cardboard box. He is homeless. He wishes the federal government had not abandoned the social housing program, our national program for housing, in 1993.
In my riding of Vancouver East every day I meet people who are living in what is called single occupant rooms in incredibly substandard housing that in any middle income or middle class community would not be tolerated. Yet the reason people are living in this kind of housing is that the federal government abandoned its social responsibility and its fiscal responsibility to provide a social safety net to make sure that no person goes hungry or homeless.
That is the real evidence of what I see in my riding of Vancouver East in an urban community as a direct impact and result of Liberal government policies.
I have also met many students at Carleton University, the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University who have told me about their rising debt load. They are now carrying debts of $25,000, $30,000 and $40,000 as a direct result of the massive cutbacks to post-secondary education by the Liberal government of $2.29 billion since 1993.
Being a new member of the House and listening to the debate, I have heard many times members of the Liberal government talk about their professed concern for young people and the future. Young people are sick to death of waiting. They are fed up with the rhetoric. Their debts are climbing. Their inaccessibility to post-secondary education is growing. They understand clearly it is as a result of Liberal policies that have eroded our public education system.
A few months ago the NDP held a number of round table discussions across the country. One of them was on youth unemployment. Again the message was the same. Young people were saying they were fed up with government programs that provide a few months of training or a job opportunity and then there is nothing.
In speaking to the motion today as to why we should condemn the government for its policies, we want to say roundly and strongly that its policies have had a devastating impact on low income people, on poor people and on the middle class.
We have an opportunity today and in coming days to reorder the priorities and say that we are willing to set targets to reduce unemployment. We are willing to set targets to reduce poverty. We are willing to ensure there is a national child care program. We are willing to say there is a national housing program. As has been demonstrated by the alternative federal budget, these things are affordable to us if we have the guts, the courage and the leadership to say they are our priorities.
That is why we are condemning this government for the policies it has enacted.
Ted White: Mr. Speaker, Reform actually agrees with the NDP that the Liberal government made a big mistake cutting transfers in support of education and health. Since 1990 it has always been Reform policy that we would not cut those transfers and that has always been printed in our policy. So it is one thing we do agree with.
However the NDP is constantly bleating about the growing gap between the rich and poor but it does not offer any solutions other than taking other people's money in the form of taxes and spending more. We do not help the poor by killing the rich. We do not help the poor by destroying the rich. We do not help people get jobs by destroying businesses.
New Zealand, which is the country I emigrated from, found out in 1983 that socialism does not work. I had a two hour meeting with the prime minister at the time, Mr. David Lange. He was an NDP equivalent. He told me that he had learned that without a vibrant private sector there were no social programs. It just does not work.
Capitalism does have a heart, but we see a different way of getting there. If we do not have businesses with good job creation we have not got any social programs whatsoever.
I ask the hon. member to give some solutions please. Stand up and tell us how we get to where she wants to be. We have a plan to get there and it is beginning to work. We can see it in Alberta and in Ontario. Unemployment nationally is going down. Let us hear her solution and tell us of a country where it has actually worked.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Frankly I am very surprised to hear that the Reform Party agrees that cutting transfers was a huge mistake and it has had a very negative impact on Canadians right across the country.
What we have heard from the Reform Party time and time again is that it also takes a slash and burn approach. When the member offers up Ontario and Alberta as examples of what should be done, my goodness, is there any other evidence that we need to understand the direction the Reform Party wants to drive us in in terms of throwing everybody into unemployment or into low wage jobs.
In response to the question as to what are the solutions, I would suggest the Reform Party might join the NDP in having the courage to stand up and say that to have banks which make profits of $7.5 billion is obscene, that there is wealth in this country and the solution is in how that wealth is distributed. If we could harness that wealth and make sure it is reinvested and redirected to help ordinary Canadians, then we would be a lot better off.
The response to the question is that we need to have fair taxation. The Reform Party promotes an agenda and a program of unfair taxation by basically letting off profitable businesses and saying that somehow this will not create jobs. The reality is that what this country needs is a program of fair taxation whereby businesses and corporations pay their fair share of the need to support a public infrastructure which is something that benefits all of us whether we are rich or poor.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, February 13, for two reasons. First, it is my mother's birthday. Happy Birthday, Philomène. Second, I strongly support my colleagues to my left, the members of the New Democratic Party.
I particularly support the tax system they are advocating. I think the Canadian tax system is unfair. Here is an example. Why is a single mother earning less than $30,000, who sends her child to daycare, able to deduct $170 per $1,000 of income while someone earning $60,000 under the same system gets a tax break of $290 per $1,000 of income, a difference of $120?
Do not give up, we are behind you. We too think the gap between the rich and the poor has to be narrowed.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. We in the NDP agree with the comments that have been made. The evidence before us in the House concerning the growing disparity particularly for families and for working people is something we should be ashamed of.
The hon. member mentioned the need for child care. I am sure we would agree that this is a priority which has been completely lost in the government's agenda. I remember well the promises that were made to women and families of this country, that the need for a national child care program was a key ingredient in ensuring that women could become part of the workforce and in ensuring that families were able to cope in today's society. This has been completely abandoned by the federal government.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the NDP has raised a very important issue for all Canadians as well as for people in other countries. It is the issue of income disparity. Unfortunately there have been no solutions presented today. Is the NDP solution to regulate and cap salaries and profits?
Lorne Nystrom: Fair taxes.
Jim Peterson: Fair taxes. If fair taxes is the issue, then let us look at Canada's overall tax structure.
We all know that in the global world we have to have a tax structure which is relatively competitive with those of our neighbours. When we look at Canada among the G-7 countries, we are square in the middle of the seven. Our total tax burden is 36% of GDP. At the highest end there is France where it is 43%. At the lowest end there is the U.S.A. where it is 28%.
The competitive realities are that we cannot get too far out of line with the Americans to the south. Our overall tax burden is about 30% higher than that of Americans. However, I would never advocate that we should go down to American levels. Part of the difference is because we have a health care system which the Americans do not have. It gives Canadians tremendous security and it also gives us a competitive edge over the Americans.
Nevertheless when we consider our comparative tax levels we will find that the personal income tax in Canada is 13.4% of our gross domestic product and in the U.S. it is 9.8%. In Japan it is 6.4%. On top of that we have a capital gains tax which is among the highest in the western world.
The progressivity of our tax system is something which I think hon. members from the NDP should take into consideration. They have great envy for the rich. Maybe a lot of people do. However, these are the facts. Only 2% of tax filers in Canada have incomes over $100,000 and they pay 21% of all federal taxes. The lowest 60%, those with incomes under $25,000, pay only 4% of our taxes. We believe that a highly progressive tax system is an ingredient in creating equality of opportunity and fairness, and we do not back away from that one bit.
What have we heard in terms of solutions? I have talked about their cry for tax fairness. Do they want to tax the rich more? That alternative is there. Ours is still the most highly progressive personal income tax system in the western world.
If the concern of NDP members is for those who have been marginalized in our society or for those who have the greatest difficulty in coping, then we have no dispute with them. We would hope that they would support the measures that we have brought forward.
One of our major concerns has been low income working families. The Caledon Institute and studies by the finance department revealed that there was a welfare wall. A family on welfare taking in all of the benefits provided by governments was about $3,000 ahead of a family with two children and parents working at low wage levels.
That is what was called the welfare wall. It was a barrier to leaving welfare and going into the workforce. We addressed the matter not by lowering benefits to the lower income people on welfare but by increasing the tax incentives for those who were actually working.
This is why we brought in the working income supplement. This is why in an agreement with the provinces we have entered into the national child tax benefit. This government has committed $850 million to the child tax benefit which goes to those low income families. We promised during the course of our mandate to beef that up by another $850 million. This is at a time when all parties in this House recognize that our deficit and debt are major economic problems and challenges for us.
At the same time, we have increased the tax incentives available to Canadians with disabilities. We recognize that the costs of working and being disabled, or existing and being disabled are very high.
Mr. Rob Anders: Why don't you brag about raising taxes 38 times?
Jim Peterson: Would the hon. member please show a little bit of respect if he has nothing intelligent to contribute. If the Reform Party member has nothing better to add to this debate than inane accusations not based on fact and shouting and screaming, I wish he would—
Rob Anders: Thirty-eight tax raises.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Bring in civility to the House.
Jim Peterson: Civility is not within that new member's lexicon.
We must recognize that Canadians with disabilities need to have the added costs they bear each day taken into consideration. We have done that through the tax system.
Education is a great leveller in our society creating equality of opportunity. We will never as a government be able to create equality among individuals but we can at least create equality of opportunity.
This is why in spite of our fiscal difficulties over the last four years this government has introduced numerous measures to help students in the education system. These include increasing the levels for registered educational savings plans, the educational tax credit, deductibility of ancillary fees and expenses for students.
There is also the innovation foundation to which we have contributed $800 million. In conjunction with the private sector and other levels of government, there will be a $2 billion fund for investment in research and development in our hospitals and institutions of higher learning.
Last fall our Prime Minister announced that access to education is very important to him and to this government. He announced the creation of the millennium scholarship fund. The finance minister a couple of weeks ago said that we can look forward to ongoing measures to assist students in the next budget.
These are some of the concerns we have had about creating opportunity for all Canadians. We have put our money where our mouth is.
From the NDP we have heard about, and I will quote the member for Qu'Appelle who was supported by the member for Vancouver East, “the obscene profits made by banks”. Yes, they made record profits last year but they have also paid record taxes in Canada. Canadian banks pay 64% of their net income in Canadian taxes.
Compare that with the United States where it is only 54% of net income and the U.K. where it is 52%. Canadian manufacturers pay 47%. Canadian credit unions pay 45%.
Are hon. members in the NDP suggesting that credit unions should be brought up to a 64% of net income tax level in Canada? Let us hear about it if the Canadian bank profits are obscene. Do they want even higher taxes on the banks in light of these figures?
I say to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that on December 4, 1996 the leader of the NDP said in a press release that she welcomed bank profits if they were earned through good management, sound long term investment and progressive participation in the Canadian economy. The leadership race in the member's party is over. He lost. Maybe it is time he started to support his leader.
We take no back seat to anybody in terms of taxes in these areas. We are the ones that increased the corporate surtax, the large corporation tax, and introduced the temporary surtax.
Rob Anders: Now you are bragging about tax increases.
Jim Peterson: I am proud of these three tax increases we brought in because we had to get our deficit under control. We in this party have legitimate concerns about the poor in Canada and sustaining the programs that keep them going.
At the same time we have started the process of bringing down gradually tax levels in a way that is sustainable, fair and does not undermine the social and economic underpinnings of our economy. We are making those investments and we are proud to do it.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the opportunity pass without commenting on the hon. member's speech. He proudly mentioned to the House the taxes introduced by his government. Congratulations.
Who ultimately pays for increased taxes? The public. Those taxes fall on the shoulders of the public. The government has balanced the budget on the backs of the public. What has been the outcome? The worst unemployment we have seen since the depression.
I cannot let pass the NDP comments. Proud NDPers wear their hearts on their sleeves. They profess to be the saviour of the poor and underprivileged. What would they do? During the election campaign it presented a budget to the public that was proven not to work and to increase the deficit of Canada by tens of billions of dollars.
For once I would like the public to see the absurdity of trying to increase taxes while trying to help the poor. Increasing taxes, increasing government spending and increasing deficits do what? They compromise the very people all in the House would like to help.
For all the negativism we have seen across the House, the Reform Party is the only party that put forth a workable plan that would eliminate taxes for those in the lowest socioeconomic groups in Canada, put more money in their pockets and save our social programs. Deficits, debt and increased taxes are what compromise the lowest socioeconomic groups and social programs.
The only party that has ever put forth a constructive plan to save health care, pensions and social programs is this party. We propose solutions to put our economic house in order so that the government will have the money to spend on people who need it the most.
Will the member acknowledge that increasing taxes, increasing deficits and increasing debt compromise the lowest socioeconomic groups preferentially?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the terrible impact of huge deficits on our economy. When we took office the deficit was at $42 billion. We are still paying about a third of every tax dollar to service the interest on our debt.
This is why, in a time period that is less than any Reform package put forward, we will have our budget in balance. We are starting to pay down the debt. At the same time we will never adopt the Reform formula for doing it. This is the party that was to cut taxes. At the same time how would Reformers have paid for it? First, they would cut drastically the programs to help with the pensions of seniors. Second, they would cut transfers to the provinces for education and for health care. Third, and probably the most draconian of all, as seen through all their budgets which keep shifting with the political winds and the latest polls, they would cut equalization to the poorest regions and the poorest people.
We will not cut taxes to break the backs of those who need it most. We never will. We will have a balanced approach. At the same time as we are gradually cutting taxes, starting with those most in need, the disabled, the students, the working poor, and helping charities and the voluntary sector do more to increase tax incentives, we are helping those who need it most by sustaining the programs that help Canadians have a secure retirement, strong education and strong health systems. Those are our priorities.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address this NDP opposition day motion.
It is always a little bemusing to me when the NDP castigates Reform. Quite frankly Reform and the NDP have exactly the same goal in mind, that is to give ordinary citizens a break they very richly deserve. It is long overdue after years of Tory and Liberal mismanagement and taxation of their incomes.
I ask the NDP to listen very carefully to what I am about to say because we have the same goal in mind. We care about the people. It is because the traditional political parties no longer serve our interests that we have a Reform vehicle, Reform members in the House and a Reform vision which we are working hard to achieve. That vision is a strong country with strong social programs, with a safety net that we can count on, and with incomes that are not constantly eroded by government mismanagement, overspending and overtaxation.
We heartily agree with the NDP goal of ensuring that every Canadian has an opportunity to share in a new prosperity. That is what life is all about. It is about creating a strong, vibrant future and life for ourselves and our families. That is important to every Canadian.
The NDP also talks about the future of our youth. The future of our youth is the future of our country. In that I know we all concur. It is the young people who day after day come to us and say they have done everything they can but cannot find a decent job with a decent income. That concerns us very deeply because it is their future we need to be looking after.
What is the NDP solution? It is to rant against the super rich, the bogeymen, like the land owners in some South American countries, like the nobility in eastern Europe, like some evil force is keeping honest, decent, low income people from having the opportunities they need. I appeal to the NDP to get realistic about the problems and the way to achieve the goals we all believe in, instead of creating scary bogeymen and railing against people who are trying their best to create opportunities, employment and income that can be taxed back to help the less fortunate.
We agree that we need to give assistance to people who cannot care for themselves. It is something that we pride ourselves on. We must assist those who cannot meet their own needs in a generous and compassionate manner. It concerns me that we are losing the ability to do that as more and more of our money is diverted into paying interest on a mortgage that we are placing on our children's future and that the NDP wants to add to. It wants to continue to mortgage our children's future by massive overspending and to tax away the income young workers manage to get.
There is a role for government to play in its policies on taxation and spending and in achieving the goal of ensuring Canadians a high standard of living and real prosperity. However, the NDP way of doing this and its proposals to do this have proven over the last 30 years, not just in Canada but in country after country in the world, to do the absolute opposite of what it says it is trying to achieve.
I cannot understand. I have met a number of my NDP colleagues. I have the highest regard for their compassion, for their heart for people, for their desire to do the right thing, and for their competence and ability in the legislative arena. Yet all they can trot out is tired old failed policies of tax and spend and government intervention. This will simply give us more of what we have had over the last several decades. The same old failed policies of the past are being touted by the NDP. It simply will not wash. It will not serve Canadians. I appeal to the NDP to become more realistic about what can be achieved.
The NDP is asking for state planing; big government; high spending and huge bureaucracies that lead to waste and abuse of taxpayer money; high taxes which means less to meet the needs of families; and low incentives to invest and take risk. This means less creation of wealth, a smaller pie, less to share for those who truly are less fortunate and a lower standard of living, which is exactly what we are seeing.
Reform instead says that we need self-reliance and individual initiative. That is the spirit and that is the energy that will give us real prosperity. We need smaller, more efficient government. We need lower tax takes, in particular for low income people who are struggling to give their children the necessities of life.
Instead we have the NDP saying “The government can manage your money better than you can. Just hand it over because we know much better what to do with it”.
The fiscal platform of NDPers will simply give us what they say they do not like. They call for huge increases in spending, which will lock in the current record high tax burden that contributes so much to the poverty they claim they want to address, and higher inflation which eats away at the purchasing power of retired Canadians, causes an increase in interest rates and a slowdown in job creating investment.
NDPers talk about fair taxes. Have they not caught on to the fact that when we raise taxes on business people and service providers they simply pass the cost on to the consumer? That is us. That is Canadian families. That is people who are struggling to make ends meet. There is no way we will be able to strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. It does not work that way.
If the examples of country after country have not shown that conclusively to NDPers, we have to wonder whether they are living in never-never land and are not really prepared to deal with the realities that face Canadians.
The way to create real jobs and to alleviate poverty in a meaningful way is to reduce taxes on low income families to create the conditions necessary for those families to earn employment income, to shore up health and education, and not implement passive welfare programs that encourage dependency and discourage work and independence.
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. She will have two minutes remaining after question period when debate on the motion resumes, followed by a five minute question and comments period, should she wish it.

Statements By Members
CivitansMr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past weekend Brockville and District Civitans hosted the winter convention of the Canadian District East.
There were Civitans present from throughout the Ottawa Valley and representatives from Civitan International in Birmingham, Alabama.
The Civitans are a non-profit group of people who volunteer their time to help those less fortunate. Members of the Civitan Club concentrate the bulk of their efforts on funding programs to improve the quality of life for the developmentally and physically challenged.
They have also undertaken to fund leading edge research into a multidiscipline approach to preventing and treating developmental disabilities.
It is a privilege for me today to pay tribute to the many Civitan members throughout Leeds-Grenville who give selflessly of their time and energy as builders of good citizenship.
The SenateMr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want accountable politicians. Reform is committed to improving our government system. A critical step in this process has to be a triple E Senate.
Canadians are calling for the return of some integrity and purpose to the Canadian Senate. It is unacceptable that the Senate is plagued with chronic absenteeism. It is undemocratic that the appointment process is a thinly disguised patronage plum. It is unfair to Canadians that the upper house provides little in the way of regional representation.
The Prime Minister said in 1990, when in opposition: “A reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable”. Good words, but are they just empty words?
Begin today. Follow through on your words, Mr. Prime Minister. Let's get away from the triple A Senate, appointed, affluent, apathetic, and give Canadians some hope with a triple E Senate, equal, elected and effective.
The Late Eddie SargentMr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding Liberal politician who fought for the little guy at every turn of the road.
Eddie Sargent, former mayor of Owen Sound and former MPP from my riding, passed away January 28, 1998 at the age of 82. Eddie Sargent's political career spanned more than four decades. He was Owen Sound's mayor four times and was elected to the provincial legislature in 1963 and retired in 1987.
Eddie fought aggressively for his constituents. No problem was too big or too small. He put so much into life. He was a man with a heart and we will miss him.
Tribute To Dora WassermanMr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the Soirée des Masques ceremony, the Académie québécoise du théâtre paid tribute to Dora Wasserman, the founder and director of the Yiddish theatre at the Saidye Bronfman arts centre.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to pay tribute to Ms. Wasserman's exceptional devotion. She has given her life to the theatre and to preserving the language and longstanding traditions of the rich Yiddish culture.
After training at the prestigious Jewish theatre in Moscow, she arrived in Montreal in 1950. For 60 years, the Yiddish theatre has performed on the stage of the Monument national, which used to belong to the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Keen to build bridges between cultures, Ms. Wasserman and her troupe presented a Yiddish version of Michel Tremblay's Les Belles-Soeurs in 1992.
Congratulations Dora Wasserman for making Quebec culture even richer.
Huntington Society Of CanadaMr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to congratulate the Huntington Society of Canada on its 25th anniversary.
Located in my riding of Cambridge, the Huntington Society is a national network of volunteers and professionals working to find a cure and treatment for Huntington's disease. Huntington's is a hereditary brain disease which strikes between the ages of 30 and 45, for which no cure has yet been found.
On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate the Huntington Society for its 25 years of dedicated and tireless work.
Markham ResolutionMs. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the supreme court begins to consider the legality of unilateral secession next week, I would like to read part of a resolution passed by the town of Markham in the riding of Thornhill on January 13, 1998. As I only have 60 seconds, I will read a small portion. It is entitled “People's resolution for a united Canada”:
Whereas the municipality of Markham believes that all Canadians are equal and all Canadian provinces have equality of status; And whereas the municipality of Markham believes that Canada, with its existing constitution and charter of rights and freedoms, offers all of its citizens and provinces an equal opportunity to prosper and flourish, this same constitution has enabled and must continue to enable the province of Quebec, a fundamental and valued partner of the Canadian confederation, the opportunity to promote and protect its culture, civil law tradition and French language.
I am proud that this resolution came from my riding of Thornhill, and I will later be asking for unanimous consent of this House to table this resolution.
The end of the resolution says:
Now therefore be it resolved that the municipality of Markham, in a spirit of friendship and in the name of unity, proudly adopts this “People's resolution for a united Canada” and we hereby urge all Canadian municipalities to join us—.
The SenateKeith Martin: Mr. Speaker, on March 1 this year, British Columbia Senator Len Marchand was set to retire. Did he? No. The Prime Minister asked him to stay on until after the election. Why? Because he did not want to incur the wrath of British Columbians to have another unelected, unaccountable senator who has the power to change the laws of this country.
Putting senators up for election enables good, hardworking senators to stay and will get rid of the dead wood. It will invigorate the sleepy hollow Senate and make it an active, vigorous place.
The people of British Columbia, the people of this country, want value for money. They want a democracy. They want a triple E Senate.
Winter OlympicsMrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning in Nagano, Japan Team Canada began its bid for a gold medal in men's hockey by defeating Belarus by a score of 5-0.
All Canadians share a sense of pride in the calibre of our men's hockey team. We have great expectations.
There are three families in my riding of Whitby—Ajax that will be on the edge of their seats throughout this whole tournament. These are the families of Joe Nieuwendyk, Adam Foote and Keith Primeau. These three talented players are products of the Whitby Minor Hockey Association.
The town of Whitby wanted to recognize and cheer on our local heroes. Several weeks ago I was thrilled to participate in the kick-off of a banner signing campaign. Thousands of Whitby residents signed the congratulatory banners which were presented to the families for delivery to the players in Nagano.
All of Canada will be cheering our team on. Members will appreciate, however, that the cheers from Whitby will be a little louder, especially for our three homegrown boys.
To Adam, Joe and Keith, bring home the gold.
Child Sexual AbuseMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the last Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois presented a petition signed by more than 40,000 persons condemning child sexual abuse.
The petitioners were calling for the minimum sentence for a first sexual offence conviction to be raised to two years, five years for a repeat offence, for a review and assessment of treatments offered to abusers serving their sentences, for a post-release follow-up on the effectiveness of treatment, and for assurance that compensation measures and support would be made available to sexually abused children and their families.
Shortly thereafter, a general election was called. The petition therefore received no response from Parliament, and nothing has changed. The new Minister of Justice has still made no announcement.
Given the importance of this subject, I call on the minister to follow up on this petition, which I personally endorse. The minister must act.
StudentsMr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of my most pleasant tasks since becoming the member of Parliament for the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has been meeting students from my riding when they come for a tour of these Parliament buildings. I had that honour today with a group of students from St. James school of Eganville. They are seated in the gallery watching today's proceedings.
It is imperative that young people such as Shawn Lavigueur see how their Canadian government works and learn more about the Canadian parliamentary system. It is incumbent upon us as members of this House to help these young men and women understand that our system is one of the best in the entire world. The future of our country will rest on their shoulders.
I want to thank the teachers responsible for arranging these field trips and giving these students a firsthand look at our Parliament. They represent our future. We must not fail them.
The SenateRob Anders: Mr. Speaker, we now have everybody criticizing Andy Thompson, even Senator Ron Ghitter.
Canadians can be relieved that even Senator Ron Ghitter thinks that Andy Thompson's attendance record is unacceptable.
A note to any senators watching, they may not remember Senator Ghitter, since he comes to work only about half the time.
This week Mr. Ghitter cranked up the handle on his lazy boy to a semi-reclined position and was outraged at absentee Andy.
A note to any citizens watching, this half-time senator cost them $150,000 last year. That is a pretty expensive lazy boy.
Now that Senator Ghitter is paying attention I will extend an invitation to him to get up out of his easy chair, step down from his Senate seat and stand for election.
National UnityMrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the president of France recently stated that France is one country indivisible, made up of regions and provinces each different from the other.
Why are the premier of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois not quoting him as they have before? It must be because it does not suit their needs.
The Bloc will not speak about what it is to be a proud Canadian.
Is it not important to talk about the many fellow Canadians in the Canadian military who have helped the province of Quebec in times of trouble?
When the Saguenay flood occurred, who was there? Fellow Canadians. When the ice storm hit, who was there to help? Fellow Canadians.
Canadians have always loved and helped Quebec, a province of Canada. Let us join together with all the provinces across this great country and celebrate the pride of being Canadian.
HousingLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, recently in my riding of Vancouver East a Liberal cabinet minister came to undertake a public relations job to try to convince us, by announcing an extension of the RRAP program, that the Liberal government cares about housing in this country.
The announcement was a huge disappointment in the lowest income community in Canada and in other urban and small communities which are suffering desperately from the lack of affordable safe housing.
The extension of the RRAP program does not make up for the abandonment of the national housing program, our social housing in Canada, by the Liberal government in 1993. In B.C. alone we have lost 8,000 units since 1993 because of abandonment by the Liberal government.
People in my riding of Vancouver East, in the downtown east side and in other communities across Canada are demanding that the federal government renew its commitment and provide financial responsibility to ensure there is a housing program in Canada.
Research And DevelopmentMr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning we got some good news about research in the Montreal region. The government of Canada announced its participation in $15 million worth of investments for research at McGill University and the Université de Montréal.
The Montreal region is becoming increasingly known as an ideal venue for research and development. Our government is pleased to be associated with this reality, which will benefit not only the Montreal region but all of Quebec, which is already expending considerable efforts to attract investments in this sector of activity.
In our opinion, the image of our universities cannot help but be enhanced by such encouragement, at a time when our young people are increasingly choosing careers in this field of the future. Good luck.
BridgewaterMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 99th birthday of the town of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia.
Bridgewater is a picturesque town of 7,200 souls, located on the bank of the Lehave River, 20 kilometres from the sea.
Since its early history Bridgewater has been an enterprising town with boat builders, tanners, coopers, millers and foundries.
For years Bridgewater was the centre of a brisk lumber industry and the fertile land of the south shore of Nova Scotia still grows some of the best timber in Nova Scotia.
Mills such as Lohne's, Bowater and Turners continue to operate in the area.
Mayor Ernie Bolivar, the Bridgewater town council, the local chamber of commerce, businesses and merchants are the reason that this town is the main street of the south shore.
As well, Bridgewater has attracted industry such as the Michelin tire plant and centres like the new South Shore hospital.
Today, February 13, 1998, it is an honour to congratulate the town of Bridgewater in the Parliament of Canada.
Multilateral Agreement On InvestmentMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the multilateral agreement on investment currently being negotiated will protect Canadian jobs and investment in Canada and abroad.
In 1996 foreign investment in Canada grew to $180 billion. Canadian direct investment abroad stood at $170 billion, with an estimated $30 billion in individual Canadian mutual funds invested abroad.
As a trading country, Canada relies on these investments. Our social programs and safety net depend on the success of our economy.
The NDP says that the MAI will kill jobs, but it is wrong. For every $1 billion in new foreign investment 45,000 jobs are created in Canada. NDP members say the MAI threatens Canadian health care, social programs and cultural industries. They are wrong. These items are not and will not be on the negotiating table. They are opposed to the MAI. Those who are opposed to the MAI remind me of someone who cannot go to bed at night because they are worried someone else is still up having a good time.
The SenateMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to express both concern and appreciation for the Senate. I have witnessed the dedicated efforts of some of our honourable senators. However, I am concerned that a representative of Canadians can be so inaccessible to his constituents that he does not even have an office, staff or a phone, that such a person living outside of Canada returns but one day a year to collect a $70,000 paycheque, that such a person will receive a lifetime pension amounting to nearly $50,000 per year, all paid by taxpayers.
Perhaps members of this House wonder how such a person could remain in this place year after year. This is a safe riding and how does one get the nomination? It is time for an elected Senate. No riding should be that safe. Accountability is so very obviously necessary.
The Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed with oral questions I draw to the attention of hon. members the provisions of Standing Order 18 which may be applicable to some statements. I urge members to read Standing Order 18 before our next meeting.

Oral Question Period
TaxationMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the finance minister is ever going to realize his dream of becoming the prime minister, he must make sure he is a household name. It is happening but I am not sure if the accompanying fist waving and arm waving is what he had in mind.
According to a StatsCan study, Canadians pay more in taxes than they do for anything else, including food, shelter and clothing. From 1992 to 1996 while the finance minister has been in charge of the coffers, Canadians' tax load has grown at twice the rate of inflation.
Is the finance minister finally going to listen to overtaxed Canadians? Is he going to offer broad based tax relief in the upcoming budget?
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Keep your hands in your pockets.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no money in my pockets. The statistics to which the hon. member is referring obviously deal with the trend that began in the middle 1980s and was exacerbated substantially in the recession of 1989 to 1992. I am quite confident that as we look ahead we will see Canadians paying less in taxes. They will be paying more for things they choose for themselves. I am about to be cut off but I would like to go on.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I will try to save him. If the finance minister is going to be the prime minister, he has to be known as the greatest. He is the greatest tax collector the country has ever seen. That goes without saying. His favourite slogan is never have so many been taxed so heavily for so long.
But yesterday the Alberta treasurer showed him that it could be done. Alberta can look forward to a balanced budget, and the lowest taxes in the country are going to become even lower while retiring more of the provincial debt.
I ask the finance minister again if he will commit 100% of the budget surplus to tax relief and debt retirement.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that he might want to take a look at the Alberta budget and what the Alberta government is doing. It is putting more money into health care. It is putting more money into education. It is putting more money into the priorities of Albertans.
It would appear that the whole country supports health care, the whole country supports education, and the only Canadians who do not are the members of the Reform Party.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, of course it has to put more money into health care. He slashed a whole bunch of the last budget out from under it.
Canadian taxpayers spent millions of dollars developing a French version of a debt management software program for African countries. This software program is designed to help nations with huge debts become more responsible. It is kind of like taxaholics anonymous for finance ministers.
I would like to ask my question to the minister responsible for CIDA who developed this debt management software. Would she lend a copy of this debt management software program to our finance minister? He is $600 billion in debt and he needs all the help he can get.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, what I would really like to do is to give that software to the Reform Party members who every January seem to engage in some kind of a flip-flop on their basic policies.
Perhaps if the Reform Party had been able to engage in some proper analysis since it came into this Parliament it might well understand that what Canadians are looking for is a consistent and well thought out plan, which is what we set out in 1994. It is working and Canadians support it.
JusticeMr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, David Pryce, special assistant to the Minister of Industry, pled guilty on February 4 to charges of assault causing bodily harm. Can the minister inform this House whether Mr. Pryce is still a member of his personal staff advising him on confidential matters, despite the fact that he has pled guilty to a very serious criminal offence?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter has not been concluded before the courts.
The Deputy Speaker: I caution the hon. member for Crowfoot that questions on this subject may therefore be out of order.
Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pryce has entered a plea of guilty to a charge of assault causing bodily harm.
My question to the minister is whether or not this person is still employed as his personal assistant.
The Deputy Speaker: Given the answer the minister has given to this question that the matter is still before the courts, I think the member must accept that. Under the conventions of this House it is not proper to ask questions on matters before the courts, particularly ones involving criminal proceedings as alleged by the hon. member.
Reference To Supreme CourtMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This morning, we learned that Quebeckers are massively opposed to the Supreme Court reference on Quebec's right to decide its own future. Nine out of ten Quebeckers said that the democratic will of the people should take precedence over a Supreme Court decision.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that this public rejection signals the failure of Plan B and of the hard line approach backed by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the entire government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, insists that we comply with the decisions of the Supreme Court on all sorts of issues, such as the dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland concerning hydroelectricity.
So why not agree with Mr. Bouchard's point of view on this issue of the rule of law involving the Supreme Court of Canada?
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister's answer gives the clear impression that he is completely out of touch.
With each passing day, the government is becoming increasingly isolated with respect to its Supreme Court reference. Yesterday, it was the turn of the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta, which represents 60,000 Franco-Albertans, to ask the federal government to abandon its reference to the Supreme Court.
With this popular rejection now spreading outside Quebec, will the government agree that the only responsible, and courageous, thing to do would be to withdraw its reference to the Supreme Court before hearings begin?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, in a media scrum on September 21, 1996, Lucien Bouchard said: “I am in favour of the rule of law. The law must always be respected”.
That is precisely what we are doing in this case. It is why we believe that asking the Supreme Court to decide the matter falls squarely in line with Mr. Bouchard's thinking.
IraqMr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
While the American position on Iraq is being questioned by a large part of the international community, and Russia is becoming increasingly critical, the Canadian government is still talking about diplomacy, but the reality is that the troops are on their way to Iraq.
Since Iraq has recently offered to open eight presidential sites to UN inspectors, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks that that constitutes a worthwhile basis for a diplomatic solution to the conflict?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the position of Canada and of other countries is very clear. Saddam Hussein must comply fully with all UN resolutions regarding the inspection and destruction of biological products.
The hon. member's question is an interesting one but, as things now stand, we do not have the complete agreement of Saddam Hussein with respect to this request. That is why we are continuing our efforts to reach a diplomatic solution.
Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, the troops are on their way. The government keeps telling us that their involvement will be limited to logistical support.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least guarantee the House that they will never be involved in combat operations?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, if we are serious in our intention to seek a diplomatic solution, we must also be serious in speaking about what we will do in the event of a failure to achieve such a solution. It is therefore not possible to give the hon. member the answer he would like.
Youth EmploymentMr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Human Resources Development.
High student debt, a 16.5% unemployment rate and diminished opportunity. This is the legacy for the young people in the gallery. Liberal reforms to the EI system now require young people and students entering the labour force to obtain 910 hours of work to qualify for employment insurance.
In light of the fact that the first contact with the workforce for so many young people is part time or of short duration, how can the minister justify this policy?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can make this very clear to the member opposite.
We have on a number of occasions already made it very clear that we recognize that student debt is an issue. We recognize that youth unemployment is an issue. This government has made improvements for youth relating to jobs, education and their skills. That is our first priority. We have also put a number of initiatives in place to deal with that.
If the member would like us to send a copy of all those—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.
Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am glad attention was brought to the young people in the gallery. They, like Canadians—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that he is not supposed to draw attention to persons in the gallery. I would ask him to abide by the rules of the House in this regard.
Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected and I apologize to the House.
Canadian youth want opportunity, not amazing rhetoric. The policy of this government makes it take Canadian youth 117% more hours of work to qualify and collect employment insurance.
Is the government prepared to stop discriminating against young people?
Bob Nault: Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. I am quite surprised the NDP would be opposed to this particular initiative in the new EI reforms.
The objective of making the entrance requirement higher for youth is to make sure they do not get caught in the trap of taking the easy way out. For example in the summertime they get a construction job and thinking they are making big money they stay in that field. They quit school because they can make some money in the short term. Then they find out down the line when they get a bit older that they do not have the education they need.
The intent is to have young people go back to school. It is a very important initiative. All members of the House should support that.
HealthHon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health who will be meeting next week with his counterparts to discuss the issue of people infected with hepatitis C through tainted blood.
There seems to be a will on the part of provincial governments to deal with this, but there is also a concern that the federal government will put forward some grandiose package and leave them covering the real costs.
Will the Minister of Health commit today that he will put forth a compensation package that is substantial enough to cover the ongoing health costs provinces will incur in assisting these victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since we received the Krever report last fall we have made it clear that we are interested in finding some way forward to treat humanely and fairly those who were the innocent victims of tragic mistakes in the blood system. In that regard I think the interests of victims are best served by levels of government working together.
In response to the question put by the hon. member, I commit myself today to continue to work with my provincial counterparts. I am meeting with them Monday and Tuesday of next week to try to find a way in which we can all contribute to the appropriate outcome in these tragic cases.
Jean Charest: Mr. Speaker, most provincial governments have already clearly indicated their desire to help victims of hepatitis C.
I would like to know whether the federal government now in office will take into account the health care costs to provincial governments of ongoing assistance to these people. I would specifically like to know whether the minister intends to include victims who received blood before 1986 in the federal government's compensation plan.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to discuss this with my provincial counterparts next week. We are examining the entire issue. We intend to look closely at Judge Krever's recommendations, including those concerning which victims should be compensated. I am now working with my counterparts and their officials to find a solution to this major and difficult problem.
Calgary DeclarationMs. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the B.C. unity panel released its report, it showed that British Columbians are prepared to support the Calgary declaration “A Framework for Discussion”. However this support is based on the entire declaration especially the equality aspects.
While this government has strongly embraced the unique character aspects of the Calgary declaration, it has virtually ignored the equality provisions. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, does this government have any initiatives to promote the equality provisions of the Calgary declaration?
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has always shown support for the provincial initiative undertaken in the Calgary declaration. The government remains prepared to support it.
The Calgary declaration is a declaration of principles that may or may not lead to constitutional action at a later time. At this point the federal government is happy that the provinces have been working on it. Most provinces are prepared to pass a resolution. We will be waiting to see the final result before taking action.
The SenateVal Meredith: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated that Reform's attempt to have an elected Senate would result in gross under-representation of the west in Parliament.
Since British Columbia is already the most under-represented province in both this House and the upper house, will the minister assure British Columbians that this government will take steps to remedy the inequities before the end of this Parliament?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the matter of reforming the Senate is not one for this government alone. It is a matter for Parliament as a whole and the provinces as part of an amendment to the Constitution.
I complete my answer by asking my hon. friend this. If and when the day comes that we propose a change to the Constitution on the Senate, will she undertake on behalf of members of her party that they will not vote against it like they did the last time when the Charlottetown declaration was before Canada?
Drug LicensingMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Several drugs used in the treatment of HIV and AIDS have been available in the United States, Europe and South America for more than a year already. But the Health Protection Branch has yet to authorize the marketing of these new drugs, thereby penalizing thousands of infected individuals.
Does the minister realize that, due to the particular inefficiency of the drug licensing process in Canada, thousands of people living with HIV or AIDS are seeing their treatment threatened?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health has the responsibility to ensure that drugs are safe before they are put on the market for use by those who are sick. It is the responsibility of the Government of Canada and we intend to fulfil this responsibility.
At the same time, we are also fully aware of the fact that there are urgent needs to be met. At Health Canada we have procedures in place—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, in September 1996, a parliamentary committee clearly recommended that the minister radically reform the Canadian drug licensing system, which is notoriously inefficient. Why has no action been taken since?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, since the tabling of the report mentioned by the hon. member this morning, we at the health department have made changes to the system to give some people access to the drugs they need. We plan to keep improving this system in the interest of the sick.
JusticeMr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has happened again in my community of Abbotsford, British Columbia.
William Gibson Brown was sentenced to 11 years for a violent rape. He got out of prison and then recently sexually assaulted some of our children. He received a conditional sentence, no time in jail on the condition he does not do it again. Yesterday he was back in court again. What for? Molesting a five year old boy.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. Why does the government refuse to prevent serious sex offenders from receiving conditional sentences, no time in jail?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member describes a tragic case and no member in this House is pleased when they see that happen in the courts.
Conditional sentencing as the minister has said is a new provision. The minister has stated that she and all her provincial counterparts are monitoring closely what is happening in the lower courts.
I refer the hon. member to the attorney general of Alberta who has publicly discouraged the federal government from unilaterally establishing further guidelines for this provision.
As the minister has said in the House, if she has to she will amend the law.
Randy White: Mr. Speaker, we are sick and tired of this government monitoring these things. This is a legal loophole and we are sick and tired of coming back and forth in this House of Commons on this issue.
A five year old boy has been molested because a judge issued this pervert a conditional sentence after he molested children and raped a woman.
Does this government agree that a repeat rapist, a repeat child molester, should do no time in jail? What about protecting our women and children for a change?
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's allegations to this part of the House are based on false presumptions. First of all, no member of this House has ever said they are happy with some of the decisions that are rendered.
I would like to repeat what the Minister of Justice has said in this House. She has stressed this. If she has to, she will.
I will quote the attorney general of Alberta, from your province, who said “I like the flexibility in conditional sentencing. As opposed to having”—
[Intervention]
An hon. member: He is from British Columbia.
Randy White: We are sick and tired of this. We want it now.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The parliamentary secretary has the floor. It is difficult for the Chair to hear her response. A member has asked a question, perhaps members might listen to the response.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would please listen, his leader's provincial attorney general said “I like the flexibility in conditional sentencing. As opposed to having the federal government developing some very specific guidelines, we have the courts reacting to the needs of their respective communities across the country”.
I repeat, if we have to we will.
Federal Public ServiceMrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
One of the requirements—and I say “requirements” advisedly—for employment in the public service within the national capital region is residence there, although this contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell me which prevails in his department: the Public Service of Canada Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no discussion on that point: the Treasury Board must comply with all of Canada's statutes, including the charter. This is what it tries to do at all times.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that officials suggest to candidates that they change their address in order to be eligible for certain positions outside their region.
Does the President of the Treasury Board support this policy over changing the rules for access to the federal public service?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Treasury Board must clearly implement all laws that apply to its operations.
In the matter at hand, if my hon. colleague believes an impropriety has occurred, I would ask her to send me all the facts so I can see whether the legislation needs to be tightened.
Foreign AffairsMr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister had a choice. He had a choice between meeting with Mr. Wei, the father of the democratic movement in China, or to warmly welcome the oppressive communist vice-president of Cuba, Carlos Lage. The prime minister chose to meet Castro's henchman.
How could the government justify this choice by the Prime Minister?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wei Jingsheng met with two ministers of the present government and appeared as a witness before the standing committee on foreign affairs.
The vice-president of Cuba came here to sign two treaties with the Canadian government, one of them an anti-hijacking treaty and the other, an air transport agreement.
We will continue our constructive engagement with Cuba. We do not make invidious comparisons. Does the hon. member want us to join Jesse Helms?
Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition met with Mr. Wei, the Nobel prize nominee. The Minister of Foreign Affairs snuck Mr. Wei up the backstairs to his MP office. He did not even give him the courtesy of an official meeting.
It is important that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs hear the other side of the human rights issue in China. Why will the government not admit exactly what its choices are?
Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, there are no back doors to the foreign ministry. The minister is up front in meeting people. I say again the minister met with Wei Jingsheng—-
Bob Mills: He met him in his MP office. The Prime Minister was too busy.
Ted McWhinney: We will continue our policy of constructive engagement with China. We are maintaining an administration of justice program. We are training Chinese judges. We are training Chinese police officials.
Let us face it. We do not make invidious comparisons. We apply human rights to every government we deal with.
Citizenship And Immigration ActMrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In response to the publication of the Trempe Report on January 6, the focus of which was an in-depth revision of the Citizenship and Immigration Act, the minister decided to hastily throw together eight days of consultations in eight Canadian cities, refusing any involvement by MPs.
What is the minister's reply to the 30 or so bodies, headed by the Canadian Council for Refugees, who are calling for her to extend the consultations so that the process—
The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the new Bloc Quebecois immigration critic, who has just replaced the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in that position.
We have indeed just extended the duration of the consultations on the immigration report I received. We have added one day in Vancouver, one in Toronto and one in Montreal.
I am also pleased to announce to the House that one day will be added in Ottawa and one in Edmonton.
Canada's Asbestos IndustryMr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last month the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe recommended that member states eliminate the use of asbestos products. That recommendation is very likely to result in the devastation of the asbestos industry in Canada.
Can the Minister of International Trade tell this House how the Government of Canada intends to protect Canada's asbestos industry?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister intervened on a number of occasions on behalf of the industry at the highest levels of government in both France and Britain. We continue to believe that through continued diplomatic efforts the safe use of asbestos can be promoted.
The minister believes that the playing of politics with this issue can cause enormous damage in achieving our common objective. The best strategy, we believe, is to pursue a common front among all stakeholders.
EmploymentRob Anders: Mr. Speaker, the snack pack likes its bacon but when it comes to pork we raise our forks to the Liberals.
Who is the latest to leave the sty for the public trough? His name is Stephen Gaon. He was the riding president for Ottawa South, the home riding of the Minister of Industry. Mr. Gaon is now a chairperson of the EI board of referees.
My question is for the little minister who went to market. There are millions of Canadians who need work. Do they need a Liberal Party membership to qualify for the Liberals' promise of jobs, jobs, jobs?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about somebody who is giving up his time two or three days a month to act in a temporary capacity, helping to deal with appeals on employment insurance matters.
Surely the hon. member should praise that type of activity. The person appointed is a person of competence. If the person had Liberal credentials at one time that does not make him less competent, any more than being a Reform person makes a person competent.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal cabinet just keeps on dishing out pork patronage appointments and the little piglets keep on chowing down.
What a coincidence that in the city of Edmonton, a city of 800,000 people, one person qualifies to be on the National Parole Board, Elizabeth McKall, the wife of the riding president in the justice minister's riding. It is slim pickings for Liberal patronage appointments in Alberta these days.
To the little minister who ran all the way home to appoint her riding president's wife to a patronage position, will the Liberals' job creation strategy ever include a Canadian who does not slurp at the party trough?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, when we deal with appointments we are dealing with matters of merit. If my hon. friend does not accept that then he is insulting his own former colleague, Colonel Jack Fraser.
Multilateral Agreement On InvestmentMr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it took the Minister for International Trade less than 20 hours to do a complete flip-flop on protecting culture. Yesterday he unequivocally stated to the House that he would walk away from the table unless there was a complete carve-out for culture on the MAI.
This morning he contradicted his comments to the House by stating that he would instead be fine with a country specific reservation, which we all know means little or nothing.
Was the government being up front with Canadians yesterday, or did the minister's comments this morning show what is really in store for Canadian culture?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, no deal has been signed. It is under negotiation. The basic point about our position, which the minister stated more than once in the House of Commons, is that if it is not a good deal we will not be signing it.
Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. protects its shipbuilding workers and their families with the Jones act while over 7,000 shipyard jobs have been lost in Canada recently.
Will the government formally guarantee at the moment that the MAI will not prevent Canada from developing a national shipbuilding policy to put people in Nova Scotia and elsewhere back to work?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, there is a shipbuilding policy. It includes very generous write-offs for depreciation. It includes a very high tariff structure and it includes procurement preference for Canadian built ships.
Nothing in the proposed agreement would imperil any of those measures.
National DefenceMr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of National Defence said he was sending the Toronto within missile range with the crew partially immunized against anthrax.
It is not like 1991 when Canada played an important role. The government has cut the military so much in the last four years that now we are only there for moral support. We are sending one 30 year old helicopter so there is no rush.
Will the minister assure Canadians that the Toronto will not enter missile range until the vaccine has taken full 100% effect?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence did say something. He said there was a series of inoculations. Protection starts with the very first one and builds up until there is very substantial protection.
Meanwhile when the last one has been given the antibiotics take over and there is full protection for our soldiers, sailors and airmen.
However I would like to say this. What is the point here? Is the opposition trying to score points for scaremongering? It knows that what we have in place is a first class protection agency.
David Price: Mr. Speaker, we are not scaremongering. We are asking serious questions.
I have here the vaccine manufacturer's instructions to the U.S. forces. It states:
If a person has not previously been immunized against anthrax, injection of this product following exposure—will not protect against infection.
Sending the Toronto within missile range is totally irresponsible, especially when there is complete protection available. I beg the minister to reconsider and hold Toronto until the vaccine takes full 100% effect.
John Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we have recently placed a doctor on board the Toronto . The practice of ongoing nuclear, biological and chemical warfare is part of operation procedures for all soldiers and sailors going overseas and a fundamental part of the training of all our people in the forces.
The protective clothing equipment given to our sailors, soldiers and airmen is world class equipment. It will give protection to both hands and body. They are given instruction on how to decontaminate one another.
While the members of the Conservative Party are playing loose politics—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Mount Royal.
JusticeHon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some courts have now ruled the law on access to the counselling records of sexual assault complainants unconstitutional while others have rendered a different verdict. They have upheld that legislation.
What will the Minister of Justice do to bring consistency so as to protect the right to privacy for sexual assault complainants, privacy which once lost cannot be regained?
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
We are very pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided to give leave to appeal to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in the Mills case. This case concerns the constitutionality of Bill C-46, a very important piece of legislation for victims of sexual assault which the government introduced in the last parliament and for which certain lower court decisions have led to uncertainty.
We would like to assure everyone that we will be supporting the leave to appeal Bill C-46 in the supreme court. We will intervene in order to uphold this very important piece of the legislation which strikes the right balance between victims rights—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
EmploymentMr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Human Resources Development has appointed John Murphy, a faceless, defeated Liberal backbench MP, to the National Council of Welfare.
This individual lacks the aggressive smarts to follow other defeated Liberal maritime MPs to the huge pork barrel, so he will get a $250 a day consolation prize, which is not bad.
Is this part of the minister's Atlantic jobs strategy?
Bob Nault: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear to the hon. member that the member to whom he talked that was in his place last term is also in his previous profession a health practitioner and one who has a significant amount of experience in this field.
For the member to besmirch this man's reputation is uncalled for, based not only on his education but his background in this field.
Airport SecurityMr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
There is a double standard in Canada. While the airports in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto and Ottawa are served by the municipal police, in Quebec it is the RCMP.
Since renovations at the Dorval terminal are now complete, when will the minister permit the ADM to put out tenders so security will be provided by local police forces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we intend to keep the RCMP at the airports in Montreal.
Revenue CanadaLorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to wake up the Minister of National Revenue if I can and ask him a question.
Internal reports from his department say that about $2 billion in tax revenue will be lost in this fiscal year because of a shortage of auditors, a problem that was pointed out by the auditor general just recently. This money could be spent on health and education.
What action does the minister plan to collect this $2 billion, or is he just going to throw up his hands and say hey, what's $2 billion?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the good work our auditors do in Revenue Canada. Last year we were able to bring in $5.4 billion due to their good work.
We are continuing to hire new auditors. If the hon. member is saying we should hire more, we will.
One of the reasons we are working on the agency is to give us flexibility so that we can more quickly respond to our human resources needs and quickly respond and hire more people when we need them and not have to wait for long periods of time.
I very much support the hon. member. We are working to do that.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, in mid-December 1997 Revenue Canada announced to many owners of fishing vessels in West Nova that they were now responsible for CPP contributions on behalf of their crew members, retroactive to January 1, 1997. This sudden change in policy will have an enormous financial impact on the industry. Layoffs have already been announced.
Will the Minister of National Revenue re-examine this decision and invite his officials to meet with the fishing industry to negotiate a more equitable start-up date.
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the representations of the hon. member, look at the issue and get back to him.
We at Revenue Canada are very sensitive to the fishing industry and want to ensure that we are fair in our assessment. We will work toward ensuring that we comply fully and are sensitive to their concerns.
Atomic Energy Control BoardMr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The Atomic Energy Control Board recently said that Ontario Hydro's failure to show detailed plans on how it will improve deteriorating nuclear safety is entirely unacceptable.
What exactly is the minister doing to ensure that the Atomic Energy Control Board is doing everything in its power to restore faith and confidence in Ontario Hydro?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the control board is currently satisfied that Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities are being operated safely, but it has called for significant improvements in management and operations to ensure that the required margins of safety will not be compromised in future.
At the request of the AECB, the chairman of Ontario Hydro will attend the next control board meeting, which is scheduled for February 19 in Ottawa. The public may be assured that the AECB will monitor the situation very closely. If there is any evidence to cause any source of concern, the control board will not hesitate to impose restrictions.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Bruce Starlight wrote to the minister of Indian affairs last year, only to be betrayed and have his letter leaked. The minister is now investigating herself.
Yesterday we asked if the report of this investigation would be tabled. The government said it was concerned that this would be subject to the privacy act and may violate the privacy act.
Why is the government attempting to hide behind the privacy act to protect itself when it obviously had no concern for Bruce Starlight's privacy? Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit here and now in this House to table this investigative report when it is finalized?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is quite wrong. The minister is not investigating herself. She has called in an outside investigator because she is concerned as are all members of this House about this totally unauthorized leak of this letter.
We have also said that once the investigation is complete it is our intention to make the report public to the extent that we are entitled to do so under the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act. We are bound by the rule of law. I do not know why the Reform Party, who keeps calling for respect for the rule of law, wants it to be ignored in this serious matter.

Routine Proceedings
Ways And MeansPaul Martin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, along with explanatory notes.
I ask that you designate an order of the day for consideration of the motion.
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Peter Adams (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 eight petitions.
Committees Of The HousePeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding amendments to the Standing Orders in accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii).
Mr. Speaker, as you know, joint committees are established from time to time. Because each of the chambers has its own procedural rules, problems have developed in the past. The proposals that the committee is presenting to the House today will in our view help solve problems that may arise.
Canadian Bill Of RightsMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-319, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to education).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will make education a right for every child until they turn 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-320, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to literacy).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to ensure that youth and children have a right to literacy.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Immigration Enforcement Improvement ActJanko Peric: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Immigration Act (improvement of enforcement in the case of those who commit offences).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce my private member's bill known as the immigration enforcement improvement act, which died on the Order Paper when the 35th Parliament was dissolved.
I first introduced this bill following the 1994 Toronto murders of Georgina Leimonis and police constable Todd Baylis. The bill died on the Order Paper and I am asking for unanimous consent to send this bill back to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have to wait to make his request until after the bill is introduced.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has requested the unanimous consent of the House that the bill be now read a second time and referred to a committee. Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Income Tax ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-322, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (donors to food banks).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will make the donation of non-perishable goods to food banks tax deductible.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-323, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for mental or physical impairment).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will make a tax credit available to people who take care of those with mental or physical impairment.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
National Literacy Standards ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-324, an act to establish national literacy standards across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure we have a national literacy standard across Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Education Standards ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-325, an act to establish national standards across Canada for education provided by the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure we have a national education standard across the provinces in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canadian Bill Of RightsMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-326, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to housing).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that every Canadian has a right to housing.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Bank ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-327, an act to amend the Bank Act (definition of “infant”).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that the Bank Act is consistent with Canada's commitment to the United Nations in 1989 concerning the definition of a child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Bills Of Exchange ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-328, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (definitions of “infant” and “minor”).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will change the definition of a child to anyone under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Business Corporations ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-329, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act (definitions of “infant” and “minor”).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will change the definition of a child to anyone under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Divorce ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-330, an act to amend the Divorce Act (definition of “child”).

Mr. Speaker, this will change the definition of a child from someone under the age of 16 to someone who is under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Pension PlanMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-331, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (definition of “child”).

Mr. Speaker, this bill is similar to the bill that was introduced just a minute ago.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Health ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-332, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (definition of “child”).

Mr. Speaker, this bill also will ensure that a child is anyone who is under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Shipping ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-333, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (definitions of “child” and “infant”).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that this Canadian legislation is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Student Loans ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-334, an act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act (definition of “full age”).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that the definition of full age as stated in this legislation is the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Cooperative Associations ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-335, an act to amend the Canada Cooperative Associations Act (definition of “infant”).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of this bill, the word infant would mean anybody under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada-United Kingdom Civil And Commercial Judgments Convention ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-336, an act to amend the Canada-United Kingdom Civil and Commercial Judgments Convention Act (definition of “infant” in matters originating in Canada).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will remove the contradiction between these different legislations so they will be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Corrections And Conditional Release ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-337, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (definition of “child”) .

Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that the interpretation of the term child means anyone under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Excise Tax ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-338, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (definition of “adult”).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will change the term adult in this legislation to mean anyone who is over the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-339, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (definition of “child”).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that this legislation is consistent with the UN convention on the rights of the child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Divorce ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-340, an act to amend the Divorce Act (right of spouses' parents to access to or custody of child).

Mr. Speaker, this is something like the fifth attempt in this Parliament to change Canadian laws, in particular the Divorce Act, to ensure that grandparents have the right to find out about the well-being of their grandchild.
I would like to mention articles V, XVI and XIX of the convention on the rights of the child which was adopted by the United Nations in 1989 and accepted in Canada in 1991. The articles state specifically that the child is entitled to have access to his or her extended family, which includes grandparents. Presently in Canada our laws do not permit grandparents to have access.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Transportation ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-341, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (definition of “adult”).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that anybody under the age of 18 is defined as a child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Criminal CodeMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-342, an act to amend the Criminal Code (definition of “child”).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will also ensure that the UN convention on the rights of the child is respected and the definition of a child will be changed to anyone who is under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a rare occasion that I stand to defend the right of NDP members, but this is their supply day. I wonder whether we could have unanimous consent that all these bills be deemed introduced as if they would have been read in the House and printed in the record.
The Deputy Speaker: That is an excellent suggestion.
Does the House give its consent that the remaining bills standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre be deemed to have been given leave to be introduced, read for the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the House?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canadian Child Rights ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act entitled the Canadian child rights act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canadian Forces Superannuation ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Carriage by Air Act, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the Criminal Code, the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Territorial Lands ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-346, an act to amend the Territorial Lands Act (definition of “adult”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Interpretation ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-347, an act to amend the Interpretation Act (definition of “child”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Extradition ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-348, an act to amend the Extradition Act (definition of “child”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Government Employees Compensation ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-349, an act to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act (definition of “infant”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Hazardous Products ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-350, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (definition of “child”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Indian ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-351, an act to amend the Indian Act (definition of “infant child”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-352, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (definition of “child”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Insurance Companies ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-353, an act to amend the Insurance Companies Act (definition of “infant”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Land Titles ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-354, an act to amend the Land Titles Act (age of majority and definition of “infant”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Pension Fund Societies ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-355, an act to amend the Pension Fund Societies Act (definition of “minor child”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Privacy ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-356, an act to amend the Privacy Act (definition of “minor”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Wages Liability ActMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-357, an act to amend the Wages Liability Act (definition of “adult”).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Markham ResolutionElinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I would request the unanimous consent of the House to table a resolution from the town of Markham which I referred to in my statement earlier today and I ask that it be distributed to all members.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table the document she referred to during her statement under Standing Order 31?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PetitionsMs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from residents of New Brunswick. “We the undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following: that the Canadian Human Rights Act includes provisions to end pay discrimination against women by making equal pay for work of equal value the law”.
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. The rules provide that she may give a brief summary of the petition, but she is not to read the petition and I would urge her to comply with the rules in that regard.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, a Canadian human rights commission tribunal has ruled that the results of the study are reliable and that petitioners call on Parliament to put an end to this pay discrimination by implementing the results of the joint study through negotiations with the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the union representing those workers.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition from 27 people in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap. These people point out that the best way to deal with nuclear weapons is to do away with them entirely.
Therefore they ask Parliament to support an immediate start of an international convention which will create a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
Questions On The Order PaperPeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 18 will be answered today. .[Text]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: How much has the government spent implementing all the provisions passed in Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, which received royal assent (Chapter No. 53) on November 8, 1995; and ( a ) provide an accounting of how this money has been spent; ( b ) provide information on how many federal employees are working on the implementation of this statute and what part of it they are working on; and ( c ) provide a revised estimate of the total cost and number of federal employees needed to implement the provisions of this statute in each province and territory?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): The Firearms Act received royal assent December 5, 1995. To date, the government has expended $34.3 million on the implementation of this legislation. Monies expended to date have been utilized for the design and development of the new Canadian firearms registration system, CFRS, for the development of communications vehicles to make the requirements of the new legislation understood by firearms owners and for associated program administration and liaison costs with federal-provincial-territorial partners.
At the present time, 53 federal Department of Justice employees are working on the implementation of this statute at the Canadian firearms centre, CFC. The overall salary cost to date for 1997-98 is $1.9 million.
No federal employees would be involved in the administration of the Firearms Act within the provinces and territories under normal circumstances. However, in view of the position taken by the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, we are developing plans with the RCMP for the provision of administrative services within those jurisdictions. These plans are not yet complete and, accordingly, the specific resources required to perform the required work and costs related thereto are not known at this time.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the poverty issue, which is brought into focus by the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party, especially since this year is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. This declaration sets out the basic social and economic rights that should be guaranteed to ensure that the most basic needs of every human being are met.
Must I remind the federal government that, under the agreements signed in Copenhagen in 1995, it is required to find concrete ways in which to improve the living conditions of the poorest of the poor in Canada. We must recognize that, as noble as the words may be, reality is distressing and this government is more concerned with its visibility than with the need to put up a real fight against poverty.
To better understand this reality, let me briefly describe the situation with respect to poverty and then outline government actions that make the situation worse. The Bloc Quebecois has suggestions to make and I will suggest a few solutions.
It will become obvious, in comparing the actions taken by this government and the solutions put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, that two diametrically opposed visions are taking shape in Canada regarding the distribution of wealth. Two different readings which clearly illustrate that there is one country but two peoples, as well as the necessity for Quebec to attain sovereignty.
In my riding of Québec, poverty has a face and a name. It is a reality we face every day. In some districts, the unemployment level exceeds 15%.
On top of this high unemployment rate, there is an increase in the number of welfare recipients. This sad reality impacts on our socio-community organizations and our soup kitchens, whose mission it is to alleviate poverty, but who have great difficulty keeping abreast of the demand.
The first victims of this tragedy are children, young people and women. We must not forget the too many families living below the poverty line, either. Need I remind you that 20% of the population of Canada lives below the poverty line.
It is all very well to support “zero tolerance” of poverty, but what strikes me as essential are the concrete actions that must be taken to improve the situation of the most disadvantaged.
When we speak of concrete actions, we mean such things as remedying the inequality of taxation practices, not taxing low wage earners to death and encouraging job creation. Canada's track record as far as poverty is concerned is not as great as this government would have us believe. Canada ranks 2nd out of 14 industrialized countries where poverty is concerned. Canada has the lowest basic child allowance.
The problem is equally dramatic where young people are concerned. Of the 400,000 Quebeckers without jobs in 1995, 35% were young people between the ages of 15 and 29. And for all kinds of family, the 25 and under category is far and away the poorest.
I would like to remind the House what the present government has done to put its fiscal house in order. In their single-minded battle to bring down the deficit, the Liberals have turned a blind eye to poverty since they took office in 1993. I would even go so far as to say that the measures they have introduced have played a large role in widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
In order to put their fiscal house in order, here is what the Liberals have done. First, they have cut provincial transfer payments in such key areas as health, education and income security. During its two terms in office, the Liberal government has cut social transfers by $42 billion. Cuts to transfer payments to the provinces represent 54% of all cuts by the present government between 1994 and 1998. And although the government forecast spending cuts of 19%, actual cuts were only 9%.
In addition, they savagely attacked the unemployed. Over the last year, the Liberal government has recovered $1.5 billion on the backs of the unemployed by tightening the EI rules.
They raised taxes and increased tax revenue by refusing to index tax tables, GST credits, and the child tax benefit. Measures such as these saved this government $2 billion.
That is what the Liberal government has done. Briefly, its savings come from $46 billion in cuts on the backs of the most disadvantaged members of society. That is how they have reduced their deficit. Bluntly put, they have reduced their deficit on the backs of the provinces, the unemployed and the poor, not to mention the middle class, which is steadily losing ground.
The Bloc Quebecois has some suggestions. As the Liberal government gets ready to bring down the budget, the Bloc Quebecois is proposing a number of measures that would protect the public from new rounds of slashed social programs, improve the situation of the most disadvantaged and ensure a better distribution of resources.
We are therefore calling on the government to avoid the temptation to do something visible at all costs by instituting new social measures that would duplicate and overlap what is already being done provincially and that would ultimately penalize those whose need is greatest.
We are asking the government to give the provinces tax points as reimbursement for the amounts kept back during the Liberal's first term from the health, education and social welfare transfers. The provinces are in a better position than the federal government to provide sustainable and reasonable solutions to people's problems.
We are asking the government to change the employment insurance plan. The Bloc wants the employment insurance fund to be kept separate from the government consolidated fund. It also wants half of the annual surplus in the account to be used to reduce contributions and the other to go to improving the current system and supporting the efforts of small and medium size business to preserve and create jobs.
We can never say it enough. The unemployment insurance fund must be returned to workers and not used to reduce the deficit.
We are asking the government to make targeted income tax reductions. Tax tables, GST credits and child tax credits must be re-indexed to inflation.
We must remember that, because the credit is not indexed, 50,000 children are no longer entitled to the maximum benefit each year and its value has decreased for those families continuing to receive it.
What is more, 840,000 low income families have begun to pay tax because tax levels and personal exemptions are not indexed.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the New Democratic Party's motion, but it reminds members of this House that Quebec will have a tax policy that will enable it to really fight poverty, once it has the tools. The day may not be so far off.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate which was introduced by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. We have heard from all parties in this House at the present time.
Before they go on with further talk, we should look at what measures have been taken by places in Canada, in the United States and around the world to deal with this particular problem. In North America we will find that the people who have the lowest unemployment and the people who are giving and entertaining the most employment are governments that have taken a look at their tax structure. They have the best employment.
I want to refer the member for Qu'Appelle to my province of Saskatchewan—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, questions and comments should be directed to the hon. member for Quebec.
Roy H. Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, they look alike. We have a government that has sold many of its crown corporations. It has lowered the taxes to multinational corporations. It has lowered the taxes in potash. It has lowered the taxes in oil and thus Saskatchewan is almost parallel to Alberta in having the highest employment. This comes by governments lowering taxes, thus feeding the industry and thus creating jobs. You do not create jobs by continuing high taxation. That is the point we have to get across.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the hon. member for Quebec responds I remind members to address each other through the Chair.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, you are going to confuse him. He cannot look at two people at the same time.
I fully agree that the taxation system must be reviewed, but there must also be a sensitivity toward the working poor, those whose earnings keep them below the poverty level. What the Bloc Quebecois is calling for is a review of the taxation system. We are, therefore, most anxious to see the Minister of Finance bring down his budget, so that we can implement real solutions to the problems people are facing, the least advantaged of our society in particular.
Job creation is the real solution to poverty, full time and well paying work. We know, for instance, that earning the minimum wage will not get a person above the poverty line. That is where the problem lies. Often people do have jobs, but these do not pay enough to provide them with a certain quality of life. The Liberal government should review its taxation system, not overtax low wage earners, and tie its taxation system to the cost of living.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member for Quebec's comments. She talked about many things.
I want to remind the member and members of this House that when it was time to get our house in order, when it was time to make sure we could get the deficit down to zero, and hopefully we will see that soon, measures were taken. For example, we introduced a new tax treatment of child support.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Thirty-eight tax raises.
Walt Lastewka: I did not interrupt you when you were speaking.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Quebec.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, since it has been in power, the Liberal Party has done nothing but add to the poverty in Canada, and the figures prove it.
When we refer to band-aid solutions, we are thinking for example of the Liberals' promise of $1.7 billion for children. The Liberals have got off to a slow start on this. They tell us that, this spring, they are going to put $850 million in, but there is already a deficit because there was a promise of $250 million relating to the child tax credit.
This is far lower than the amount required; at this time, the amount they would need to invest in the child tax credit is $1.2 billion.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Qu'Appelle which states:
That this House condemns the government for promoting an economy where a gap between the superrich and ordinary Canadian families is widening, risking the future of our youth, and strongly urges the government to introduce in the coming budget measures ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new prosperity.
Of course the timing of the resolution is very good when in a few days, February 24, the Minister of Finance will table the first budget in nearly 25 years, 16 of which the Liberal Party held power, in which the country's debt will not increase. That is a very compelling statement, that the Liberals have been in power 16 years of the last 25.
The Progressive Conservative Party is urging this government to take immediate action to address a number of social and economic factors now facing Canadians. We are asking the government to reverse the pattern of governing by reactionary measures, crisis management and economic tinkering that has become the norm for this government.
It has been said before but I think it is worth repeating that Liberal governments do not plan to fail, they just fail to plan.
This year's budget will be another example of what has become a Liberal tradition, no doubt. They will promise the voters the world and then not too long after we will see flip-flop after flip-flop after the positive media coverage has ended.
Examples of Liberal flip-flops include scrapping the GST. Now the Liberals claim that tax. The Prime Minister now claims the GST was his tax and is his tax. They flip-flopped on renegotiating the NAFTA treaty. They are now so keen on NAFTA that they want to expand and increase trade throughout the world. Of course we all remember the flip-flop of scrapping the Pearson airport redevelopment project. Most recently, Canadians have been reminded about the flip-flop the Prime Minister has done on writing a cheque for zero helicopters.
We all remember the Prime Minister saying how he was going to write zero to helicopters, zero helicopters. We know now the bill for Canadians. We know now how big the cheque Canadians must write is for zero helicopters.
Meanwhile Canadians have the highest personal income taxes among the G-7 nations. Canadians have actually become poorer while the Liberals have been in office. Disposable income among Canadians has decline by 1.3% since 1993 when this Liberal government came to power.
By the way, I have another interesting statistic. The average American is now 25% richer than the average Canadian. The average American manufacturing worker is paid $1 more than his or her Canadian counterpart. These are interesting facts and these things have taken place since 1993.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are preparing to announce the details of the new millennium scholarship fund next Tuesday afternoon, I am told. We are going to get details from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance next Tuesday afternoon on the new millennium scholarship fund. Of course the government is hoping that this program will initiate the formation of the Prime Minister's legacy as the education Prime Minister.
In reality it is another Liberal gimmick. They have inadequately addressed a major social and economic issue but have given the appearance that action has been taken. They will not address the real issue here.
The expected $3 billion scholarship fund represents just a small portion of what the Liberal government has cut from the cash portion of CHST payments to the provinces. The Liberals have cut $17.3 billion from the cash portion of the CHST over the past five years. Now they are going to invest $3 billion back into the system for a scholarship fund and they expect Canadians to congratulate them. I am one who will not be congratulating the government on its reinvestment. I am sure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not be congratulating it either. They have watched the Minister of Finance cut our cash portion of the CHST from $419 million in 1993 down to $275 million in 1998.
The students in Newfoundland and Labrador have felt these cuts as well. A recent study by the maritime provinces higher education commission found the effects of the cuts to be devastating on Atlantic students. In 1993 there were eight students in the Atlantic region with a student debtload of $30,000. Today, thanks to the Liberal cutbacks which have forced universities to raise tuition fees and driven education costs higher, there are 904 students with a debtload greater than $30,000. This administration should be proud of that, especially the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. What a statistic of failure.
The millennium scholarship fund as currently proposed will not solve the structural problem of student debt levels that are too high. It will do nothing for students already in the Canada student loans system who are carrying huge debtloads. So let us hope the Minister of Finance has some options and answers in his budget that will come down on the 24th.
We should forget about making the millennium scholarship wholly contingent on marks and performance. Eligibility for part of the scholarship should be based on financial need. No one can argue that excellence is great but with the debt situation facing Canadian students today, access is better.
Canada continues to have a youth unemployment rate of 15.9%. The Liberal policy to maintain high payroll taxes and high income taxes runs counter to the most basic of free market logic. By reducing EI premiums to offset the CPP tax hike and lowering income taxes, this government could spur job creation. Our party has called on the government to increase the basic income tax credit from $6,459 to $10,000 a year. This would allow lower income families to have more disposable income which they could spend as they saw fit.
If the Minister of Finance is so worried about poor children and poor families he need look no further than his own tax system for the answer. As the gentleman behind me said, if you tax people less, they won't be so poor. That is something this Minister of Finance, this Prime Minister and this Liberal government have somehow forgotten.
To further strengthen the economic situation of Canadians, the Liberal government should re-evaluate its plan to overhaul the seniors benefit program, an issue that will soon be a very hot topic throughout this country. The Liberals' current proposal is to abolish old age security, the pension income tax credit, the age credit and the guaranteed income supplement and replace them all with the new seniors benefit.
This benefit will have a 20% clawback on incomes above $26,000. When combined with the existing marginal tax rates, this will result in a marginal tax rate of between 60% and 70% for middle income seniors. This will destroy any incentive to save for retirement and seriously discourage seniors from working even part time after retirement.
A senior remaining in the labour force past 65 years of age could be working for as little as 30 cents on the dollar. That is what the new seniors benefit will do.
Very few seniors have any knowledge of these changes and what impact they will have. Before long it will become perfectly clear what the impact will be. I expect there will be tremendous pressure on the government to shelve the new seniors benefit package.
The major initiatives we have talked about, tax relief, protection of seniors benefits and student debt relief, will certainly foster economic growth and give the economic tools to all Canadians to prosper in the 21st century.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If a number of members wish to ask questions and comments, I ask them to stand so that the Chair will have some idea of the number of members who want to rise on questions and comments.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I commend the member from Newfoundland on his very progressive speech. I want to ask him a question about tax reform and trying to decrease the inequalities.
Back in October the revenue critic for the Reform Party said in the House that he thought millionaires were overtaxed, specifically that Conrad Black was overtaxed.
Does he agree with his cousins in the Reform Party that millionaires are overtaxed, that Conrad Black pays too much in taxes? Does he agree with his cousins in the Reform Party that they are overtaxed?
Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Qu'Appelle for his question but I have to correct him.
I am not that familiar with millionaires and the amount of tax they pay. I must correct him on referring to members to my immediate left as cousins. I assure him that I cannot speak for all the Conservative caucus but I can certainly speak for one. They are not cousins of mine.
I do not believe millionaires are too heavily taxed. If there is anyone who can afford to pay more taxes it is millionaires. As I said, coming from the province I come from and particularly representing the riding of Burin—St. George's, which is devastated right now because of the downturn and collapse of our ground fishery, I do not have that worry about the taxes the millionaires of Burin—St. George's have to pay.
Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member opposite in the Conservative Party speak earlier. I understand the Mulroney years is something they want to put behind them.
I want to relate my questions directly to two points. Does the member opposite agree or disagree that when his party was in office it raised unemployment four times and that since this government has been in office it has been reduced three times?
In addition, if I remember correctly, in the fall of 1993 the member opposite's party was forecasting the deficit to be around $30 million and it really came in at $42 million. Does he agree that really happened and that over the four years we have been able to take that deficit close to zero and hopefully soon to zero?
Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. member that the Mulroney government was not perfect. However, I have to remind him that neither is the present Liberal government close to perfect.
A Liberal member reminded me the other day how bad the Conservative government was. I said “Yes, in Canadians' wildest dreams they probably did not think they would see a government worse, but I am sorry to say they are seeing one right now sitting in the Chamber”.
As I said initially in the first paragraph of my speech, for 25 years the Liberals have been in power for 16 of the 25. For the first time the budget will not see an increase in the country's debt.
I look the hon. member straight in the face and say to him that he should say thank you for the Mulroney initiatives, the PC initiatives of GST and NAFTA. Without them this finance minister would not be bringing in the budget on February 24 that he will bring in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure hon. members would thank each other through the Chair.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make. It really makes me sad to see two political parties blame each other, considering the current impact of poverty. I feel a little uncomfortable to have to address, here in this House, an issue as serious as poverty.
We hear about the negative impact of the deficit and the debt. Let me tell the House about the negative impact of poverty. We should ask ourselves some tough questions, considering that one Canadian child in five goes to school on an empty stomach. These children cannot do well in school, because they are hungry, and yet this in one of the richest countries in the world. There is a delayed impact, since these young people are not able to go to school and get a solid education. I wonder what kind of society we will have 20 years from now.
My time is up, but I will get back to this issue.
Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick response for the Bloc member. We are all very concerned about poverty. It is a big problem in the country, particularly for children from poor families.
I have just one comment to make. If his party gets its way, I do not think it will do much to resolve the poverty situation. My prediction is that it will be much worse in his province than in other areas of the country.
Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I too commend the hon. member for Burin—St. George's on his speech. I know he is not a cousin of the Reform Party. I come from the island of Cape Breton and he comes from the island of Newfoundland. I suppose we could refer to ourselves almost as cousins. I should also indicate that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Churchill.
I say to the last speaker that those of us on the east coast, in Newfoundland, in Cape Breton, in New Brunswick and on Prince Edward Island understand perhaps too clearly the growing disparities in the country. That is part of the reason we brought forward the motion we have today. I am proud to speak to the motion on behalf of my party.
The upcoming budget presents an opportunity for the government to address the very real economic challenge of how to stop the disparity, the growing inequality between the super rich whose incomes have increased and other Canadians.
I am not only saying the poor, although we know the poorest of the poor continue their decline in income and in services. Today we are seeing that even the middle class is shrinking. We are seeing the middle class, young families and young single people working at part time jobs and trying to make ends meet. We see young people who are at a point in their lives when they should be leaving home, getting apartments and setting up their own independence, and they cannot afford to do it. They are staying at home with their parents who are seeing their own incomes shrink and their costs increase.
What is happening is clearly the rich is getting richer and the vast majority of Canadians is getting poorer. I am pleased to speak to this motion which states:
That this House condemns the government for promoting an economy where the gap between the super rich and ordinary Canadian families is widening, risking the future of our youth, strongly urges the government to introduce in the coming budget measures ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new prosperity.
The premier of Nova Scotia who called an election yesterday sometimes refers to members of our party as the doom and gloom people in his election rhetoric. We are talking about the new prosperity in the country.
We live in a prosperous country. We live in a country that is the envy in many ways of the world. That is why it is so inexcusable to have this growing gap between the rich and the poor. If the country were not as wealthy as it is, we could perhaps say our hands are tied and there is not much we can do. However, we live in a country with tremendous resources.
The Canada I grew up in was one that guaranteed quality universal health care. It was one that guaranteed quality affordable education to everyone. Had it not been for that, I am not sure many of us could be in the House today. Many of us are the products of those very good social programs.
It provided every citizen with an opportunity to earn a decent living, which is what Canadians want. Most Canadians are happy to have a good job and a good paycheque. They are not seeking to be millionaires. They are seeking to provide for their families, to be able to send their children to university, and to ensure that what we give to the next generation is at least as good as what was given to us.
My parents' generation grew up in a country where they could make a good and decent living. Each generation gave to the next hope and prosperity. That prosperity and that hope are no longer shared by all Canadians.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle mentioned some statistics. I will briefly refer to them because they are compelling statistics in this country of plenty. Today in Canada over half a million children live in poverty. The number of food banks in Canada has tripled and the proportion of the population relying on them has doubled.
I remember the first food bank in my community. It was a small little church hall called Loaves &amp; Fishes. It was supposed to be a temporary measure to get us through a recession of a couple of years. It began as churches were concerned about what they saw then, the growing number of poor. They were ahead of their time. The growing number of poor has increased to the point now where in this country of plenty food banks are institutionalized.
The hon. member indicated that our caucus met with representatives of the food banks. It is shocking to me that we now need a national organization representing people who run food banks. It is reminiscent of the dirty thirties.
In Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, where I come from, unemployment continues to be double the national average. This widening gap between the rich and the poor not only separates the population into classes. It is beginning to divide the country along regional lines. I indicated that those of us in Newfoundland and the east do not share in the prosperity of this new Canada which the government proclaims. In my community that has meant a decrease in the population of young people. In the last five years over 2,700 young people have left my community and will not come back.
What does that mean for the growing gap between the rich and the poor? It means that we have an older population and we do not have that youth and vitality creating new business, entering the workforce, purchasing, and creating jobs. This is because of policies of the government that encourage a migrant workforce. Young people would hop the train in Cape Breton if we still had it, but we do not any more. They rely on their thumb to get to somewhere else in the country where they might get a minimum wage job.
The Reform Party talks about Alberta and how it has done some wonderful things following a policy of lower taxes and supporting the very wealthy. Many of the young people who leave my island end up in Calgary in a minimum wage job without a bed to sleep in, if it were not for shelters, because they cannot afford the housing costs.
There are answers. One of them would be to change the GST the government adopted. The premier of Nova Scotia came to the government in November, although he supported the GST when he was on the Liberal benches. He asked the Minister of Finance to take it off heating oil and electricity. He failed in his request. That is one measure where we could have some progressive taxation policies by the government.
In terms of education, the comments from the member for Burin—St. George's echo the fact that more and more Atlantic Canadian students are simply not going to university. When the government says that education is a great leveller it is not happening for many students in the country.
For the young people of this nation, I ask for support of our motion.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of our motion.
The cuts that helped balance the budget have been harmful to Canadians and will have longstanding negative effects. We have seen the deconstruction of much of our social system in the fight against the deficit. Billions of dollars were withdrawn from the social envelope before and after the introduction of the Canada health and social transfer in 1995.
Equally serious was the loss of the Canada assistance plan. The war on the deficit was won largely on the backs of social programs. As a result, low and even middle income Canadians have borne the brunt of continued cuts to federal transfers.
By offloading part of its responsibility for social expenditures on to the provinces, for example, forcing unemployed Canadians to turn to welfare, the government might have spent less but poverty problems remain the same.
The government by its drastic cuts is ahead of schedule in its quest to balance the budget. It has cut too deep, yet still not deep enough for the Reform Party.
Reform has in its ongoing fanatical statements called New Democrats communists because we believe that government should reinvest in social programs, called New Democrats communists, why? Because we want a caring, just society.
I quote from the Saturday Star : “Canadian church leaders have launched a prebudget letter writing campaign to urge the finance minister to live up to his word and make Canada a caring society. The letters plead with the minister to use the expected tax dividend from a budget surplus to combat poverty. The needy are now being marginalized and even abandoned by callous provincial governments such as Ontario's which are obsessed with pushing through big income tax breaks for high income Canadians”.
The Ottawa Citizen states: “Canadian religious leaders have launched an unprecedented challenge to the finance minister to live up to his own promise and make Canada a caring society. For the first time ever the Canadian Council of Churches, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Reform Council of Judaism are together urging the Liberal government to launch a campaign against poverty in its February budget”.
I wonder if these church leaders know that the Reform Party considers them communists.
Let me quote the Caledon Institute of Social Policy: “Ottawa now has a wonderful opportunity to reinvest and rebuild not the social system of the past but the better and new system of the future, geared to the economy and society facing us in the next century. It is time to reinvest in making Canada a better place to live for all Canadians in a fair chance for all Canadian children, in healthier, safer communities and in reducing the growing inequality that threatens to turn our country into two nations, the invidious two nations of affluent and poor. It is time to reinvest the peace dividend from the war against the deficit and build the social base of our country”.
My colleagues from the NDP and I share this belief that it is time to reinvest in social programs. The coming budget should introduce measures to ensure every Canadian the opportunity to share in a new prosperity through renewed investment in health care, education and other vital programs.
The gap between the super rich and ordinary Canadian families is widening. Since 1989 that gap has grown. Average family incomes have fallen by roughly 5%. The number of poor children grew by 47%. The number of Canadians filing for personal bankruptcy has tripled.
When I was in my early teens I read an article in which Mother Teresa was being interviewed. The journalist asked Mother Teresa what she would do about poverty. Her response was that government should look after poverty and she would look after the poor. Mother Teresa will always be with us through her efforts in spirit and there will be those who continue to look after the poor, but this government appears to have given up on the war on poverty.
Young Canadians do not have much to look forward to. Youth unemployment is high at 16.5% last month. That is a lot of young persons whose first experience in the job market is no job. The reward for young graduates of university or college is not a decent job. It is a debt of $25,000 to $30,000. Affordability should be a national standard for education. Young people deserve the opportunity to learn, to develop skills, to build a future. We cannot afford to risk their future or ours by wasting their talents or by creating more financial barriers to education.
Youth unemployment deeply affects my riding in Manitoba. The average age of the aboriginal population is 10 years younger than the general population.
We welcome the government's statement of reconciliation, but this is only the first step. Young people in my riding and elsewhere in Canada deserve a better future. We are hoping that with the coming budget we will see concrete actions to improve the lives of young Canadians.
It is unacceptable that most aboriginal people are at or below the poverty line. In major western cities four times as many aboriginals as other citizens are below the poverty line. Unemployment does not only affect young people. It affected 8.9% of Canadians last month. But the official unemployment rate is just the tip of the iceberg of Canada's job crisis. Hundreds and thousands of Canadians have simply given up looking for work. When people give up looking, they are no longer included in the workforce. As far as Statistics Canada is concerned, they disappear from the labour market.
It is ironic that with so many unemployed people in Canada, the lucky ones who have jobs are working overtime. Statistics Canada published a document entitled “Hours of Work”. It documents the extent of total overtime work including unpaid overtime.
In any given week in the first three months of 1997, almost one in five, 18.6% of employees, worked overtime defined as time worked in excess of scheduled hours. On average, these workers put in almost nine additional hours, the equivalent of more than an extra day per week. The worst in this is that more overtime was unpaid than was paid. In any given week, 10.7% of employees worked unpaid overtime while 8.4% worked paid overtime and how interesting to find out that the unpaid overtime is particularly prevalent in the public services.
Another sad trend in the job market is multiple job holdings. A lot of Canadians need to work more than one job to afford the necessities of life. Five per cent of our labour force holds more than one job. A labour force survey shows that multiple job holders average more than 46 hours per week, this while the CEOs of some companies are bringing home enormous pay raises while their employees are struggling to make ends meet.
The richer are getting richer and ordinary Canadians are getting poorer. This is the Liberal legacy into the new millennium. There is no question that history should show the reign of the Liberals as the decline of a just and caring society.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from the NDP. Canadians know that maintaining a strong economy and providing opportunities is really critical for social success and for the success of so many of the issues she brought to the fore.
She did give us a whole list of grievances and things that are wrong in Canadian society and in the economy, but she did not give us any suggestions as to how we can deal with those issues.
It is so very easy to give us a long list of what is wrong or what she thinks is wrong. I wonder if she could tell us what is the NPD's position in the whole series of things that would help the economy, like NDP policy on trade promotion, NDP policy on access for small business enterprises, technology partnerships. Can she tell us the NDP's suggestions to the government as to what we can do to ensure that we give the economy the kind of energy it needs in order to respond to the whole list of issues she has outlined?
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the NDP has ever shirked from coming up with an alternative approach. Number one in our position has always been that the tax system in Canada is unfair. We do not believe we need to totally tax the horribly rich and everybody else does not want to pay their fair share.
Canadians want to pay their fair share for education, for health, for transportation, for social programs. What they do not want to pay for are things like an unfair tax system when one of Canada's supposedly finest, an Order of Canada recipient, transferred to relatives or turned over his assets into cash. The process involved more than just houses, cottages, mortgages, small commercial investments and condominium lots. Eagleson has also been selling furniture for many years. He collected valuable antiques for his office, depreciating them by 20% each year and then, when they were no longer deemed worth anything on paper, moving them into his homes. The Eaglesons furnished their Rosedale houses from 1976 to 1997. They have owned three pieces of English Gregorian mahogany furniture which were described by one of the experts as being high quality for Toronto.
What we are asking for is a fair system. All Canadians should pay fairly.
In Thompson recently the new tax changes on a $1,500 bursary—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and comments, the hon. member for Elk Island and, if there is time, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, there probably will be time because I intend to be brief.
First I would like to set the record straight for me and, I am sure, on behalf of my party. I can put some distance between me and the name calling which the hon. member claimed. It is false and I disagree with her.
I have many good friends who have an NDP philosophy. We have many good discussions. In fact some of them have more respect for me than I deserve. That is wonderful.
One of them said he voted for me because he thought I was worthy of the vote. I was very honoured by that. There were many NDP people in my riding who voted for Reform because they believed that our way of dealing compassionately with people in need is the better long term solution, and that is to give people personal integrity, more ability to help themselves and to help others by having smaller government and reducing taxes.
I challenge the member to try to put rhetoric aside and answer this question. It is a very serious question. The fact is when we have so much debt we are really taking all the taxpayers' money and one-third of the money that we take from them we transfer to the rich, namely the banks, the investment houses and so on, in terms of the interest payments on the amount we owe.
Surely she, as an NDP member, must be opposed to that transfer to the rich. I would like her response to that question.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the hon. member has just stated my point. The tax system has traditionally been unfair. It allows the very wealthy, through numerous loopholes, to not pay their fair share. As a result the rest of us ordinary Canadians are going to work and, without any grudge whatsoever, are willing to pay for education and health care. We are giving our dollars to the government and we expect it to deal with our dollars fairly.
That does not mean we want to give up education, health care and social programs. It means that we want this government to be held accountable. It does not mean we do not want those programs.
How on earth would Reform expect a country to survive if nobody but nobody paid for anything whatsoever to help each other?
Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I noticed there was a bit of a contrast between the previous two speakers. One member of the NDP talked about prosperity and how Canada is an enviable country, and then we heard the doom and gloom.
I want to ask the member a question on a specific item. I do not want her to go all over the place with her answer.
I am not clear on her comments with respect to overtime. Is it her position that there should be no overtime?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt, but the parliamentary secretary is on debate.
Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but it is Friday afternoon.
I welcome this opportunity to respond to the motion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. The motion urges the government to introduce measures in the upcoming budget to ensure that every Canadian has an opportunity to share in new prosperity.
Indeed, creating opportunity for Canadians has been a hallmark of this government since it took office. Over the last four years we have worked with Canadians to overcome our nation's economic challenges and to put in place a strong foundation for success in the knowledge based economy of the new millennium.
It is clear that when this government first took office the deficit was hovering around $42 billion.
Ken Epp: Talk about the debt.
Walt Lastewka: Something had to be done about the deficit. My colleague across the way wants to talk about the debt but I am sure he understands that you work on the deficit first and then on the debt.
Canada is poised to be a leader in this new economy. We have put our fiscal house in order. Interest rates are at historic lows and our inflation rate is among the lowest in the industrialized world. From a trade standpoint, we are one of the most open economies in the world. We have many improvements to make in terms of trade. We must get into the details and make sure the rules of trade are well understood and applied.
We have an opportunity to build upon this economic foundation to create a knowledge economy for the 21st century. We have the people and the resources, we have the institutions and we have research excellence. But having such assets is not enough. We all understand that. We must mobilize our resources toward a clear objective of being the best in the world.
When Parliament convened in September, our government set out its priorities for seizing the opportunities presented by the new economy. Our priorities focused on setting the conditions to create jobs and wealth in economic sectors ranging from high technology to services and primary resources.
One of our key goals is to make Canada the most connected country in the world and to make sure Canadians have access to the electronic highway and information economy by the year 2000.
Connecting Canadians is essential for jobs and growth. By being the most connected nation in the world, we will be helping youth, workers and firms acquire the skills needed for the knowledge economy. Improving competitiveness and productivity of Canadian firms in all sectors of the economy is most important. It is a real must that we make Canada a choice location for investment and create new markets and opportunities in a global economy. We must open these opportunities to our rural areas and the remote areas of our country. This includes our aboriginal communities.
Connecting Canadians will allow us to build from strength. It is well recognized that we have the overall best communications infrastructure among the G-7 nations. We are among the leaders in terms of penetration, quality, market development and rates. We have the lowest rates in the G-7.
Connecting Canadians will also redefine how governments provide services and interact with citizens. It will open new ways for citizens to express their views in a democracy.
Connecting Canadians has a strong social, cultural and unity element. It brings citizens together from coast to coast to coast in either official language. It gives our creative community a new vehicle for cultural expression.
We have already put in place many of the pieces for the connecting Canadians agenda. These initiatives embrace our government's commitment to help all Canadians access the information highway and develop the skills to use it no matter where they are.
There is the community access program, better known as CAP. By the year 2000-01 every Canadian rural community with more than 400 people will be plugged into the Internet. That is over 5,000 communities.
Our community access program is giving people in Canada's remote areas access to municipal, provincial and federal information services. It is helping them to learn the skills needed to compete in an information based economy. It is becoming a focal point for community partnerships and building on ramps to the information highway.
Another initiative is SchoolNet. By the year 1999 this joint program with the provincial governments and the private sector will make Canada the first country in the world to have all its schools and libraries connected to the Internet. SchoolNet is also about content and connecting Canadians.
Our SchoolNet web site includes a collection of Internet based educational services and resources for both teachers and students. It includes career guides and university and college course calendars, information readily available at their homes. There are thousands of teacher designed projects and lesson plans and virtual tours of institutions that range from the Louvre to the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
The SchoolNet digital collections program is also training young Canadians to provide innovative education material on line. To date, young Canadians across the country have participated in projects to digitize some 180 collections of historical and cultural significance.
Computers for schools is another initiative. Working in partnership with provincial governments and private sector partners, including the Telephone Pioneers, we are recycling used computers in schools and libraries. Later today the Prime Minister will celebrate the delivery of the 50,000th computer under this program. We have challenged corporate Canada to help us reach a target of some 250,000 computers by the year 2000. This program will allow people from all walks of life to have access to computers and to be able to learn about computers at a very young age. This is a must for the future.
The student connection program will hire 2,000 university and college students to help some 50,000 small and medium size businesses get connected to the Internet and train them how to use the Internet for their business. Many of the SMEs are learning that by being more flexible and being able to use the Internet they are actually getting into more business and more exports. The students have the opportunity to earn wages to defray their education costs while gaining valuable work experience with a community business.
Another initiative designed to help Canadian youth find jobs is the national graduate register. This Internet database is already becoming a valuable way for young people to post their resumés and for employers to find the skilled young people they need. It is getting more than 32,000 hits per day. May I repeat that it is getting 32,000 hits a day.
In the months ahead Canadians can look forward to new initiatives to expand our agenda for connecting Canadians and to build on the successes we have achieved and the partnerships we have forged with the provinces and with private enterprise.
Canada is well on its way to becoming a world-class connected country. We are accelerating our efforts to be the best in the world. Connecting Canadians is an integrated package where the whole is greater than the sum of its components and each element helps build the capacity of the others.
The agenda will enable Canada to be the recognized and acknowledged as the most connected country in the world. It will enable us to create new opportunities for learning and cultural expression, job creation and economic growth; economic growth by being aware and being right up to date on trade around the world, being up to date on technology around the world, and being closely connected with research being done around the world.
In a knowledge based economy our most important resources are people. That is why connecting Canadians is very important. It is about empowering Canadians and enabling them to take full advantage of all the economic, cultural, social and educational opportunities that the knowledge economy offers us.
Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a commentary with respect to the comments made by the previous speaker.
He spoke in detail about connecting Canadians. I would like to inform him that this morning I connected with some Canadians. I connected with some Canadians on the grounds outside this House. They were members of the Ottawa-Carleton Health Coalition.
These people are very concerned about the cuts in health care and the effect on the medicare system. Their theme was to put the heart back into medicare. This gathering was intended to attract members of Parliament, to have them there to hear the concerns. I did not notice too many members of Parliament but certainly those of us who were there did hear the concerns of connecting in a real way with Canadians.
It is all well and good to talk about technology and connecting Canadians through technology. I note that the hon. member mentioned 32,000 hits a day. To me that would certainly illustrate the high degree of unemployment and the high degree of need out there if 32,000 people a day are trying to contact people through this computer system.
I would like to hear the hon. member's comments with respect to connecting with Canadians in a way that deals with restoring medicare funding to the provinces to the previous level, enforcing the provisions of the Canada Health Act and the elimination of C-91 so as to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. How does the government intend to connect with Canadians in that way?
Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member opposite understands when there are 32,000 hits a day those are not only people looking for jobs, but employers searching the web to interview people.
That is what is happening today. Employers, whenever they have time to search the Internet, scan it to get resumés and information on people who are looking for jobs. It makes it easier for them. We put it in place so that the people looking for jobs and the employers who are going to hire the people can do so very quickly.
On the matter of C-91 we are in a period where information is required. The regulations have been gazetted. We have another two weeks to go before the end of the gazetting. I make it very clear that the C-91 debate was held openly. Almost 200 witnesses were in attendance. The member's party was absent most of the time. As far as I am concerned there was very little attendance by his party.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, since I started to speak, I thought there might have been another motion. I thought we were going to debate poverty, offer solutions, and see the government perhaps react to some of the suggestions we made to it during the debate.
I note that the hon. member across the floor has named several government programs, and that is exactly what we deplore, the fact that there have been $42 billion in cuts to provincial transfer payments for social assistance, health and education. At the same time, that same government is going to interfere in those same areas, which are provincial areas of jurisdiction.
We ask the hon. member if it would not be desirable for the provinces to be given back the amounts taken from them in the shameful cuts that have been made at the expense of the most disadvantaged members of the population, and of the population as a whole.
Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I see the member wants it both ways. Get involved but do not get involved. During the election it was made very clear that 50% would go against the debt and tax reduction and 50% would be spent on social programs and targeted programs for the good of Canadians, and that is the program for the government.
Canadians have said that over and over despite some people not agreeing with it. Canadians have said get rid of the deficit, work on the debt, but spend money on social programs and target programs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.30 p.m., it is my duty to indicate to the House that the deliberations on the motion are now terminated.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business
Louis Riel DaySuzanne Tremblay: moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should revoke the verdict of “guilty of high treason” pronounced on Louis Riel on August 1, 1885, and commemorate him by declaring November 16 of each year to be Louis Riel Day throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is to stress the importance of Louis Riel and his role in the fight for the rights of the Metis, francophones and westerners in Canada.
It is very much an issue, as the importance of resolving the Louis Riel issue was recognized in the Statement of Reconciliation between the federal government and the aboriginal peoples published on January 7.
Indeed, in this statement, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development wrote, and I quote:
No attempt at reconciliation with Aboriginal people can be complete without reference to the sad events culminating in the death of Métis leader Louis Riel. These events cannot be undone; however, we can and will continue to look for ways of affirming the contributions of Métis people in Canada and of reflecting Louis Riel's proper place in Canada's history.
I would like these fine words to be more than just talk for a change. Ever since coming to this place, I have been making representations to move the issue along and hopefully resolve the issue of Louis Riel's unfair conviction by moving, to date, four bills and one motion.
Each time, the government and the Liberal members of this place lauded my good intentions but defeated my every initiative. Each time, they said it was important something be done without ever specifying what this something should be or when it should be done.
Some even stooped to party politics, urging Metis groups not to support these initiatives on account of the fact they were put forward by a Bloc Quebecois member. They promised them that they would act. I would not play that game and publicly stated, on television, that I would support any initiative to fully clear Louis Riel. I also offered to withdraw my private member's bill as soon as a government bill was introduced.
But the Liberal government would rather continue playing its hypocritical game. This government claims to be open to all cultures, boasts about understanding and representing all Canadians, drafts statements of reconciliation with aboriginal peoples, but at the same time continues to ignore Metis demands in refusing to pardon and clear Louis Riel.
All parties in the House, however, say they want to pardon Louis Riel, and the list of their efforts to do so over the past 15 years is a long one.
In 1983 and 1984, two bills were introduced by the Conservative member for Edmonton East, Mr. Yurko. In 1984, two bills were introduced by the NDP member for Regina—Lumsden, Mr. Benjamin. In November 1985, on the 100th anniversary of Louis Riel's death by hanging, the Liberal member for Edmonton East, now the Minister of Canadian Heritage, also called for Louis Riel's pardon. In 1987, a bill was introduced by the NDP member for Kamloops, Mr. Riis. In 1989, the NDP member for Comox—Alberni, Mr. Skelly, introduced a motion calling for Louis Riel to be recognized as one of the Fathers of Confederation.
In 1992, the biannual Liberal Party convention passed a resolution concerning Louis Riel but, in 1997, it voted against a bill introduced by a Bloc member. On March 9, 1992, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion introduced by the then Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, Joe Clark, a Conservative.
Mr. Clark's motion, while highly laudable, was only a first step towards Louis Riel's pardon. Although the motion recognized Riel's role as the founder of Manitoba, it referred only briefly to his death.
Yet Riel led the same fight for the rights of Saskatchewans as he did for Manitobans. The only difference between these two struggles was that, in 1884 and 1885, the federal government decided to send in the army rather than negotiate with the population, thus causing a bloody confrontation, which culminated in the rigged trial of Riel and his death by hanging.
The treatment of Louis Riel is a very powerful symbol for the Métis people. With his death, the Métis lost all their rights, and recognition of these rights is inextricably linked with restoring their dignity. For, beyond land and monetary claims, a people's pride is bound up with their culture and history. Only a full pardon for Louis Riel will restore his honour and begin the healing process for the Métis people.
For the benefit of our viewers and of my colleagues who are new to Parliament, I will provide a brief portrait of Louis Riel so they may understand why, 113 years after his death and 154 years after his birth, this man is still the subject of so much talk. By the way, there is a snow sculpture at the exit just opposite Parliament of Louis Riel by the artist who did the statue of Louis Riel that is now behind the Manitoba legislature.
He was born in St. Boniface on October 22, 1844, the son of Jean-Louis Riel, whose grandmother was a Chipewa, and Julie de Lagimodière, whose mother was Indian. He was the oldest of a family of 11 and was sent to school at the Petit Séminaire de Montréal between 1858 and 1865. He was a gifted student, always the first in his class. He learned Greek, Latin, French, English and Cree.
In 1866, he returned to the Red River region and arrived in St. Boniface in July 1868. On his return, he discovered strong animosity between the newly arrived English Protestant colonists wanting to control the colony with the help of the central government and the Metis, French Catholics and English settlers already there.
That same year, the federal government bought the rights over the western territories from the Hudson's Bay Company. Unfortunately, it did not bother preparing the way for the change the jurisdiction and waiting for the inhabitants' approval of the new policy.
At the time, the 10,000 Metis in the Red River region lived as an independent people. They traded with the States more than they did with Canada. When their land was handed over to people in the east without any notice, their national pride was sorely hurt.
The situation was exacerbated by the arrival of the government surveyors, who imposed the new arrangement arrogantly, dividing up the lands, keeping the best for themselves or their friends and intimating that the legitimate owners would soon have to hand over their farms to the English colonists from the east.
The Métis decided to defend themselves, calling upon 21-year- old Louis David Riel, whom they trusted, to lead them. Riel took up the cause of his compatriots, protested against the surveyors' actions, and made claims against the federal Parliament.
In December 1869, the Hudson's Bay Company ceased to administer the country. Louis Riel then formed a provisional government, with Métis, English and French members, which was later approved by the cabinet in Ottawa. The federal government promised complete amnesty and compliance with the Métis' demands, but those promises were never kept.
Strong action on the part of Riel and the Métis and their list of rights forced the federal government of the day to grant provincial status to part of this territory, namely the district of Assiniboine, rather than make the west a mere territory under a governor appointed by Ottawa.
The 1870 Manitoba Act conferred bilingual status on the province's laws and courts, a dual denominational school system, and a legislative council.
In October 1871, supporters of annexation with the U.S. crossed the border and seized the post of Pembina. Riel recruited and organized a company of armed horsemen to defend the borders.
In 1872, Riel had a $5,000 price put on his head; he was accused of the murder of Thomas Scott, who had been sentenced to death by the provisional government. This forced him into exile in the United States.
In October 1873, Riel was elected to represent Provencher, and went to plead his case at Ottawa. This became impossible because he was under the threat of death or arrest.
When he was re-elected in February 1874, Riel went to Ottawa. He entered Parliament on March 30, disguised in a hood and escorted by the member for Rimouski, Jean-Baptiste-Romuald Fiset, and signed the register. He was expelled under a motion tabled by the Ontario Orangemen. In September 1874, he was again re-elected for Provencher, but was expelled from the House a second time. In February 1875, Prime Minister Mackenzie granted him amnesty, provided he went into exile for five years.
In 1876, Riel was committed, first in Montreal and then in Quebec City, for hallucinations, believing he had been entrusted with a divine mission to defend the Métis. He returned west in 1878. In 1881, he settled in Montana, where he married Marguerite Monet and fathered three children.
From 1880 on, the Métis sent numerous petitions to the federal government, which was delaying the return of titles to their properties. The Métis were afraid of losing their lands to Canadian Pacific.
In 1884, the Métis and Indians of Saskatchewan called on Riel to help them defend their rights, as he had done so well for the people of Manitoba in 1869. Faced with the Conservative government's apathy, the Métis decided to take action to end their economic woes. They created a small republic and launched a peaceful protest to have it recognized.
On December 16, 1884, representatives of the people of Saskatchewan sent the federal government a 25-clause petition setting out their claims and grievances. They requested permission to sent delegates to Ottawa to defend their rights. These representatives would be able to conclude an agreement for the eventual entry of their territory, as a province, into Confederation. At that time, Saskatchewan had 60,000 inhabitants, and Manitoba had 12,000 at the time of its entry into Confederation.
The reaction of the central government to the reasonable claims of Saskatchewans was to send in the army to subdue them, in order to be able to hand over their lands to the railway companies and colonists from the east. Since the federal government was losing interest in their cause, the Métis and Indians rose up and won a few victories, but the troops sent by Ottawa defeated Riel at Batoche and regained control of the territory. Riel was taken prisoner on May 15, 1885.
On November 16, 1885, at the age of 41, Louis David Riel, hero of the Métis, was hanged, after a trial marked by irregularities. In December, at the insistence of his family, his body was moved to Saint-Vital in Manitoba and buried in the cemetery of the Saint-Boniface cathedral.
Because justice was not fully done in the case of Louis Riel, I have, since being elected to Parliament, introduced bills and this motion.
On December 10, 1996, my bill was defeated by a slim majority of 112 to 103. This remarkable support, despite the party line imposed by the Liberal government, is a clear indication that there are a growing number of members in the House who recognize the validity of Louis Riel's cause.
Even our friends from the Reform Party recently put up a picture of Louis Riel in their caucus room, because he was a western pioneer.
Canadians and Quebeckers must realize that, had it not been for Louis Riel, Canada's borders would stop at the border on the west side of Ontario. Therefore, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to make this motion a votable item.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis asking for unanimous consent to make this a votable motion?
Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give unanimous consent for this to become a votable motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I address Motion No. 108 which would revoke Louis Riel's conviction and declare a day in his honour.
Over the last two decades, the issue of Louis Riel and the recognition that he deserves have often been raised in this House. Given his great involvement in the building of this country, it would certainly be appropriate to better highlight his role as a builder of our nation and founder of the Metis movement. Such recognition would go a long way toward giving Louis Riel a status more in line with his remarkable achievements.
Our government continues to expend time and energy to find ways to heal the unfortunate events of the past while also trying to find appropriate ways to honour Louis Riel's memory in contemporary terms.
It is only through positive and progressive measures that we can truly pay homage to one who warrants such recognition.
Riel was a unique person, who deserves to be remembered for everything he did for Canada and for the Metis nation.
Riel was educated in theology and law. He was fluent in English, French, Greek, Latin and Cree. He was an elegant and polished statesman who directed the negotiations with the Government of Canada on the entry of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories into the Dominion of Canada.
He was a tireless defender of the rights of Metis and of all the other residents of the territories. It was his hope to see them take their place in Canadian society and enjoy the same rights and privileges as all other Canadians.
Under Riel's leadership, the Metis from the Red River adopted, in 1870, a list of rights to be protected—freedom of religion, language rights, minority rights. They used that list during the negotiations with the Government of Canada to have Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories included in the Dominion.
The Manitoba Act which Riel was instrumental in negotiating provided for certain guarantees for Metis people, including schooling and religious rights as well as recognition of French and English language rights. The rights of other citizens were also clearly set out in the list of rights.
This was Riel's vision of a united country with each citizen participating on an equal footing.
After Manitoba joined the Canadian federation, the constituents of Provencher, in that same province, elected Riel by acclamation, on three occasions, as their member of Parliament in the House of Commons.
The Metis also called on him to ensure the respect of their fundamental rights in the part of the Northwest Territories that later became Saskatchewan.
Louis Riel dedicated his life to protecting the Metis, and he paid the ultimate price for leading a movement to have the rights and the interests of the Metis protected. He understood their concerns, and it was clear in his mind what place they were entitled to in the Canadian federation.
As most in the House would agree, Riel's accomplishments and contributions to the building of this nation as a free, independent and united country are many. Given these significant contributions, governments have over the years honoured Riel in a number of ways.
In 1970 a postage stamp was issued in his commemoration. Cultural performances have been funded over the years, including the back to Batoche days celebrations which Metis view as a sacred event.
On March 10, 1992, a special resolution was passed in this House to honour the unique and historical role Riel played as the founder of Manitoba and his contribution to Confederation.
On May 16, 1996, thanks to a significant financial contribution by the government, a statue representing Riel as the statesman he was was unveiled on the site of Manitoba's legislative assembly.
The member for Rimouski—Mitis even mentioned a more recent commemoration, at Winterlude, our winter festival here, which is moving into its second weekend.
People here saw 12 blocks of snow on the grounds in front of Parliament Hill at the start of the week. Some joked that it was a winter depiction of the caucus of the member for Rimouski—Mitis, but it was nothing of the sort. It was the wherewithal for 12 magnificent sculptures representing the provinces and territories. The statue sculpted to honour Manitoba was a bust of Louis Riel.
I encourage everyone in the national capital region to come and see these sculptures over the weekend.
These sorts of positive and progressive measures are the way we honour the memory of Louis Riel. They have the support of all Canadians and bear true witness to his contribution to the building of Canada.
On January 7 of this year the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Natural Resources of Canada unveiled “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”. This action plan provides a solid framework through which we can make greater progress on the serious problems facing all aboriginal people.
One of the important themes of “Gathering Strength” was healing and reconciliation. In that regard the federal government committed to seeking appropriate ways of affirming the contribution of Metis people in Canada and of reflecting Louis Riel's place in Canada's history.
It is in these ways that the government will continue to work closely with the Metis leaders and the descendants of Louis Riel.
The government intends to continue the dialogue it has already begun with the Metis leaders to find a way to resolve the problem of the guilty verdict given Louis Riel.
Louis Riel was an eloquent, articulate defender of Metis rights, as well as those of all members of the community whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, anglophone or francophone.
The Metis people formed a substantial part of the population then and Louis Riel championed the rights of minority groups. Riel believed in the Metis having equal rights and participation within Confederation.
Let us be clear on one thing. He was never an advocate of separation. He did not want to tear the country apart. Rather he gave his life trying to build it.
If the real purpose of this measure is to enhance the stature of Louis Riel in the minds and hearts of Canadians, there are many positive measures we can and will take. We will find ways to show Canadians from all walks of life how much we honour the memory of Louis Riel and recognize and appreciate his contributions to the development of Canada.
I remind hon. members of the resolution adopted in 1992 by the House. It recognized the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as the founder of Manitoba and his contribution to the development of Confederation. This was an important moment in the annals of Metis history as the resolution was overwhelmingly adopted by the House and, equally important, because the resolution was the product of significant consultation with the Metis community.
Whatever decision we make on a matter of this importance must be acceptable to the descendants of Louis Riel and to the Metis people.
I believe that by working together with Riel's descendants and the Metis leadership we will find an appropriate solution to this important matter.
In closing, I would like to thank the member for Rimouski—Mitis for her persistence and constancy in this matter. One day we will together all find a way to more fully and faithfully honour the memory and the legacy of that great individual, Louis Riel.
Eric C. Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion of the hon. member of the Bloc Party. The motion calls for the 113 year old verdict on Louis Riel for being guilty of high treason to be revoked. In addition, the motion like past ones before it calls for a commemorative day each year in honour of the man Louis Riel.
Clearly this is an emotional issue for some people on both sides of the debate. Some say he was a hero who was justified in his cause. Others argue that he was largely self-serving and he went too far in pursuing a cause and a personal vision of himself. Each side quotes facts and data which serve to embellish their case and wrap them in an emotionally appealing package. This can be an emotional issue because as Canadians we want to have our own Canadian heroes. We need them.
Canadians are patriotic. We may not wear it on our sleeves like our American neighbours, but if one scratches even a bit below the surface there is a bright red, passionate Canadian heart beating. Being Canadian means something.
One of my most enjoyable duties as a new member of Parliament of this great House is to attend citizenship court in my riding. After the ceremony I embrace our new citizens and ask them what their citizenship is. I have seen tears of gratitude and hope well up in their eyes when for the first time they say “I am a Canadian”. It is a powerful moment.
Part of being a Canadian is that we demand our heroes to be real, for their stories to have integrity. We intrinsically know they must be out there, these Canadian heroes, and I believe there is a desire to know them better, to know their stories. Somehow I feel their stories have been kept from us. We do not celebrate them as we could and, I suggest, for the strength of our nation as we should. All this in spite of the millions we spend on Canadian culture and heritage.
I understand that some prefer their tax dollars be used to fund cultural products that appeal to the arts community such as a recent Canadian movie that documented a fictional tragedy, made all the more tragic by a subplot of incest and sexual perversion. Some seem to think this type of art is good for Canada. It is not my preference.
Instead, I prefer a greater focus on our heritage and culture. The money of government ministries should go to portraying the history and positive real life stories of men and women who gave so much to this country and the world. With this we would all be inspired and stand a little taller when we say “I am a Canadian”.
If Louis Riel, why not Jean de Brébeuf whose ability with languages allowed him to communicate with ease with the Huron Indians? He assimilated into their culture. Brébeuf composed the first dictionary and grammar of the Huron language. During a small pox scourge Brébeuf stayed behind helping the sick Hurons while an Iroquois war party approached. The few Huron Indians who escaped witnessed his torturous death and the story of his courage and service impacted on the lives of thousands of Huron Indians in years to come.
How about Paul de Chomedey de Maisonneuve, the founder of Ville Marie on the island of Montreal in 1642? Maisonneuve was a revered leader who governed wisely and kept order in a growing colony for 23 years. Interestingly he ordered brawlers to pay the medical bills of their victims and slanderers to praise each other in public. He sounds like a Reformer to me.
Or, more recently, in the early part of this century, Mr. Georges Vanier. At this time I would like to quote an article by Mr. George Cowley contained in a forthcoming publication Canada Portraits of Faith . He records:
Mr. George Vanier was a man that, when the first world war broke out, felt that his immediate duty was to his country. He took the leading role in recruiting and organizing a first battalion to be raised by and of French Canadians: the Royal 22nd Regiment, the Van Doos. Shortly after, he lost his right leg to a German shell. After convalescing, he refused evacuation. “I simply cannot go back to Canada,” he insisted, “while my (Canadian) comrades are still in the trenches in France”.
(After a very distinguished career, Vanier) retired from diplomatic service in 1954, hoping to continue serving Canada in “some modest capacity”. The capacity offered him in 1959, at age 71, was to become Canada's governor general, the first Quebec native so honoured.
In early 1967, Vanier's heart showed signs of weakening. His last official engagement was to address, from his wheelchair, a delegation of students from the University of Montreal on the favourite theme of his latter years: the importance of Canadian unity. Few figures in Canadian history have been better demonstrated, by words and deeds, the urgency and sacredness of this cause. “The measure of Canadian unity has been the measure of our success—if we imagine we can go our separate ways within our country, if we exaggerate our differences and revel in contentions—we will only promote our own destruction. Canada owes it to the world to remain united, for no lesson is more badly needed than the one our unity can supply: the lesson that diversity need not be the cause for conflict, but, on the contrary, may lead to richer and nobler living. I pray to God that we may go forward hand in hand”.
There are many more Canadian heroes that we all need to know more about. It would serve to strengthen our passion and resolve to stand on guard for our great nation.
I am thankful that people like Michael Clarke of Reel to Real Ministries from Chilliwack, B.C. whose publication I mentioned earlier “Portraits of Faith” provides accurate insights into the lives of many Canadian heroes. This publication will encourage us all to inspire our children.
As for Mr. Louis Riel, he was no doubt a passionate man and worked to see that the west had an independent voice within Confederation but his tactics were outside the law. We can recognize that some good was brought about through his life, as it is with every human life, but as Canadians we have a great deal of history to celebrate without having to rewrite it. The pen that rewrites history will always be driven by today's biases. It is better not to do it.
My fellow Canadians, we have much to be thankful for. In fact, we have an obligation to celebrate the strengths of this great nation.
Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion.
The history of the Metis treatment by the Canadian government is appalling. While we generally support the concept of this motion, and I want to commend the hon. member for bringing forth a motion concerning the recognition of Louis Riel, we would have preferred a much stronger and differently worded motion.
This motion specifically addresses the verdict of high treason pronounced on Louis Riel on August 1, 1885. In effect what this motion would do by revoking the verdict of guilty of high treason would be to pardon the federal government for its abominable treatment of Louis Riel.
Unfortunately what the motion fails to do is to address the substantive issues which continue to oppress Metis today and continue to threaten their children tomorrow. This motion would in effect pardon the federal government by removing the blot on the government's own record while doing nothing concrete to change the lives of the Metis.
The First Nations peoples continue to be treated by government as second class citizens and that would place the Metis families at an even lower caste in the government's eyes. The federal government, even after the release of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, continues to do its very best to ignore Metis and place their concerns far on the back burner.
Whether or not Louis Riel day is proclaimed, the government should commit to several fundamentals.
First and foremost this government should recognize that the Metis nation is entitled legally, morally and politically to have access to land bases and land use rights sufficient to fulfil the Metis nation's legitimate aspirations as aboriginal peoples.
Furthermore as my colleague the hon. member for Churchill River who himself is Metis would argue, one of the first steps the government should take is to bring all aboriginal peoples, including the Metis, under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act. Such a move on behalf of this government would truly show to the Metis that the government is sincere in supporting a bright future for these people instead of trying to deny them both their history and their future.
Instead of treating the Metis as an afterthought, the government should negotiate self-government and land claims with the Metis nation on a nation to nation basis. Furthermore why does the government not negotiate with the Metis how they will exercise their aboriginal rights to harvest fish and wildlife? Why has this government not chosen to ensure the Metis have the benefits of programs and services which governments now allocate to First Nations peoples?
As long as this government tries to deny Metis their historic and moral rights, this government will continue to actively condemn Metis to poverty and to the back of the legislative bus.
During the negotiation of Manitoba's entry into Confederation, a grant of 1.4 million acres of land was reserved for the exclusive use of the Metis. The full creation of a Metis land base was undermined by systemic government delays and neglect.
The points that I have called for are not new. Indeed it is a fact that these very proposals sit before this government even as this government sits silent. These proposals from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples offer a new dawn. This government chooses not to even have the dignity to respond to these solutions, but sits quiet.
The Metis are not asking for special status. They are not seeking some gift from the government, nor are they asking for anything but what is their historic and moral due. They want to be treated as the equals they are and negotiate with government as other natives negotiate.
But what is a people without a land base? If history has shown us and taught us anything, it is true that a land base with all the access to resources that accompany it is an absolute, uncontroversial precondition for nationhood. Where does this government stand on Metis nationhood?
Who are these people that Louis Riel led at one time? Is the government afraid to act because it has difficulty identifying just who among us are these Metis who deserve better treatment from this government?
The royal commission has made it easy for us. It recommends that every person who identifies himself or herself as Metis and is accepted as such by the nation of the Metis should be recognized by that nation.
While these negotiations go on, the government should work with the Metis and provincial and territorial governments to enter into temporary land use agreements with the Metis nation.
Just as no nation can exist without land, no nation can exist without language and culture. What of Metis education and culture?
Certainly as the motion indicates, Louis Riel played a crucial role in Metis culture. But this government has a responsibility to negotiate with the Metis full-fledged post-secondary education. Great care must be exercised to assure the development of Metis culture.
I strongly suggest should Louis Riel day come into force, the government use that day to examine the following issues laid out in the report by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, a report to which the government has yet to respond in any meaningful way.
First, consultation with Metis elders when educational programs are planned. Second, establishment and funding of Metis schools where numbers warrant. Third, assisted access to post-secondary education in some form. Finally, support for a college or faculty of Metis study.
The Metis are involved in every facet of our society and represent an enormously varied cross-section of Canada, whether economically, geographically, in terms of professions and education, and certainly in terms of hopes, dreams and support for family and community. What they do not have is support from this government for the preservation of their culture and traditions.
In closing, I would like to once again stress that this motion, as good as it may be, sets out in effect to pardon the federal government for its historical error and does not address the real, substantive and immediate issues crucial to the Metis today and to their children tomorrow.
However in true democratic spirit, we feel that the members of this House should decide on the merit of this motion and I would ask again that we have unanimous consent to have this motion voted on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Halifax West has asked for unanimous consent to have this motion made votable. Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, if I can take a moment to draw the attention of the members of the House to the members of the Métis National Council who are sitting in the gallery.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members of the House would like to welcome members of the Métis National Assembly to the deliberations here. This is not the custom but because the motion that is being debated speaks directly to the Metis culture, to your culture, I bid you, on behalf of the House, welcome.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply to Private Members' Motion M-108 of the member for Rimouski—Mitis, that, in the opinion of this House, the government should revoke the verdict of guilty of high treason pronounced on Louis Riel on August 1, 1885 and commemorate him by declaring November 16 of each year to be Louis Riel day throughout Canada.
Certainly this is one of the definitive questions in Canadian history and one which affects the way we identify ourselves as Canadians.
The member for Rimouski—Mitis has raised two issues. Since the motion is non-votable, I will deal with one. Should we pardon Louis Riel.
I have no illusions about the sensitivity of this issue to the Metis nation and have heard from the Métis National Council members personally. I also fully understand the struggles of Conservative leaders from John A. Macdonald who ultimately allowed the death penalty to be carried out, to Joe Clark who on March 9, 1992 recognized Louis David Riel as the founder of Manitoba and a contributor to the development of Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to speak from my heart on this matter. I commend and applaud the member for Rimouski—Mitis for raising this important issue. Time is past due that we deal with this piece of Canada's history.
I have been and I still am an avid reader of history. With that said I would like to go on the record as being appalled by some of the revisionists and plain bad history that is being written by so many so-called historians today. History should be understood in the context that it occurred, analysed and remembered. History should not be revisionist, whitewashed or politically correct. History is a record, it is not a judgment.
As much as I disdain the revisionists of this world, I fully support efforts that lead to a more correct interpretation of events. In 1650 when Oliver Cromwell told his portrait painter Peter Lely to paint his portrait warts and all, he was sending a message to posterity. History is about facts. Historians, parliamentarians and all Canadians need to be careful of demonization and cautious of canonisation.
It is because history is objective that I support part of this motion even though it is not votable. Certainly the government is able to revoke the verdict of guilty of high treason. The question is, should we pardon Louis Riel? I say why not. I have heard criticism that this would lead to a plethora of requests for other pardons, but I disagree. Louis David Riel is a unique case. He was elected to the Parliament of Canada three times but never took his seat and only succeeded in signing the register of this Parliament once.
His case in all respects is uniquely Canadian. It speaks of the beginning of the Metis national identity at the battle of Seven Oaks and the difficulty and unease between the original First Nations of Canada and the French and English traders and settlers. Riel speaks from a page of Canadian history that should be read and understood warts and all by all Canadians.
Louis Riel was born on October 22, 1844 to Jean-Baptiste Riel and Julie de Lagimodière. At age 14 Riel was sent to Montreal to be educated at the College of the Suplician Fathers, the oldest college in Montreal. He became a student at law in the office of the famous leader Rodolphe Laflamme of the Rouge Party in Quebec. He met Louis Joseph Papineau of the 1837 rebellion.
Riel was accepted in Quebec Catholic society but only to a point. He fell in love with Marie-Julie Guernon, but they broke up in 1866 after her parents refused to allow her to marry a Metis. In that same year Riel returned to Manitoba and immediately became a leader in the Metis community.
It is not my intent to present a history of Louis Riel's life. It has been well documented. My intent is to portray a unique and truly Canadian story.
Riel belonged to a new nation, the descendants of French and Indian and Scots and Indian marriages. There were two groups, the mainly Protestant Metis supporters of the Hudson Bay Company and the the mainly Catholic Metis supporters of the North West Company. I identify these two groups in the House today to highlight the typically Canadian dichotomy in the Metis nation. The Metis were not without religious suspicion and a language barrier. I state this to point out the similarity of the greater Canadian experience.
In 1869 Riel returned from Montreal and became secretary of the National Committee of Metis. In December 1869 he became president of the provisional government. A significant date in Riel's chronology that would later become a forerunner to his fate was March 4, 1870.
On that day, Riel as the president of the provisional government ordered Thomas Scott, an Orangeman and thus a Protestant, executed for leading a rebellion against Riel's provisional government. This act would force Riel into exile.
Riel, in exile in the United States and despite a bounty of $5,000 on his head offered by the province of Ontario, was elected three times. I repeat this. He was elected three times in the House of Commons, representing Manitoba. By 1878, he was back in Manitoba, the province he helped to bring in the Confederation in 1870. He led the northwest rebellion in 1884 and he was hung for treason in 1885.
This is only a thumbnail sketch of Louis Riel. Like many others before and since, Louis David Riel was caught in the currents of history and swept to his death. Eventually his order to execute Thomas Scott fueled by religious and linguistic intolerance led to his death.
Sir John A. Macdonald himself agonized over the decision to execute Riel. In the end he made the decision that he would be able to carry out damage control in Quebec for, without question, Quebeckers led by the young Wilfrid Laurier rallied to Riel's defence. Macdonald, however, had a greater problem and that was assuaging the Protestant Orange vote in Ontario, who were crying for retaliation for Riel's execution of Orangeman Thomas Scott. Sir John A. Macdonald eventually succumbed to that pressure.
It is worth nothing that Riel was only tried by 6 jurors and not the mandatory 12 established in the Magna Carta. We should note he was declared insane but refused to admit insanity at his trial and, therefore, accepted responsibility for his actions.
There were some inconsistencies in the trial of Louis Riel, but certainly there were also some inconsistencies in the man himself. In 1870 he had Thomas Scott executed. In 1885 he ordered one of his own Metis leaders, Charles Nolin, executed but never carried through with that threat.
It is important to acknowledge the role of the other Metis in the rebellion and their contribution toward raising the profile of the Metis people. The military expertise of Gabriel Dumont played a crucial role in the rebellion, as did the leadership of Charles Nolin and Louis Schmidt. As well, Chief Poundmaker exemplified the courage and tenacity of the Metis and the Indian people.
What Riel accomplished was not without the help of others and their roles should not be forgotten. Should we pardon Louis Riel? I say yes, we should. This is not 1885 but 1998. Times have changed and events once clouded in racial and religious bigotry can now be seen objectively. Louis David Riel was and is an important figure in Canadian history and a driving force in bringing Manitoba into Confederation.
Like most men, he made some mistakes and carried his own baggage of personal biases and weaknesses. He led an ill fated rebellion against the government of Canada, but he led it to defend and represent his people. We in this House and the other place hold the power to pardon him. A pardon at this time in the history of our nation would show progress, maturity and reconciliation for all people. This pardon is not about a judgment. This pardon is about reconciliation.
One hundred and three years have passed. Let us move on. Let us move forward. Let us, in this House, pardon Louis Riel.
At this time I also would like to ask for the unanimous consent of this House to vote yea on the motion before you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to make this a votable motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have two other hon. members who have indicated interest in speaking. The first to advise me was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry and the second was the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, in co-operation, as this House has seen many times, I will shorten my speech to give the hon. member a chance to also speak.
I rise today to speak to Motion No. 108 to revoke Louis Riel's conviction of August 1, 1885 and to declare a day in his honour.
In discussing the merits of this motion, there is definitely one thing on which we can all agree. That is the important contribution of Louis Riel to the building of this country. In tribute to this contribution this House on March 9, 1992 overwhelmingly adopted a motion to recognize Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba and a contributor in the development of Confederation. At that time the House was reminded of Riel's many accomplishments and of his stature within the Metis community.
There have been other tributes in the recent past to honour Riel and other Metis leaders in recognition of their contribution to Canada and the Metis movement. As this House is well aware, Thelma J. Chalifoux, a Metis woman from Alberta, was recently summoned to the Senate. Ms. Chalifoux is both the first Metis person and the first aboriginal woman to sit in the Senate. Her appointment was in large part due to her unwavering dedication to Metis issues. Judging from the welcome remarks of her fellow senators, she is expected to represent well this cause and the spirit of Riel.
Louis Riel had a vision for this country over 100 years ago. That vision is alive and well today as articulated by the thousands of Metis who promote Metis culture and revere his memory.
Riel was a man of action, a man who looked forward and into the future. Given my understanding of Riel, I believe that if he were here today he would counsel this House to look forward, not backward, in finding ways to recognize and honour his accomplishments and those of other Metis leaders who contributed greatly to the development of Canada.
He would be urging us to focus our energies on finding solutions to our present day problems and building for the future. He would insist that Metis have an opportunity to participate in the development of these solutions. With that in mind I will spend a few minutes talking about what the federal government is doing today to advance the interests of Metis and off reserve aboriginal people.
As many are aware, the Minister of Natural Resources has been assigned by the Prime Minister to fulfil the role of federal interlocutor for the Metis and off reserve aboriginal peoples. In that role, the minister acts as a point of first contact and where necessary as a facilitator between the Metis and off reserve aboriginal peoples and the appropriate federal ministers and departments.
In addition to that role he oversees the federal government's participation in the tripartite self-government process which is the forum being used to negotiate self-government with Metis and off reserve aboriginal groups.
On August 10, 1995 the federal government announced its approach to the implementation of the inherent right and the negotiations of self-government for aboriginal people including Metis and off reserve aboriginal people.
The federal approach contemplates various practical ways of implementing self-government for Metis and off reserve aboriginal people, including the development of self-government institutions to provide services, the devolution of programs and services and forms of public government.
For the past several years the federal government has participated in bilateral processes with both the Metis National Council and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. The bilateral process provides a forum for the congress and the council to discuss issues of utmost importance.
On January 7, 1997 the interlocutor and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development unveiled “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”. It is an action plan to renew our relationship with the aboriginal people who are both on and off reserve.
Under the theme of healing and reconciliation in “Gathering strength”, the federal government is seeking appropriate ways to affirm the contributions of the Metis people and to reflect Louis Riel's proper place in Canada's history. The work is under way. It is founded squarely on consultations with the Metis, not arbitrary partisan actions.
In closing I return to my initial comments. Louis Riel was a builder. He was working to build a society where his people could make the important decisions that confront us all in building a better future. He was not a separatist. He wanted in, not out. With the spirit of partnership embodied in “Gathering Strength” we will find appropriate ways to reflect his proper place in our history as a builder.
Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, human history is nothing but a litany of injustices. In fact, I would venture to say that if there were no injustices there would be no history. This is what gets written down, usually by the winners if there is a contest. It is recorded. This is how we know about things which happen.
If we want to talk about injustice, some of my ancestors were Highland Scots. They suffered injustices and brutality equal in every way to those suffered by the Metis people and for more or less the same reasons. However, I do not lay awake at night bringing down fire and brimstone on the heads of the wicked English. It is over. It is done. There is no need to go back to it.
I have very great problems with people who want to sugar coat history, who want to rewrite history. What happened, happened. It will not help Louis Riel or his descendants for this Parliament to come up with some sort of vacuous proclamation saying that we really did not mean it. The man was hung. He did not, when he had the opportunity, grovel. He did not ask for mercy. He could have taken a plea of insanity and he would have escaped, but he was a man of principle. He walked to the gallows quite firmly and strongly. He was not dragged kicking and screaming. He did not make any particular effort to avoid capture at the end of the rebellion. He would not have even had to go to trial. He could have gone to the United States with Dumont and been scot free, but he chose not to do so.
At this date, if we come forward and say Louis, it was a terrible thing, we are so sorry, that cheapens the man's memory. He was a tough man. He was not a cry baby. I do not think we should, even though I know we have it in our power, say we pardon him.
Actually, he did not have totally clean hands. He set in motion a rebellion which cost lives. Because he was not a very good general he unnecessarily cost the lives of many of his own people. If he had listened to Gabriel Dumont, the results of the rebellion might have been far different.
The man, let us face it, had a big ego. He wanted to be in charge. He did what he chose to do. He refused to stop Middleton before he got to the Saskatchewan River. He could have done so with Dumont's strategies.
I do not think that at this late stage it makes any sense at all for us even to be debating this in the House. We have more important things to do than to debate gestures. Let us face it, this would just be a gesture.
My advice to this House is to get on with it. We have some very real problems in this country which affect not only Metis people but all of us. Those problems are what we should be dealing with. We should not be debating what happened 113 years ago.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 95(2) I am entitled to conclude, and I would like to take the remaining few minutes in this debate to say that we have heard some things—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but under Standing Order 95 the time has expired.
Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent to allow the member another three or four minutes to do her wrap up.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair needs to make the point that in Private Members' Business, if time remains, it is customary that the mover of the motion has five minutes to wrap up in the absence of any other member rising to speak.
Therefore, if we are to go beyond that time, we have to ask for unanimous consent, which the member from Grasslands has so generously requested and the House is quite happy to oblige. Those are the rules.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we have taken this hour of debate to place the matter in proper perspective.
I have listened most attentively to the speeches made by my various colleagues. I acknowledge that the motion merits improvement. I trust that the Liberal Party, which is in the process of drafting a bill to settle this problem to everyone's satisfaction, will be able to take the texts that have been used today, analyze them thoroughly and try to see how this difficulty of having such ambiguity still surrounding one of the founders of this country, Louis Riel, can be truly resolved.
I was somewhat surprised to see that my colleague knew Louis Riel so intimately as to be able to tell what his feelings were at the time of his trial, but the fact is that among those who asked that Riel be tried in Saskatchewan instead of Manitoba and who wrote Minister Campbell and the Prime Minister at the time, Mr. Macdonald, was the person who presided the appeal court to which Louis Riel appealed his sentence. Riel was a very strong and very fair-minded man who realized he had been treated unfairly. He appealed in spite of the fact that this person was judge and jury.
I suggest my colleagues read this month's issue of Canadian Lawyer . They will realize that the government was wrong, that Louis Riel was wronged. The historical context must be taken int account of course, but something can and should be done. Unlike my hon. colleague and his people, the Métis are no longer recognized as a people and they have lost a large part of their culture. What they are asking us is to restore their right to their own way of life and I wish the House would act on this as soon as possible.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and this item is dropped from the Order Paper .
It being 2.33 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.33 p.m.)