The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our children. They are opposed to the current status quo in the screening of pedophiles within the community.
The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile registry be established in order to help better protect our children.
(1205 )
The first petition, which bears 86 signatures, calls upon Parliament to refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and to put on hold any future consideration of such a tax until a complete review of the tax system and how it impacts on the health of Canadians has been undertaken.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament enact Bill C-205 introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.
This petition is certified correct in form and content. It calls on the House of Commons and Parliament to ask the Canadian government to renegotiate the tax treaty with the United States and give consideration to enacting a tax credit refund to those who are now being taxed under the treaty. The existing tax treaty reduces the social benefits received by retired Canadian citizens in the United States.
The first comes from Pickering, Ontario. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that our police and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also state that in many cases the families are often left without sufficient financial means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
[Translation]
The petitioners call on the Parliament to take all the necessary measures in order to abolish the Senate. This request is supported by several arguments such as the fact the Senate members are not elected and are not accountable for their actions; the operating budget of the Senate of $43 million a year; its refusal to account to the House of Commons committee for the funds it receives; the Senate's failure to fulfil its mandate as far as regional representation is concerned; its duplication of the work of elected members of the House of Commons and finally, the need to modernize the parliamentary institutions.
[English]
They say that whereas the law now allows criminals to profit from the sale of videos, books and the use of 1-900 numbers, the petitioners would like the House to immediately enact Bill C-205 so that convicted criminals would no longer be allowed to profit from their crimes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I must inform the hon. member that he still has eight minutes left to deliver his speech.
(1210)
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by the question period, I was making a parallel between the throne speech and the budget speech. I was outlining some elements of rhetoric, still believing that the budget speech is intended to update, clarify and give shape to the throne speech. I will then continue, in my presentation, to refer to the budget speech.
The Minister of Finance claims in his speech to ensure our financial future. He says that to us with a straight face. Given our current situation and also the fact that we are in a world where the economy is open, where major changes are occurring rapidly, I think it may be somewhat pretentious for the finance minister to say that he will ensure our financial future. Perhaps we would have preferred to hear him say that he would do his best to ensure that Canadians can benefit from the development of the world economy, without giving too many assurances that he cannot pay, as I believe to be the case.
I noted in the budget speech and also a little in the throne speech that many things are muddled up. The finance minister is playing over several years, 1994-95, 1995-96, and goes back to 1993-94 for some statistics. He even goes up to 1999. For all the issues relating to the deficit, the figure goes from 3 to 2 per cent, but it is 2 per cent in 1999. We see that the finance minister muddles many things up.
He muddles up concepts of financial needs, he adds numbers and talks about the GDP, the past one and the future one. After reading all of this, we get the impression that the minister knows what he is talking about and that we have no other choice but to trust him, because it is sometimes hard to check the debt levels and the financial requirements that he mentions for 1999. What can we do but trust him.
I think the Minister of Finance is not really sure that everyone trusts him, which is why he has laid down some principles. The throne speech, for example, contains a number of principles, which the previous speaker, the hon. member for Shefford, listed. First, the Minister of Finance said his mea culpa. He stated that governments are responsible for the deficit. This is very interesting coming from a Liberal minister whose party has been in office for 36 or 38 years over the past 50 years. He was probably talking about the Conservatives, and forgot about the Trudeau years.
The minister also talked about jobs and growth, just like the governor general. This is all fine, except that the average citizens and the economists have now realized that job creation does not necessarily keep pace with growth, and this is a very serious problem. I am not blaming the Minister of Finance for not having the solution to this problem. If he had the solution, Ministers of Finance from around the world would be in meetings in Ottawa, right here, right now.
The minister talked about a frugal, trimmed down government. It is all well and good to say that the government is too big and involved in too many things. Maybe what we should say is that the government has been mismanaging some of these areas. However, the fact that the government is withdrawing from some areas might cause problems in the years to come.
The Minister of Finance even implied that some government operations may not be efficient. I think everybody knows that some government operations probably need to be reviewed. Like in any other area, when we keep doing the same thing, even though it is a good thing, we become inefficient because their is no innovation. It is high time the minister decided to innovate in the area of finance, as the governor general asked us to be more innovative and creative in the throne speech.
In terms of principles, the finance minister talked about justice and compassion, as did the governor general. It is with a tear in his eye and his heart on his sleeve that the minister then proceeded to make his budget speech.
(1215)
But I noticed that he did not talk about money right away. He lingered on the perspectives. He used a new trick, which I have seen different finance ministers use in several provinces. They go as far ahead as 1997, 1998, 1999. They confuse people. We think we no longer have debts, but they are talking about 1999 or 2000 or 2002.
In a way, these budgets become what I would call crystal ball budgets prepared by people who try to predict the future, but when we read newspapers from previous years, we can see that most finance ministers, as well as economists from the major banks and from the academic world, were wrong in their predictions. Some have received the Nobel prize in economics, but we notice that it is often given to people who have worked in the field for a very long time. That minimizes the risk of error.
The finance minister mentioned two urgent needs. I am talking about the throne speech and I keep referring to the finance minister because I was under the impression that the throne speech was supposed to state certain principles, to tell us where we are headed as a country, and that, since we are in the economic age, the
finance minister was supposed to provide us with the solutions, to translate into reality the general directions outlined by the governor general.
We heard about the need to increase revenues and to cut expenditures. Of course, the official opposition agrees with these objectives. Regarding the need to increase revenues, we might perhaps have expected the minister to announce a reform of our tax system, but he talked about tax equity instead. Then he went on to talk about the banks, about the progressive tax, and said a few words about tax loopholes. He talked about family trusts, but that was before we learned that $2 billion was taken out of Canada before Christmas without any taxes being paid on it.
The minister did not talk about keeping the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, which has become the employment insurance fund. Of course he knew that a reform was forthcoming, that the fund was growing and that he needed that money. But he never told us how he would increase the revenues without raising taxes. I think that, today, a minister of finance who would propose raising taxes directly, rather than indirectly, by asking taxpayers to make a certain contribution would be severely criticized rather than congratulated.
As for expenditure reduction, cuts are never mentioned and the role of the government is never openly questioned, although its role is under review and things are changing. Basically, a throne speech or a speech by the finance minister are always optimistic and little concerned with issues.
Last weekend, I heard a reporter put this question to the President of the Treasury Board: ``Sir, are there problems in Canada?'' The minister was flabbergasted. In Canada as a whole, in Quebec or in my own area of Chicoutimi-Jonquière, there is still a huge unemployment problem.
Unemployment rates are 9.9 per cent in Canada, 12.6 per cent in Quebec, and a staggering 14.6 per cent in Chicoutimi-Jonquière. Thus I would say that the throne speech as the budget speech are only rhetoric, claptrap and fine words that lead to naught. It has been six months since they were delivered,-the figures I have mentioned were for September 1996-and Canadians are still unemployed. Both these speeches propose no solution to put Canadians and Quebecers back to work.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member, following his comments today, the same question that I asked prior to question period of one of his colleagues.
(1220)
During the so-called economic summit Premier Bouchard recently held on the economy of Quebec it was revealed in the local media that experts hired by Premier Bouchard to research the issues surrounding the economy, the job rate, the brain drain and other problems afflicting Quebec currently reportedly advised him the problem is with the separatists and the uncertainty created by the separatist movement.
In light of this I asked his colleague if he would be prepared to support the Reform subamendment that says this is the problem with jobs and the economy in Montreal. It is created and caused by the separatist movement and the uncertainty that flows from that and not by any other things in the economy. Would the hon. member support the subamendment put forward by the Reform Party?
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, because it gives me an opportunity to answer those who blame Quebec's economic problems on the fact that the national debate remains unresolved.
I should point out that the issue of Quebec sovereignty has been around for many years, if not decades. If we look at the economic fluctuations, we can see that these cycles do not always follow Quebecers' fluctuating interest in giving themselves a country.
In the 1980 referendum, Quebec sovereignists were clearly defeated with 60 per cent of the people voting no and 40 per cent yes. People looked at this 20 per cent gap and thought the battle was over. They thought the sovereignist movement would not recover.
The sovereignist movement did have trouble throughout the 1980s until the Meech Lake accord was rejected in 1990 after many people in Quebec-I was not among them-tried once again to negotiate a new alliance with Canada.
If Quebec's economic problems are indeed linked to political uncertainty, how come there was no economic boom in Quebec in the 1980s? We did not have a boom in Quebec. What we had, beginning in 1981-82 was a major economic crisis. That was followed by the election of a Liberal government, headed by Mr. Bourassa, which should have led to great things, because what we were essentially saying to financial markets was: ``Quebecers said No in 1980, they elected a government that was clearly federalist''. There should have been an investment boom in Quebec. But there was not.
This means that Quebec's problems are not directly related to the political environment. Perhaps there is a link, but perhaps there is not. It depends. Economists will tell us one thing, others will tell us something else, and in the field of economy, even if it is a science taught in our universities, the accuracy of forecasts and the various theories still often leaves a lot to be desired.
I do not think that a close examination of Quebec's economy and politics over the last 15 years justifies saying that Quebec's current disastrous economic situation is, in some ways, related to the
political climate, which is in terrible shape according to my colleague from the Reform Party.
(1225 )
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines. I will use the next ten minutes to meet two objectives. I will prove that Canada is on the right track and then I will go on to illustrate that there are ten reasons to believe in a brighter future in Canada.
October 25 marked three years since our Liberal government took office. A tremendous amount of change has taken place since then. Over 650,000 new jobs have been created. The deficit has decreased. The crime rate has dropped. People are paying less for their mortgages. Small businesses are exploring more and more emerging global markets. The United Nations pegged Canada as the best country in which to live. Those are a few of the reasons I believe Canada is on the right track.
Our fiscal house is indeed in order. By 1998-99 the deficit will have been cut to $9 billion. That is a reduction of $33 billion or 80 per cent in five years. A recent OECD report stated that Canada will rank first among G-7 countries in employment growth both in the years 1996 and 1997.
What are these ten reasons to believe in a brighter future? First, the unemployment rate has gone down from 11.1 per cent in October 1993 to approximately 9.9 per cent in October 1996. This figure is still a bit high, but when we consider that we are going through global restructuring here at home and abroad it is very positive.
That we have been able to exceed our deficit reduction target is also quite impressive. I stated the statistics earlier, but I also want to make sure Canadians understand that the deficit has been reduced through spending cuts, not tax increases. By 1998-99 program spending will be at its lowest level since 1949-50.
Canada, as I said earlier, is expected to rank first in economic growth among G-7 countries. In part that is because of our deficit reduction action. There is no question that has increased investor confidence in our country and improved the overall economic environment.
Over the past three years Canada's inflation rate has been the second lowest among G-7 countries and among the lowest in the industrialized world.
Short term interest rates have declined 4.5 per cent since early 1995. That means that someone renewing a $100,000 mortgage for one year will save over $3,000 annually.
Also we are blessed to have youth who are the most educated and technologically advanced generation in our country's history. With a strong entrepreneurial spirit and a very positive eye on technology, Canada's young people are ready to face the challenges of the new economy. We are doing our share to ensure they can compete in the global marketplace.
Since April 1994 over 760,000 young people have taken advantage of federal government programs and services. Locally, in my riding, over 13,000 young people have accessed federal programming.
There have been recent amendments to Canada student loans. The government has realized that the provinces, universities and community colleges have increased tuition.
(1230)
We feel it is our responsibility to respond to those changes. It is for this reason that we have increased Canada student loans allocation by $2.5 billion over the next five years. That accounts for approximately a 57 per cent increase at a time when the government is, like many governments throughout the world, dealing with the deficit and the debt.
We have also increased government funding associated with youth employment services by $315 million. That means that we are clearly not only stating in our speeches that young people are a priority but we are acting on it.
Another issue related to building the type of economic infrastructure required to remain globally competitive is technology and how this government is helping in this technological revolution.
Through technology partnerships Canada, the federal government is providing approximately $250 million to lever additional investment from the private sector and strategic technology sectors.
Strategis, Industry Canada's web site and one of the largest Internet sites in the world, is a business oriented data base of connections and opportunities.
We have also increased support to the Business Development Bank. That will result in an additional $350 million in bank loans to growing knowledge based, export oriented businesses.
We have also modernized Canada's social security net. I have personally been involved in this. The new employment insurance system will provide results that will help people get back to work. We have measures such as the wage subsidies, income supplements, self-employment assistance, skill and loans grants that will help unemployed Canadians re-enter the workforce, not to mention the new seniors' benefit. It will fully protect low and modest income Canadians.
Those receiving the guaranteed income supplement will get $120 more per year. Seventy-five per cent of single seniors and couples will receive the same or higher benefits. Nine out of ten
seniors, women, will receive increased benefits under the new system.
Going back to the issue of economics and global trade, the international trade strategy of this government is opening doors to greater opportunities. Team Canada trade missions to China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Latin American have brought home approximately $20 billion of new business deals for Canada's firms. When we think about it, every $1 billion of new exports protects or provides approximately 11,000 jobs for Canadians.
The Canada infrastructure program is a $6 billion cost shared program between the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government. This initiative has been quite successful because it deals with local priorities. It really speaks to the issue of when we pool resources as a government we can achieve great things locally.
Over 80,000 to 100,000 jobs have been created as a result of this program. We have not forgotten that there is something in this country that we all cherish as Canadians, that in many ways is identified quite clearly with our country. It is the issue of health care.
There is no question, based on the budgetary measures we have taken as a federal government, based on the excellent work done by the Minister of Health, that we are and we will continue to uphold the Canada Health Act ensuring that the system remains accessible, comprehensive, portable, universal and publicly administered.
I think I have clearly outlined to the viewers and members on both sides of this House that Canada is on the right track. I have clearly outlined 10 reasons why Canadians ought to believe in a brighter future not only for themselves but for future generations. We are certainly better off than we were four or five years ago. Our country is more optimistic about the future. Consumer and business confidence is up. The future looks bright.
(1235)
I leave Canadians with one fundamental question. Is there any other country they would like to live in?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to speak to the House today. I thank the member for York North for his excellent review of this government's three years in office. He clearly enunciated the youth and infrastructure programs which he has been greatly involved in. I welcome back the member for Jonquière. It is good to see his smiling face in the House and I am sure we can work together on many items.
I will talk about science and technology. A commitment was made in the throne speech to create enduring jobs for Canadians in the economy of the 21st century where investment in knowledge and technology is very essential. The government will establish guiding principles to improve the effectiveness and focus of the federal science and technology effort.
In particular, the throne speech spelled out that the government will make specific proposals to support technological development in the aerospace industry, in environmental technologies and in critical enabling technologies such as biotechnology. Further measures will be taken to promote technology diffusion, including the launch of the Canadian technology network.
The government has promised to support technology innovation by providing a predictable policy and regulatory framework for the information highway. The government has promised to continue expansion of SchoolNet access and community access programs. Thus Canadians, particularly those in rural communities, will be able to use technology to increase their knowledge, their access to each other and to the rest of the world.
On March 11 the Minister of Industry and the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development released the new technology proposal. The new technology strategy echoes a number of elements in the red book, for example, the importance of partnerships and the role of science and technology in increasing productivity, growth and the standard of living.
The strategy adds a new element to the Liberal government's commitments, the importance of getting our house in order and better managing the federal government's science and technology activities. To that end an advisory council has been appointed for science and technology as promised. It will report directly to cabinet and the Prime Minister. This became effective on July 5.
We have delivered on the promise to define the core of the federal government's science and technology activities. The required federal departments must publish annual outlook documents on science and technology for scrutiny and review by Parliament. We will implement new human resources policies so that science and technology professionals can be more effective in managing and delivering on the federal commitment to science and technology in the workplace. We have directed the federal departments of science and technology to co-ordinate with their provincial and territorial counterparts so we can work together on all these items.
I had the opportunity to meet with some some of the appointees to the advisory council that will report to the Prime Minister and to cabinet. It was great to see that we had people from across the country: André Caillé, president and chief executive officer of Hydro Quebec; Pierre Fortier, chairman of the board and senior partner of Innovitech Incorporated; Martha Piper, vice-president, research and external affairs, the University of Alberta; Michael Smith, Peter Wall distinguished professor of biotechnology, the University of British Columbia; Jacquelyn Thayer Scott, president and vice-chancellor of the University College of Cape Breton.
Those are only a few of the 12 great advisers we have. They are excellent advisers from coast to coast.
(1240)
I take the comments of the auditor general very much to heart, to understand that the auditor general is always looking for areas to advise the government of where improvements can be made, and continued improvement in this day and age is really what counts to reach higher levels.
A recent letter to the industry committee, to which all of the parties of this House belong, stated: ``There is a tremendous challenge ahead. We believe that four ingredients are now essential to the successful implementation of the strategy and the framework: persistent leadership at all levels of government, from ministers to scientists; results oriented, time framed implementation plans; a clear accounting for results; and parliamentary oversight on progress in implementing the strategy and the framework''. This is exactly what this government has put into place.
In the industry committee where all parties are involved we are looking at the critical industries and technologies that will create opportunities for the Canadian economy in the next century. We must look ahead five, ten, fifteen years, dream of what it is going to be like in 2010, 2020 and then try to make that a reality of the future.
What is the role of government in promoting emerging technologies? Where do we fit as a government? Where do we not fit as a government? What are the things we should do and should not do? What impediments stand the in way of emerging technologies? Which government programs create the greatest barriers to economic growth? What can the government do to lessen the burden on innovative firms? What steps should be taken to promote a climate that encourages science, technology and entrepreneurship? How well are Canadian institutions meeting the skills and needs of high technology industries?
Today there are many job openings in the high tech field, thousands of openings that cannot be filled by Canadians because we are lagging behind the training and the requirements for the industries that are developing very quickly where they need scientists. How can Parliament ensure that the government follows the result oriented science and technology strategy? How can Parliament organize itself to ensure full governmental accountability for science and technology? What sort of data should be collected to monitor progress of science and technology? As I mentioned earlier, science and technology is something we must think of in terms of the future, five, ten, fifteen, twenty years. It is not something we can start and stop. It is something we must continually plan.
I have had the opportunity to travel this country to be involved in some seven of nine workshops on this subject, recently touring the NRC and CML Technologies, Jetform and Vitana, which very
kindly showed us their facilities this past week. It was also interesting to visit and discuss the roles that each plays in research and development and to see leading edge technologies in action, leading edge technologies just ready to be put into the business sector.
CML Technologies explained how air traffic control products could be developed and sold in the highly competitive North American market and win large contracts such as the one it wants in metropolitan Chicago where it has beat out Motorola, which is almost like David beating Goliath.
Jetform told us about how it has become the world leader in office forms, the software required, with an impressive 78 per cent annual growth and with first quarter world sales of over $15 million.
Vitana demonstrated its Shapegrabber, 3-D imaging package based on NRC technology, which has been adapted for its clients in forestry, mining, tire production and industrial assembly. We have many great firms that we are working with to discuss how science and technology should be rolled out in the future.
(1245)
I would be remiss if I did not mention a Canadian controlled company, Newbridge, which works with many affiliates. It has come to our committee and many committees to talk about how Canadians can make things happen in science and technology.
Yes, there have been recommendations and that is what we are looking for. We are looking for better means to make things happen. We want a competitive and stable environment for R and D. We want to improve access to markets and capital. We want a financial risk sharing of R and D and rapid deployment.
May I conclude by saying that what was said in the throne speech is being delivered every week and every month by this government to make things happen in a just and timely way just like we promised.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since February, this session of Parliament has delivered exactly what the throne speech promised in the fields of economics and finance, nothing. Policy is on auto pilot with the Prime Minister regularly issuing reassuring messages that he is in control and that no corrections are needed.
The country's biggest problem, the deficit, has been dealt with by benign neglect. Sure, the numbers have improved but mainly through downloading $6 billion on to the provinces a year earlier. There has also been an economic recovery in the United States which spilled over into Canada through increased demand for exports. As a result, spending on unemployment insurance benefits
has dropped by $5 billion. There is not much credit to the government here.
With tax rates set at very high levels, the export stimulated growth has resulted in higher revenues of $25 billion which exactly matches the reduction in the bottom line of the deficit. The much advertised spending cuts on the outer rim of bureaucracy have been very minor. More are slated to come but not for another year. In other words, the much vaunted deficit reduction has been achieved by taking more money away from Canadians through higher tax revenue.
Canadians who want a smaller government in Ottawa and less bureaucracy wrapping them in red tape even when it is not Christmas, will not be pleased by the reduction of less than $1 billion a year when that total government spending is $150 billion, $50 billion on interest alone.
Now the Prime Minister has announced that there will be no more cuts to government spending. The Ottawa leviathan will stay the same size for at least the next two years, by the end of which we can expect higher tax revenue of about $7 billion a year to have eliminated the deficit.
Hurray, then the Liberals will be free to get back to what they are best at: feeding the Ottawa monster. The Prime Minister already has promised to use the higher tax revenue for more spending at the rate of $7 billion a year. The Deputy Prime Minister is licking her chops as she anticipates and already promises money to some of the unlimited number of good causes that she attracts in whatever portfolio she is in.
Of course, Canadians know the flip side of this kind of policy. They feel it in their pocketbooks. Their family income has dropped by $3,000 a year after taxes, primarily because of increased tax revenue since this government came into power.
(1250)
Then of course there is the biggest red book promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. How many jobs have been created? Just enough to employ the growth in workers, those coming out of high school and those who have immigrated to Canada. The fact is that nearly 1.5 million Canadians are still looking for work. Many more have indicated they are so discouraged that they have stopped looking and many more millions are working only part time.
Let us look at the government's commitments for the future. Over two years, $7 billion more in revenue for each year will go to the elimination of the deficit. Thereafter, increases in revenue are promised to be used for increased spending. That means if the government gets elected again, the pattern they have been on will produce another $3,000 reduction in family income because that is exactly what happened in the preceding four years. All the revenue increases from these rates of taxation has gone into feeding the monster government here in Ottawa.
It is not very encouraging for the people of Canada. I recommend that they look at an alternative which is laid out clearly in the document called Fresh Start for Reform. Under this program the leviathan will be tamed. We will cut another approximately $10 billion out of government spending, not from transfers to provinces. In fact, we will restore some of these transfers that were cut earlier. It will not come out of transfers to people nor out of transfers to the provinces for social programs.
It will come out of programs that should be cut, ones we hear about in the finance committee and from people to whom we talk. Let me list a few. There is overlap in the delivery of services between the federal and provincial governments. There are huge bureaucracies such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Industry, the Department of Labour. There is a whole list of departments where the provinces have been saying: ``You are making life too tough for us''. Business is asking: ``Why do we have to fill in the same information that we have just delivered to the provincial governments? Why do we also have to give it to the federal government?''
On my shelf I have the Nielsen task force report. Mr. Speaker, you were here when this was produced. It has gathered dust. It indicates that billions can be saved through the elimination of overlap and duplication. That was 15 years ago. This government has not taken the hint. Not only would it reduce the leviathan, but it would also save money and make it better and easier for business to succeed.
Other expenditure cuts involve special interest group funding. A report was released recently which indicated that Canadians through an objective survey have indicated that multiculturalism is not working. Why do we insist on feeding that monstrous bureaucracy and all those activities? Reform is not against multicultural activities. We are against having them financed by the federal government.
(1255)
Reform has proposed a large number of other cuts. For example, the elimination of the industrial subsidies that are now being given to business. Last week in the finance committee business representatives said: ``Please government, get rid of all of the subsidies to business and lower the taxes''. That is exactly what Reform is proposing to do.
What would Reform do with the surplus that would be growing and continue to grow? We would target tax cuts primarily at the reduction of barriers to the efficient operation of labour markets.
Whole books are written about this and why our unemployment rate is so high. New thinking is required in that field.
Reform would deliberately bias the fiscal structure in support of the maintenance, growth and strength of families rather than the current system which deliberately favours the splitting up of families so people can go to work and send their children to child care. People who stay at home, fathers and mothers, deserve that same support. Reform would have broad based cuts that would remove several hundred thousand poor people completely from all tax rolls.
Canadians now have a clear alternative. On the one side, a promise of a government that will keep the size of Ottawa and the bureaucracy where it is right now; use increased tax revenue to eliminate the deficit and then go on its merry old way, spending the increases in tax revenue that comes thereafter. Reform offers an alternative. It offers the elimination of the deficit through growth, some more reduction in the size of government and revenue increases thereafter used to give money back where it came from, the people of Canada.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my hon. colleague's comments. Could he elaborate more on the Reform subamendment and how it deals with the question: What is the real situation as it pertains to the economic outlook for Montreal and Quebec?
I have endeavoured twice today to ask that question of two hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois. Both have declined to properly address the question that separatism is the real culprit when it comes to the uncertainty that it creates for the economic climate of Quebec.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I spent two hours with a group of highly concerned citizens who met at the McGill faculty club. They were discussing possible steps that might be taken to create a renaissance in the city of Montreal.
These were people who have spent all their professional and business working lives in Quebec and Montreal. They have seen this wonderful Canadian city go from one of the most prominent, rapidly growing, charming and great cities of North America into a tailspin that makes them extremely sad. They all acknowledge the root cause. What they were trying to do was to say: What can we do to reassure the world to come back to Montreal even though this threat exists?
(1300)
Unfortunately, I did not have much good advice for them. I talked about my experiences with countries that have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, such as Singapore, Hong Kong and other of the Asian tigers. They rejected the view that the separatist government, if it comes into power, would model itself after those countries because of its great commitment to social democratic values meddling in the economy. That is not reassuring for any of the potential businesses that might consider moving to Montreal.
The insight I gained is that it is not just the idea there might be separation with all of the uncertainties surrounding it. There is also the added problem that all of the pronouncements we have heard until quite recently from Mr. Bouchard are that we will continue to have huge government spending on all kinds of worthy projects which are preventing the growth of the economy and the restoration of confidence.
I do not know the answers. I would say to my colleague there is no doubt that the threat of separation, plus the prospect of what might happen after separation by a very left wing government, carries the primary responsibility for the sad decline of the city of Montreal from one of the great cities in North America to a city with a sick economy.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I gave my first speech in the House on January 20, 1994 during the debate on the speech from the throne. I am disappointed that after two and a half years and two throne speeches little has changed.
Back then I expressed the views I had heard from people in the Wetaskiwin riding during a year of campaigning. They were concerned about the economic future of Canada. They were worried about the kind of Canada their children and their grandchildren would inherit. Over the Thanksgiving break I heard the same concerns repeated time and again by my constituents.
Before tackling the 1996 throne speech however, I would like to take a few moments to look back over the last two and a half years at the expectations and the realities of the 1994 throne speech.
The first throne speech promised that MPs pensions would be reformed but hopes for meaningful change were dashed when the Liberal caucus troughers would only accept minor alterations to their gold plated MP pension plans. The Reform Party MPs who anticipated fair retirement packages had their hopes dashed as well, so we opted out.
The ongoing unity debate and the continued growth of the national debt over the last two and a half years exposed this government as inefficient and ineffective.
The litany of broken election promises and forgotten pronouncements of two throne speeches are signalling an end to this government's honeymoon.
The 1996 throne speech commits the government to ``promote a proper climate for economic growth and jobs''. The government promises to do this by modernizing part I of the Canada Labour Code dealing with labour relations, an area not substantially changed in the last 20 years.
The workplace of the 1990s is very different from that of the 1970s. Restructuring and downsizing are the new realities. The government, instead of responding to the new challenges in a
positive and progressive manner, reverted to that old Liberal standby, a half million dollar study.
Studies do not put gas in the tank or pay the mortgage. Employers can no longer guarantee lifelong jobs to employees. Workers want the government to provide an environment where labour and management can focus their attention on the task at hand without the threat of a strike or lockout.
(1305 )
Last year when the Minister of Labour appointed a task force to review part I of the labour code, I hoped that the recommendations would include a mechanism for solving disputes. In the last 20 years Parliament has legislated an end to 19 work stoppages, including three in the last two years in the transportation and grain handling sectors. The combined costs of the west coast ports dispute and the railway strike/lock-out are estimated to be in the $4 billion range. Yet the task force failed to seize the opportunity and recommend measures that would ensure Canadian products reach their markets.
I recommended final offer selection arbitration to the task force as a mechanism to effectively and permanently resolve labour disputes that fall under federal jurisdiction. The industrial inquiry commission into west coast ports supported my position. Final offer selection arbitration gives labour and management the tools to resolve their differences. It does not favour one side over the other and it eliminates government interference in the negotiations. It puts the onus on both sides to reach an agreement and can be used equally by labour and management.
If the government is serious about improving industrial relations, minimizing conflict and bringing greater stability to federally regulated sectors, labour and management must be provided with a permanent, just, and effective dispute settlement mechanism. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to reflect on the report and compare it to the recommendations from the industrial inquiry on west coast ports, I expect that he will recognize the benefits of final offer arbitration and will make it a focal a point in the code.
Canadians have always been a step ahead of the old line governments. On October 25, 1993 voters showed that they wanted change. They tossed out the Tories believing that the Liberals had the people and the plan for the 1990s. What did they get? They got more of the same.
My colleague the member for Beaver River put it quite succinctly when she said that the Liberals find it very difficult to take a firm stand on anything except of course fences. After putting up with three years of fence sitting, Canadians are demanding decisive leadership.
My constituents told me that they want immediate action on the economy. They want tax relief now so that job creation can occur.
What have three years of Liberal rule brought Canadians? Since coming to power the Liberals have raised taxes 31 times. As a result of these tax increases the government will collect $25 billion in extra revenue by 1997. We know now what their debt reduction strategy is.
Even when the government reaches its target or if it reaches the target of 2 per cent of GDP or $17 billion, $70 million a day, $70 billion annually will have been added to our debt. If the debt increases at the rate that it has been, it will be $615 billion by 1997-98, an increase of $107 billion since the Liberals took office in 1993.
As long as the government continues to spend more than it collects in revenues it has to keep borrowing to meet its commitments. The interest on that borrowed money will be a whopping $50 billion this year alone. When that $50 billion is added to the $600 billion that we owe already, it is a double whammy for Canadians. That is $48 billion or $50 billion that will not be available for health care and social programs.
The Minister of Finance has to balance the budget by 1997-98. I suspect that he would like to balance the budget but I believe that his task is made even more difficult because of his prime ministerial aspirations. Unfortunately for him, his current boss does not realize the seriousness of the problem.
The Prime Minister acknowledges that ``of course we have a debt but we can pay off our interest; we have no problem at all''. Canadians know, even if the Prime Minister and his cabinet do not, that if you borrow money to pay the interest on loans and credit cards, you put yourself deeper and deeper into debt. Somehow the Prime Minister has missed this very basic reality of finance.
(1310 )
Only when there is an end to deficit financing will Canadians find the hope alluded to in the throne speech. When deficit financing ends, the Minister of Finance will be able to follow Reform's fresh start lead and ensure that future budget surpluses will be used to reduce taxes and to lower the debt.
Had the Liberals adopted the common sense suggestions made in Reform's taxpayers budget released last year, Canadians would be on the way to budget surplus, investor confidence, job growth and social program securities this year. Instead, the Liberals are extending the pain with no prospect of gain, to the point that their fiscal policy is not just being called unsustainable any more but immoral.
Canadians are willing to take the bitter medicine now if there is tax relief in sight. An aggressive attack on the deficit and a commitment to eliminating it by the year 1997-98 will be accepted
by taxpayers who do not want to leave a legacy of debt and deficit to their children. We simply cannot continue to borrow against our children's futures.
Studies show that if the Liberal trend of taxation is allowed to continue, children born today will pay 32 per cent of their life income in taxes. Future generations will be even worse off. They will have to pay an estimated 65 per cent of their earnings in taxes, thanks to the inability of today's government to come to grips with the debt and deficit.
After years of inept governments, Canadians are ready to take their future into their own hands. They recognize that the Canada pension plan and OAS programs cannot be counted on to finance their golden years. Canadians want control over their retirement savings to ensure that those golden years are not tarnished. Canadians do not want the government to impose higher taxes to prop up programs when their future viability is questionable. Canadians can look after themselves but only if the government curbs its appetite for taxes.
When the government embarks on a plan to make the Canada pension plan sustainable for future generations as proposed in the throne speech, it must completely revamp the program and not simply increase the premiums and raise the age of eligibility.
There are solutions to the problems we face. We need new ideas and a government that is not afraid to change. 1970s solutions are not applicable in the 1990s.
On October 17 the Reform Party took another unprecedented step and released a fresh start election campaign. Our plan will reduce the size of government. It will provide tax relief. It will make families a Canadian priority. It will make our streets safer and it will repair our social safety net.
I have appreciated the opportunity to speak on the throne speech today.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in the throne speech debate today.
The throne speech develops themes and initiatives that will guide the government in its actions for the coming period. In reviewing the throne speech, it reflects some of the values that we have in Canada.
Canada for the third year in a row has been recognized by the United Nations as being the best country in the world in which to live. This is a great honour. It also is reflective of the underlying values and supports Canada provides to all Canadians. It is a value system that distinguishes Canadians.
Recently the CBC had a special in which it interviewed Canadians across the country and tried to define what it is to be Canadian. It found that it was very difficult to find a simple definition of Canadian. In reflecting on that, it appears to me that what really defines Canada is that it is indefinable. We are a very diverse society. From coast to coast to coast we are very diverse in our cultural backgrounds, in our basic systems of operation.
One only has to look at Quebec itself. Quebec is a delightful province with a tremendous history and culture. It is a province which has been the subject matter of much debate over the years, yet most Canadians who have visited Quebec know what a lovely province it is, just as every other province in the country is.
(1315)
It is clear when one goes to Quebec that it is the guardian of the French language, culture and laws. It has a distinctiveness. In fact, it is something to be cherished and protected by Canada. In my own mind, Canadians own a little piece of every part of this country. You, Mr. Speaker, own a little part of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, all of the provinces from sea to sea to sea. As the taxpayers of the country, we invest in Canada. Through our various levels of government, we make sure that the value system that we have developed over the years is available to all Canadians.
What a wonderful country we have that we can travel from province to province to enjoy the diversity that every province has to offer. If I have a need I can receive health care in any province in Canada, not because I have money but because I have that health care need.
I could move to another province and have the same rights, privileges and freedoms as anyone who was born and raised there. That is the diversity of Canada and what makes it the best country in the world in which to live.
I want to concentrate a little bit on the theme of credibility and integrity in government. Since becoming a member of Parliament in 1993, I have become more exposed than I ever was before to the public reaction to people who are in political life. There is no question that over the last 25 years there has been this attitude toward people in politics which is really, quite frankly, discomforting.
The day before I was elected I was a community member with a family. I was involved very actively in the community. The day after the election I did not change. In fact I think I was elected, like most members here, because I had demonstrated a knowledge and sensitivity to my community and the ability to do a very important job on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of Canadians.
When I came here and started a constituency office it was very interesting to find that people would all of a sudden start calling as if the election was still going on and start being critical and treating me as if all of a sudden I was one of them.
I understand the partisan emotions that people have but once the election is over I wish that those who want to continue to fight election campaigns after an election would take into account the
fact that all hon. members of Parliament have a responsibility first to their constituents.
In my constituency office I am blessed to have excellent staff. There are Irene, Joan and Lyanne. When I am not able to be in the office they are there working on my behalf to make sure that my constituents get the service they need when they need it. If they have to speak to me I know my staff will make sure I find out at the earliest convenience so that I can personally address the needs of my constituents.
We have an excellent opportunity to provide service. I know all members work very hard to keep that service level within the constituency offices so that Canadians are properly served and informed about the government's programs and services and also to get the assistance that they need when they are not sure or have some questions or doubt about the applicability of certain things within their jurisdictions or within the jurisdictions of the Government of Canada.
We have another office in Ottawa with other staff. I have Nancy, and today Trudi is taking care of my office. We have people who are always contacting members of Parliament who really need to let them know what the issues are as they see them and try to determine whether or not those members of Parliament can give them some perspective of where we are coming from and how we can work together to see how we can make legislation work better within Canada.
Many of these people are lobbyists on behalf of specific industries or business groups or social or political causes. Members of Parliament have a tremendous challenge to sort out special interest groups that deal in their own interests rather than in the interests of the broad base of Canadians which we as members of Parliament represent.
(1320)
Each member of Parliament belongs to a political party. Each party has a caucus structure which allows members to convey the input of constituents. Members receive input from constituents from meetings, from phone calls or letters or from general encounters. As we work throughout our constituencies and attend many events, people talk to us. They tell us what is on their minds, when they like something or when they do not like something. That is what the job is all about.
As a member of Parliament I can bring that information back to Ottawa. I can go to my regional caucus and let my caucus colleagues know what people are saying. I can ask them about their people to see if we have consensus. We often find there is consensus within our own regional areas. There are similar problems. Our ridings are very close. We have this opportunity through the communications mechanism of the caucus to let that message trickle up to the next level.
The regional information goes to a provincial caucus. The chair of our regional caucus makes a report at the provincial caucus of the areas in which the members had consensus. On top of that, all members of that caucus-in my case the Ontario caucus-have the opportunity to further emphasize the issues that are most important to their constituents. I work hard at it.
After that level we look for consensus again. It goes to the national caucus level where all the members of Parliament of a particular party get together and find out how all the regions of the country feel about the challenges that face them. We want to find some balance, some priorization of the issues that face Canadians at large.
Every member of Parliament in my caucus has an opportunity to stand up in his or her place before the Prime Minister, before all the cabinet ministers, before all of their colleagues to say ``in my riding this issue is important and this is why''.
The point is Canadians should know that members of Parliament, even those not in the cabinet who do not have high profile positions, have an extremely important job to do and a very good opportunity to raise issues in their caucuses right up to the level of the leader of their party or the Prime Minister.
Further, legislative policy development is a very important aspect of a member of Parliament's job. We do this work within the theme of trying to enhance the credibility and the integrity of the profession of being an hon. member of Parliament.
Members of Parliament have many issues that are of particular importance to them. Through the mechanisms of this place we have an opportunity to raise petitions on behalf of our constituents, to make statements in this place on behalf of issues or on behalf of constituents who let us know what really concerns them.
We also have an opportunity to present motions in this place and propose changes to government legislation. I had one. We had a resolution on Bill C-41 which allowed me to raise a motion to change the law so that abusers of spouses or children will get stiffer penalties under the laws of Canada. That passed in this place, and I am very proud that I had an opportunity to participate in the development of a piece of legislation of the Government of Canada.
That did not come out of the air. Nobody told me to do it. It came because I was involved in my community before I was elected. I was involved with Interim Place, our shelter for battered women. I knew what a terrible problem this was to our society. The problem has always been there. I saw this opportunity.
I know all members of Parliament from their own backgrounds and experiences have the opportunity to bring up their life experiences so they can help to shape and craft legislation in the best interests of all Canadians.
(1325 )
I have spent a lot of time talking about family issues. I think for the last three years I have been giving the same petition ``that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society''. And it goes on to say that we need some tax reform because families are very important.
I have given many speeches in this place in which I have used lines such as: If the family was strong, the deficit would be gone. I have used other lines like: Strong families make a strong country. We have to invest in our children and invest in our families. These themes are coming through, I know they are.
Even though my bill on splitting income between spouses did not get the confidence of the House, I know that when we introduce new legislation on employment insurance there will be wage subsidies for parents who have parental leave so they can come back into the workforce when they have taken care of their responsibility of caring for their children.
I also know that the legislation includes training allowances so that those people who have taken the time to provide direct parental care will have the opportunity to get their skills back into shape and can properly take their role in society, working and being as good as they can be in the employment sector.
I also spent some time working on the underground economy. I spent six months studying it in Canada and the U.S. I put forward a private member's motion in this place which prescribed a program to address the underground economy. All members of the House who spoke supported the motion. In fact, it passed and was then taken by the then Minister of National Revenue and with departmental officials, a seven point program was developed to address the issues related to the underground economy.
Last June the new Minister of National Revenue rose in this place and thanked me, saying that as a result of that seven point program that she could announce that they had assessed over $1 billion of additional taxes which were unbudgeted because of problems in the underground economy. That is the kind of thing that happens in this place which make me excited about this job, because I know there are opportunities to make good things happen if you can only continue to earn respect within your own caucus and in the House to garner support for issues that you feel are very important.
Members in this place will also know that I have spent a lot of time on the responsible use of alcohol. They know that I got unanimous consent of all parties on December 7, 1995, supporting health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages. That has been stuck in committee. I am afraid that it may stay there and when the next election comes it will still be there and will die. I did not give up. I continue to work on it and it is continually being studied as part of the review of Canada's national drug strategy.
As a result of my research I did into the problems associated with alcohol misuse, I started to put together a program which is now called ``Drink Smart Canada''. Drink Smart Canada today is a national public awareness campaign on the responsible use of alcohol. There are over 8,000 posters circulating across Canada, over 120 municipalities have passed resolutions in their chambers endorsing Drink Smart. The Canadian Police Association and the Association of Canadian Chiefs of Police are the honorary patrons. We have a toll free number and we receive several calls every day from people who want more information and who want to participate.
On November 7 there will be a special forum of national groups and organizations that are going to come together to help to kick off the remaining strategy of the Drink Smart Canada campaign.
I did not have to do these things, but I sensed from the support I received from all parties in the House on the health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages that members in this place wanted to make sure that the issues associated with alcohol did not die. The members here are wondering what are those issues. Those issues are: 50 per cent of family violence; 65 per cent of child abuse; 1 in 6 family breakdowns; 45 per cent of automobile collisions; 30 per cent of suicides; 45 per cent of fires; 50 per cent of hospital emergencies. These are all directly or indirectly due to alcohol misuse. It costs Canadians $15 billion a year and 19,000 people die each year as a result of the irresponsible use of alcohol. This is an important issue and I am prepared to fight for it, to work hard and to make sure that the issues are before Canadians.
(1330)
I have talked a lot about fetal alcohol syndrome. Fetal alcohol syndrome is the problems associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Five per cent of birth defects are caused by alcohol consumption during pregnancy. It costs Canadians $2.7 billion a year to deal with the problems associated with FAS, additional health care costs, social program costs, criminal justice costs and lost productivity in our society; due to a child who is yet to be born. It is a 100 per cent preventable tragedy.
In 1992 the Standing Committee on Health prepared a report on FAS, the 100 per cent preventable tragedy. The report recommended health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages so that we could alert Canadians of the risks associated with consuming alcohol during pregnancy.
From those examples Canadians probably have a reasonable idea that members of Parliament, even those not in cabinet, have an important role to play in this place. We have an important role to support the themes articulated in the throne speech, to improve the integrity and the credibility of people who change their lives to come to this place to represent constituents and represent all Canadians.
Politics is really a team sport. There are several teams but by and large I know members of Parliament in this place in their hearts come here to do a good job for their constituents, and to do what they can to shape and to craft important legislation that will make sure that Canada continues to be the best country in the world.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am almost certain that I rose to my feet a split second before my hon. colleague from North Vancouver.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. We have 10 minutes and each member can have five minutes.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was such an enthralling speech I could have sworn I saw you dozing off for a moment there.
I would like to question the member on two particular issues. He rambled on at great length about the wonderful health care system we have and how universal it is.
The first question deals with the province of Quebec, which refuses to properly reimburse other provinces for the health care given to its citizens when they use the health services of other provinces. The present health minister, when he was in opposition, regularly complained about that in this House and said the Liberal government would do something about it. Then on the TV program ``Ottawa Inside Out'' just a few months ago he suddenly says it is not at the top of the priority list anymore. Yet he was more than happy to punish Alberta and B.C. for trying to find alternative ways to fund their health care systems. Why is the Minister of Health now ignoring the serious violation of the Canada Health Act by Quebec?
The second question deals with waiting lists. Can he please explain why the Liberal government has given the entrepreneur of the year award to a company in Winnipeg that provides waiting list insurance for Canadians so that they can go to the United States for medical services when they have to wait too long in Canada?
Finally, what does he have to say to one of my constituents, Mrs. Gawenda, who waited nine months for an operation in Vancouver that should have been done within weeks? She ended up going to Seattle and paying $15,000 of her own money to have it done. The doctors down there said what sort of a country would have allowed a person to go nine months waiting for an operation that should have been done in three weeks.
(1335)
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of the member's question has to do with the issues surrounding what happened in Alberta and B.C. What happened there was they were operating a two tier health care system-
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Quebec is the issue.
Mr. Szabo: I will address Quebec in a moment, if the member would give me an opportunity to respond. It took several months. The health minister of the day gave several months for Alberta to change the situation so that Canadians could get health care not because they had money but because they were sick.
With regard to the Quebec situation, the rules guiding the provinces from the federal level are contained in the Canada Health Act. The five principles of the Canada Health Act are portability, accessibility, universality, comprehensiveness and publicly funded. The government, through the Canada health and social transfer, transfers the moneys. If there are problems there the rules are in place to deal with them and the provinces will surely have to comply with the spirit and in fact the law of the Canada Health Act.
With regard to waiting lists, that is a provincial jurisdiction. I do, however, understand that people have to wait. I spent nine years on the board of the Mississauga hospital and five years as treasurer. I know that the tremendous shift to an ambulatory philosophy toward providing health care has made sure that hospitals even when they downsize actually are serving more patients than they used to more efficiently. They are more cost effective.
There are certain things they cannot do on demand. Any business has to respond to fiscal realities. I do not think that in this case the member has convinced me that his constituent is not getting appropriate health care.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the hon. member a question following, as my colleague says, his riveting presentation. We can certainly tell there is an election coming when politicians become so full of themselves.
Earlier the hon. Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie made a presentation in this House. He talked about what he viewed as the Reform Party inconsistency in our policies.
I point out from Hansard page 5561, October 22, 1996 that in response to a question about the announcement of a grant of $11 million to Viet Nam and the concern expressed by an hon. member
during that question about human rights abuses in Viet Nam, the hon. minister replied that the Canadian government should not use economic pressure to resolve a situation concerning human rights. That is what he said basically, that he did not believe that.
Later on the same day the same minister in response to a question about the situation in Afghanistan and the concern expressed there for human rights replied: ``The Canadian government is extremely concerned about human rights not being respected, in particular women's rights, in Afghanistan. That is why we have suspended all Canadians funds for local initiatives until further notice''.
We talk about inconsistencies. Unfortunately there was not time for me to put this question directly to him, but I will put it to his hon. colleague because he does represent the Liberal government. This minister is saying in connection with Viet Nam that no, we cannot tie human rights to economic aid and yet with Afghanistan we do prevent economic aid because of human rights abuses.
I am wondering, as are the people of Canada, which is it?
(1340 )
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that I clarify one thing for members of the House and for Canadians.
As a backbench member of Parliament I do not speak on behalf of the minister and I do not speak on behalf of the Liberal Party. I am part of a team, but I have no authority and no way to represent the position of the government.
Notwithstanding that, I am familiar with the issues which the member has raised and I will give him my personal input, which is what my job is.
The member will well know that human rights issues are very important to Canada. The social values that we have in this country have meant that every time international situations arise Canadians look to Canada to provide leadership where possible. The member must surely know that with a population of just about 30 million people it is very difficult to go to China and say ``I am the Prime Minister of Canada. I represent 30 million people and you should stop doing what you are doing''. The premier of China would say ``I am the premier of China and I represent one billion people''.
Canada has a role to play in terms of its model. We supported our UN allies with the embargoes on South Africa. We supported our allies in the Afghanistan situation. However, we are not singing from a linear song sheet.
For example, let us look at the Cuba situation. Canada does not support the U.S. position on Cuba. Canada's position appears to be, very clearly, that the best way to change human rights abuses in Cuba is for Canadians to be there, to be doing business there and to have some input and show Cubans how we can work together to make the world a safer place.
The point is do not look for a simple solution to the complex problems of the world. Every situation has different circumstances. Canada will play its role as it always has.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member's intervention I am reminded of the immortal words of Forest Gump: ``Blah, blah, blah, blah''. That is all I have to say about that.
Throne speeches are an opportunity for the government to chart a course and lay out its plans for the country, for the people and for the government for the ensuing months.
Different kinds of thrones often produce different results. I am afraid that the Canadian people have received a vastly inferior product with this throne speech.
Let us examine the facts. The government talked about all the wonderful things it was going to do for Canada. It talked about all the wonderful things it was going to do for the coastal communities of Canada, for example. The reality is vastly different.
The government has made vicious cuts to essential services such as the coast guard, search and rescue, fish hatcheries and light stations, to name a few, in the pursuit of saving a small amount of money in comparison to total government spending.
In the case of fish hatcheries we are talking about $3 million to $4 million a year. In the case of light stations we are talking about $3 million a year. In the case of the coast guard we are talking about $7 million a year. That is the coast guard; not for aids to navigation, but search and rescue. Those are coast guard services that actually are there to prevent the loss of Canadian human life, mariners and fishermen on the high seas.
We are told that these services have to be cut. We cannot afford them any more. The government just does not have the money.
(1345 )
We agree that this country has a serious deficit and debt problem. However, we say that the places where the government ought to cut last is where the government is actually delivering a service in the field to Canadians.
I have told people in my riding that if they want to find out where the DFO office is in Ottawa, they should fly to Ottawa, take a cab, drive around the downtown core and when they find the nicest, biggest, shiniest ivory tower, get out of the cab and walk over to the front door. I guarantee they have just found the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The building is full from the top to the bottom with bureaucrats. A whole floor is dedicated to communications. What is meant by communications? They are talking about spin doctors. The whole floor is designed to sell the minister's decisions to the Canadian people. That is what the government considers to be an essential service. It is not the coast guard boats that are out there to save and preserve Canadian lives during problems, storms and so on. No, that is not an essential service.
The government uses the throne speech in a despicable way. It tries to convince Canadians that it is actually concerned about their welfare. In reality it is more concerned about its own welfare and places that as a much higher priority than any of the other priorities it has.
Let us examine for a minute the fact that after all these cuts the Government of Canada turns around and gives an $87 million no interest loan to its corporate buddies over at Bombardier. If the people at Bombardier wanted my money as a taxpayer, could they not ask me for it? Could they not knock on my door and say: ``We would like to have some money. We need to do some R and D. You are a Canadian citizen and we think you should contribute to this cause''. They could but they do not. Do you know why they do not? Because I would tell them to go play in the traffic. I would tell them they do not need my money because they have $6 billion in assets. They are making millions of dollars in profits and there are Canadians who do need my money. I would tell them to get lost.
However, Bombardier does not have to come to me or to the taxpayers of Canada to get permission to steal my money. No, it comes to the government and gets permission to coerce money out of me and all of the other taxpayers across this country to support its corporate objectives.
When I was first elected and came here I was absolutely dumbfounded one day when I opened the Financial Post and read that the government had made a $60 million U.S. loan for the construction of an aluminum smelter in South Africa. Think about this for a minute. Canada is one of the leading producers of aluminum in the world. There are 10 smelters in Quebec. There is one world class smelter in my riding in Kitimat, British Columbia. Not only the company, but the people who work in those companies are all contributing to the tax base here. The government does not ask them: ``Do you think we should send $60 million to South Africa to build an aluminum smelter down there?'' No, it does not ask anyone; it just says it is doing it.
And what is SNC-Lavalin? Just another corporate buddy of the Liberal government. It is another corporation which happens to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to the Liberal Party.
When we look at the record of this government and consider its approach to issues, it does not take very long to come to the conclusion that the Liberal government will put the priorities and the interests of Canadians behind its own political interests every time out of the starting gate. Frankly, it is starting to really annoy me and a lot of other Canadians.
The Liberal red book is a Liberal dead book. The speech from the throne is nothing more than a pompous, self-inflated statement designed to mislead Canadians and has no real intent to serve their interests.
(1350 )
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally address the throne speech. Only in the Canadian system could we be addressing a speech where all the goals and finances were established six months ago. In fact, half the programs have already been spent.
I will address my area as critic which is public works which deals with a number of areas within government and with government contracts.
One of the first areas we dealt with in the government operations committee was the Senate. The finances of the Senate can come before our committee. I moved a resolution to have one of the Senate financial people come before our committee to explain how the Senate was going to spend its $40 million allocation plus another $11 million in expenses. It went through this House. It was the first time in Canadian history I might add that the Senate was asked to come before a committee to account for its expenses. Guess what? The people from the Senate did not show up. They felt that they did not have to. This brings us to the crux of the Canadian system.
Here we have a group of senators-I will call them a double U Senate, unelected and unaccountable-refusing to come before this House to justify their expenses. That is absolutely wrong. This is why we need a triple E Senate, elected, effective and equal. A lot of the legislation that went through this House-the GST is a good example, and gun control-would not have gone through if there had been an elected Senate, an effective Senate.
It happens in the United States and the Australian governments. They have Senates that work. Unfortunately we do not. It is fundamental to our system that this government right across the board voted to give the Senate its allocation of $40 million plus $11 million in expenses without questioning where it was going to spend that money.
Another area within public works is contracts. My colleague from Skeena commented on Bombardier. Why in heaven should Bombardier receive millions of dollars? It is one of the most profitable corporations in Canada yet it went to the Liberal government and got that money. Why? Because it donated $174,000 over the past three years to the Liberal Party.
Another one is the mine sweeper contract that went finally to SNC-Lavalin. This is a $35 million contract. Halifax Shipyards submitted the lowest bid and the best technical bid. It was the outfit that was recommended by the Department of National Defence but did Halifax Shipyards get that contract? No. It went to SNC-Lavalin in Quebec which is a very large Liberal supporter.
Is this the kind of government Canadians want? Canadians want a straight up, level playing field so that when contracts are given out, they are given out to the best possible competitor. That does not happen. I have seen contracts that have been rewritten. A contract on the east coast is written one way and when the contract goes to a west coast firm, the contract is rewritten so that the west coast firm cannot compete. That is absolutely wrong.
There has to be a level playing field in all contracts. That simply is not happening right now. The government is playing favourites like Bombardier, like SNC-Lavalin. This is clearly the old style politics. This is the Mulroney style politics. We know what happened to the Mulroney gang. The same thing is going to happen to this gang because Canadians simply will not put up with it.
We are in a debt and deficit hole. We need to spend our money wisely. We Canadians do not really like paying our taxes, but if we paid our taxes knowing full well that they were going to go to the right cause with efficiency, with economy, Canadians would be quite happy to come forward with their taxes. Right now they have absolutely no confidence in this government when it comes to spending their money. This will change come the next election.
(1355)
Another area within public works is Canada Post. What has happened to our postal system? Over the past 10 or 12 years we cannot get a letter across a city in the same day or between cities in two days and anywhere in the country in three days. That is what the Radwanski report is saying. This should be the goal of Canada Post. Get of the courier business. Get out of Purolator Courier and get out of the ad mail business.
I will describe exactly what has happened in Canada Post. Canada Post owns half of Purolator. It is the biggest player in the courier business. By allowing Canada Post to falter, not to be able to get a letter across town for 45 cents, we then have to go to Purolator and pay $9 to get it across town. This is really good business, is it not? But they are playing with Canadian tax dollars. Canada Post absolutely refuses to show the cross-subsidization that is happening, where the 45-cent stamp is going. It undercuts ad mail. It undercuts it so that it is then the best player in town. It undercuts Purolator so that the other players, the private sector, are at a disadvantage.
Canada Post has to get out of that altogether and get back to its real mandate of efficient and economical delivery of mail. That is what the Reform Party believes. Canada Post should have the mandate to get back to the basics. If it cannot do that after being given a perfect chance, then the Reform Party will consider privatizing it. If that is the only way we can get mail delivered in this country, then we will do it.
The United States and Australia have similar distances, similar problems within their postal systems yet they can do it. Why can Canada Post not do it? Canada Post cannot do it because it is embroiled in trying to get into the public sector, which is absolutely wrong.
Canada Post has forgotten its absolute beginning mandate and this is where the Radwanski report is absolutely bang on. Allow Canada Post to be opened to access to information. Allow the auditor general into Canada Post to deal with it. Right now we cannot get any information from Canada Post on its finances or on what is going on. This is absolutely wrong.
In summary in the contract area and in the big corporate areas such as Canada Post and CMHC, the government has a dismal record. We must get government out of the faces of Canadians, get back to the basics and have contracts awarded on a real, effective, level playing field. In that way Canadians will be getting the best bang for their buck.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the speeches from the previous two speakers who shared their time.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I stood for questions and comments. Is that not permitted now?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, it is questions and comments. This Speaker always recognizes a member from a party other than the one which gave an intervention.
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker, I would particularly like to compliment the first speaker of the two. He made it very clear to us and described in detail the needs of some of his constituents in the coastal communities of British Columbia.
As a member who comes from Ontario who has had brief visits to British Columbia it is good for me to hear a member from that part of the world describe these things in great detail. In so doing he is educating all of us in our responsibilities. The member had the wisdom to put price tags on some of the things his people at home needed. I found that description an honest presentation of the needs of the people of British Columbia. It was in stark contrast to the criticism that followed on the government's movements with Bombardier and the criticism of SNC Lavalin.
The member and the speaker previous to him implied that the government's dealings with Bombardier and SNC Lavalin were related only to politics. They failed to recognize that those two corporations are tremendous Canadian companies. As the Minister of Industry said the other day, the Government of Canada is backing a winner in the world of aerospace when it backs Bombardier and all governments around the world lucky enough to have aerospace industries provide subsidies to them.
In SNC Lavalin we have one of the greatest engineering companies in the world. It is highly regarded by its colleagues in the private sector because it is leading the charge of the Canadian private sector into the markets of China which is where some of our subsequent wealth in future years will come from. Therefore we should be encouraging that company, not berating it in the House of Commons.
Both previous speakers accused the governing party of old style politics. I suggest they have given a demonstration of old style politics. They have come to Ottawa to say this is what I need to take back home and do not give anything to anybody else who is not from my community or my province or my region. That is the kind of regionalism that is divisive.
It is perfectly legitimate to express the needs of your communities. That is what I want to hear. But I do not want to hear criticisms of other communities, other corporations, other provinces that are doing the same thing in order to build the federation as a whole. That is old style politics, coming to Ottawa and asking what can I grab, what can I take home?
My questions to those speakers are: What are they bringing to the federation? Which shared Canadian values are-
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired because only five minutes are allowed. Only the member for Comox-Alberni may reply since there has already been a question period for the member for Skeena.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, the member said that we only come to this area to grab something for our own province. I would point out that three provinces are have provinces. One of them is British Columbia. We are very much at the bottom of the stick when it comes to receiving from the other end.
All we are asking for is a level playing field with equal give and take. British Columbians are tired of give, give, give. As my colleague for Skeena said, in the coastal communities it has been lighthouses, coast guard, fisheries. It is an on and on list of abandoning British Columbian coastal communities. This is not the
way a government should be operating, particularly toward a province like British Columbia that contributes more in transfer payments than it gets.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further speakers and it being approximately 2 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment and the amendment now before the House.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Yea.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order adopted, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, November 5, 1996, at 5.30 p.m.
It being 2 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.04 p.m.)