Debates of Dec. 14th, 1995

Correctional Service Canada

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to trap this fellow.

Pay for no work is a very poor example to set in prison. However I have another quote from the commissioner's directives. It comes under the inmate pay category and reads:

Overtime shall-be awarded where no other reasonable alternative exists.

Would the solicitor general tell us poor Canadians why this ridiculous overtime policy for prisoners is in place?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is the same question the hon. member asked my parliamentary secretary the other day. I have asked for a report from Correctional Service Canada on the justification for it. I will be happy to bring the information to the attention of my hon. friend.

I might also say in this connection that I want to make sure my hon. friend and all his party recognize that we appreciate very much his leader's good wishes of a few minutes ago, but of course we reject the unacceptable premise to his leader's question.

Employment Insurance

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has undertaken a number of important actions to stimulate job creation.

With regard to the employment insurance package it has become evident there is a problem when calculating the benefits of employees who have a gap in their work weeks or a break in their employment record because of seasonal work.

What does the minister intend to do to address this inequity in the system?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Restigouche for the question and particularly for the concern he and other members have expressed.

I said in the House on Monday when we had the resolution and we referred the bill to committee that where there are particular problems or difficulties such as the gap that the member identified it is a problem that can be fixed.

With the constructive help of members of Parliament and others the committee when it begins its hearings on January 6 can be seized of the problem. I commit to work very closely with the members of Parliament on that committee to make sure a solution is found.

Transfer Payments

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance has been meeting with other ministers of finance of the provinces and territories. I think the minister will agree there is no doubt that the Canadian health and social transfer is a major restructuring of programs and relationships between the federal government and the provinces and territories.

Seven out of ten Canadians in a recent survey said they felt social programs were essential to the Canadian identity and over 70 per cent supported national standards. This interest by Canadians is substantial. Over 70 per cent of Canadians feel very strongly about social programs being part of Canada.

What steps will the minister take as the federal minister to encourage the provinces, territories and the federal government to make a more transparent process available so that all Canadians can know exactly what the Canadian health and social transfer agreements are and will be in the future?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Human Resources Development is engaged in discussions with his provincial colleagues on establishing a common vision, a common set of values and objectives in terms of the protection of our social programs and the direction in which they would like to see these go. This is a very important forum. Indeed it is a very important process as Canadians in the 1990s take a look at themselves and what the basic values are that they would hold to.

In addition, the hon. member will remember that in the budget announcement we set out that the principles of the Canada Health Act would remain intact. In fact this government intended to go to the wall to protect those. At the same time we established the principle that one could not impose a residency requirement in terms of welfare. The wisdom of that has already been demonstrated by the Minister of Human Resources Development in events of which the member has full knowledge.

It is very important to note that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and I have stated unequivocally, and I repeated this yesterday in a meeting with the finance ministers, our intention to not allow that the cash would eventually run out to nothing as is currently the case. Our intention to stabilize the cash component of the CHST is a very important component.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, in just a few minutes I am going to hear a point of privilege but there are three housekeeping statements I would like to make.

The first has to do with one in our midst, as he has been for a number of years. We have a member of the class of 1943. I refer of course to Mr. Stanley Knowles. I wonder if you would join with me in wishing this table officer of ours a very pleasant holiday season, very, very good health and a very happy Christmas with his family.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Second, if today is really the last day we will assemble as a House of Commons, every year at this time your Speaker has a very small reception to which I very cordially invite all of you to attend, of course your duties permitting. This will take place after question period.

Third, we as a House of Commons and we as a nation have come through a very stressful period for ourselves, for our families and for our fellow citizens. I do hope all of you will be able to get a good rest and come back-no pun intended-ready to do battle again when the House reconvenes.

As for myself, I do wish all of you who are here a very joyous Christmas and a very blessed New Year. I thank you very much.

Business Of The House

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the holiday spirit may I offer my best wishes to all of the members of this House, inquiring at the same time of my good friend the Leader of the Government in the House what he has in mind for us next week, outside of holidays?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to respond to my esteemed colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to reciprocate on behalf of all members of the House to your very good wishes. We appreciate your efforts as Speaker and as the visible manifestation of the dignity of the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, in that regard even though you tell us to be ready to do battle when we come back, we will also remember your admonition a few minutes ago that we avoid any efforts at poleaxing.

The House will sit into this evening to consider the preliminary prebudget report of the finance committee. It will then adjourn until February 5, save for one or two royal assent ceremonies that may be required in the interim.

On February 5 it is our intention to call report stage of Bill C-101, the transportation legislation. We will treat this bill as our first priority with a view to obtaining early passage. We would then turn to the other items that are at advanced legislative stages, including: Bill C-52, the public works and government services reorganization bill; Bill C-78, the witness protection bill; Bill C-88, the internal trade legislation; Bill C-94, the fuel additives legislation; Bill C-95, the health reorganization bill; and any bills that might find their way back from the other place for our further attention. We will consult our friends opposite about the exact order of this business closer to the event.

Finally, this work is however well ahead of us. We have now finally reached the time of year when members of Parliament are permitted to be as joyful as everyone else in the country. Therefore, I think it appropriate to conclude by thanking members on all sides of the House for their co-operation during the year, to thank our hard working staff for their faithful service and to wish everyone a pleasant holiday season and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Merci beaucoup à tout le monde.

Privilege

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I regret to delay your annual reception of the season but this is a matter which I take quite seriously. This point of privilege arises from the debates of December 12, 1995, page 17557 of Hansard .

I was delivering a speech on Bill C-110 and talking about the importance of the two founding peoples of this country. My last sentence was: "Without the French settlers and explorers who came to this country we would not have what we have today". A member of the Reform Party chose to intervene by saying: "We would have something far better". I found that to be a most regrettable racist slur against certain citizens of Canada based on their-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I have a copy in hand of the Hansard to which you referred. Although I find that the statement may be objectionable to you and perhaps to other members, I had a chance to look it over earlier today in anticipation of what might be said.

I wonder if the hon. member could go directly to the specific point that she thinks her privileges have been infringed upon.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to go to the point of the privilege of the House and myself as a member of the House rather than as a personal affront to me as an individual member.

I find that kind of remark being made in the House derogatory to the dignity of the House. It calls into question the honour and integrity and character of this House.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, I can understand that some hon. members will take offence in the course of the debate. We in this House have been elected to speak for our constituents and we have very strong feelings.

In this case, I find it difficult to zero in precisely in that the House itself has been offended by the language. We have heard language even today, my dear colleague, which was very strong. It would be the intention of your Speaker to give within the bounds of dignity and decorum as much leeway as we can to hon. members to express themselves.

I would rule that although the hon. member would surely have a point where she is feeling badly about something being said, at least at this point from what I have read this is a point of debate and not a question of privilege.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's citation 26 states, and I read selectively: "A question of privilege is a question partly of fact and partly of law, the law of contempt of Parliament". It is in reference to that section that I believe the hon. member's comments should be thought of this afternoon.

The law of contempt of Parliament has been applied on several occasions by Speakers when people have made comments in regard to particular groups, such as derogatory comments against women and derogatory comments against others. I suggest very respectfully that the Speaker in the past has identified those comments as being unacceptable and offensive to the dignity of the House. Similarly as it applies to courts of law, a very senior judge of this country for having made equally unacceptable remarks only days ago was told promptly by Canadians and by our Minister of Justice that remarks of that nature were not acceptable.

For that reason and for the offence to the dignity of the House that I referred to in the citation of Beauchesne, I feel that the hon. member for Ottawa West is quite appropriate in bringing this unacceptable comment to the attention of the House.

The member in question who made the comment, in order to restore the dignity of this House should be rising now and withdrawing the remark. We could all then turn the page as we have done on many occasions in the past and restore the dignity of this Parliament.

[The Speaker]

The difficulty your Speaker has, and I refer of course to Hansard , following the statement by the hon. member for Ottawa West, where it says: ``an hon. member''. We could have something far better. I do not have the name of an hon. member.

If the government whip is suggesting that I should encourage a greater choice of words, I wholeheartedly agree. Time and time again I have risen in the House to ask you to be very judicious in your choice of words. These types of words are offensive to many members of the House of Commons. But your Speaker has no recourse to any specific member.

Again, I make the admonition, the encouragement, if you will, of the government whip that I am sure that other members would want to say in the House.

I encourage members once again to choose carefully their words. The choice of words you have can be very cutting, they can be very inflammatory. That is why, my dear colleagues, I encourage you to be very judicious in your choice of words. I hope this type of thing will not arise again in the House.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

There have been discussions among political parties in the House. If you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to revert briefly to presenting of reports from interparliamentary delegations. I understand that one delegation was not ready this morning and that a member from that delegation would like to report briefly.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the Assemblée internationale des parlementaires de langue francaise concerning the seminar exchanging views and information on parliamentary democracy in action, held at Port-au-Prince, Haiti, November 16 to 19, 1995.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Finance

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Elgin-Norfolk had approximately four minutes remaining.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those who were not listening when I was interrupted by question period, let me briefly summarize what I had said in the first half of my speech.

The first point I made was that the deficit needs to be addressed aggressively. We need to go to a balanced budget and then to a surplus budget as quickly as possible.

However, there are pressing and very urgent social problems within our country, the primary one being child poverty. I would like to encourage the Minister of Finance to put in February's budget approximately $500 million for a child poverty program through the tax system, called a working income supplement which would put approximately $1,000 a year in the hands of the poorest working families with children. I am sure this money would be well spent.

The question then arises, if we believe in cutting the deficit, balancing the budget and in spending more money on child

poverty, where does the money come from? I would suggest that one area is the defence department.

Let me say before I get to my main point that I do not disagree with defence spending per se, only some parts of defence spending. We need to look at the defence budget and decide that we cannot have a military that tries to be all things to all people.

For example, we should get out of the submarine business. Recently, members may have read in the newspapers that Canada's three submarines, which represent our fleet, were in Halifax for maintenance. I do not know if any of us felt any less secure knowing the submarines were in Halifax. I do not know if any of us will feel less secure tomorrow if we got out of the submarine business.

Certainly we do not need to buy old British submarines for Canadian defence. We do not need the subs to hunt subs. Since the cold war ended there has been a shortage of submarines to hunt as the Russians are mothballing their subs.

We do not need subs to patrol our coastal waters. Our existing frigates and destroyers, brand new coastal patrol vessels, underwater sensor sites, radio intelligence sites and non-military assets such as the coast guard and fishery patrol vessels are more than capable of doing the job.

We do not need the subs to monitor UN embargoes. The frigates and destroyers can do that already and they can do it more effectively.

We do not need subs to patrol Arctic waters. The sub DND wants to buy cannot operate under the ice.

Cutting defence spending is only one example of where money can be found to not only address the deficit but also address child poverty. Another example is the whole issue of tax expenditures.

The finance department and the Minister of Finance need to understand that a tax expenditure is just like an expenditure in any other area. For example, the money we spend on subsidizing RRSPs or RPPs, which are retirement savings plans, through the tax system unduly benefit the well to do. They do little to improve the life of the middle class and lower economic classes. In short, they are a benefit primarily for the rich.

I want to make a very modest proposal. We should lower the limits for RRSPs and RPPs to $10,500 from a current level of $13,500, a level that is set to rise to $15,500. This very modest proposal would not affect anyone making less than $70,000 a year annually and, by the department's calculations, would raise approximately $550 million for the national treasury. This is exactly the amount of money that I suggest the government spend on a child poverty program.

At this time of Christmas I want to ask Parliament, the Minister of Finance, the government and all Canadians to look at our country and recognize that we have many assets to build on. I am optimistic for our future. I recognize that not all Canadians are participating in the economic recovery and the ones who are most vulnerable are children and children going hungry. Notwithstanding that we have other urgent and pressing concerns like balancing the budget, we should address the needs of those children in this year's budget.