Paul Devillers

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about the government's main estimates for the 1995-96 budget year.

The main estimates are a reflection of the government's spending priorities for its departments and programs as set out in the budget. This year's estimates lay the details for the government's planned budgetary expenditures totalling $164.2 billion.

The basic figures contained in these documents show overall program spending has declined by 10.8 per cent, from $120.9 billion 1994-95 to $107.9 billion in 1996-97.

The positive side of these dramatic spending cuts is that the government has managed for the first time in more than 20 years not only to reach its deficit reduction objective but to exceed it by $4.4 billion, without raising personal income taxes.

With its second budget, the government will be able to meet the red book objective of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by the end of 1996-97.

I will mention some of the concerns communicated to me by my constituents prior to this year's budget and how the government addressed these concerns.

The build up to this year's federal budget saw a variety of letter writing campaigns opposing any new tax measures. I recall a few campaigns opposing any increases in personal income tax, any taxation of employer contributions to group health plans and registered retirement savings plans.

As part of the government's prebudget consultation process I wrote to the Minister of Finance requesting that group health benefits and RRSPs not be taxed. I was very pleased the budget contained no increase in personal income taxes and that no taxes were levied on the programs I mentioned.

It is important to understand that a whole new approach to governing was adopted in order to achieve the budgetary goals I referred to earlier. The program review contained in the budget redefines what government does and how its programs are delivered.

We are in fact witnessing a redefinition of liberalism. This, however, could make us forget important liberal principles such as giving everyone equal opportunities. Many Canadians feel, like me, that our social programs helped create a more just society.

After what the previous government did to social security, it is no wonder that many Canadians are concerned by any talk of reviewing social policy and public pension plans.

I am nonetheless convinced that our government can and will modernize the social safety net in order to make programs more efficient and less costly and, more importantly, to preserve access for all Canadians, whether rich or poor.

An important item in the estimates will guarantee the future viability of our social programs. The Canada social transfer will replace the current transfer payments to the provinces and territories under the Canada assistance plan and the established programs financing. Combined with the equalization payments that will continue to increase, the Canada social transfer will provide the provinces with more than $35 billion in 1996.

During the 1993 election campaign I repeatedly said what we need are more people paying taxes, not people paying more taxes. It has always been evident to me that the best way to preserve our social programs and at the same time reduce our fiscal deficit is by creating jobs. More people working means more people paying taxes and less people drawing costly benefits such as unemployment insurance. In other words, we must continue with our job and growth agenda. We need a balanced approach between spending cuts and job creation. Fiscal restraint must not be an end in and of itself but a facilitator in achieving the overriding goal of job creation.

The government did in many ways adopt this approach. Consider that 433,000 new jobs were created in 1994, many as a result of the national infrastructure program. The unemployment rate is now at 9.4 per cent, the lowest in nearly five years, productivity has surged and our trade surplus is at its highest level ever.

It is important to increase the fairness of the tax system. Again, I must congratulate the government on the progress made in that regard through measures such as these: a 12.5 per cent increase in the corporate tax rate; a 1 per cent increase in the corporate surtax; a temporary tax on the capital of deposit-taking institutions, including major chartered banks; the elimination of tax advantages resulting from the rules governing family trusts for the rich; and finally, the limitation on the scientific research and experimental development tax credit for large corporations.

These are major achievements, but much remains to be done. There is still a lot to do to help the unemployed find work and we must take a closer look at tax advantages that benefit a privileged few.

Some would attack the less privileged in our society and blame them for all our economic woes. This certainly seems to be the case in the provincial election in Ontario. However, politicians who take advantage of people's fears and anger over the future viability of our economy are doing a great disservice

to both the social and economic well-being of our country. This approach is fundamentally dishonest and very destructive.

Now that this year's budgetary process is coming to a close I offer my suggestions for the upcoming 1996 prebudget consultation.

There is much speculation in the media about the viability of our public pension plan and the necessity to review this program. I believe any review of the public pension scheme should also include a review of RRSPs. A considerable amount of money is invested in RRSPs. They have without a doubt contributed to better retirement security for thousands of Canadians.

However, the question of fairness has arisen with respect to advantages wealthy Canadians receive from current contribution limits. The last budget set limits of $13,500 for 1996-97. The limit will be increased by $1,000 a year to reach $15,500 in 1999.

Revenue Canada statistics also inform us only 6 per cent of individuals with income of less than $20,000 a year currently take advantage of RRSPs. On the other hand, individuals making $100,000 or more a year, who account for only 2 per cent of the population, account for 20 per cent of the total RRSP contributions.

In my opinion our current system of RRSPs acts as a considerable tax shelter for the wealthy because of its high contribution levels. For this reason I would not oppose a reduction in the RRSP contribution limit. This would only affect higher income Canadians because these limits are income contingent. Taxing lottery winnings is also another revenue generating avenue available to the government.

I urge the government to continuing applying fairness and compassion in budgetary policies. We must continue to give unemployed Canadians hope and encouragement, not blame them or punish them for their lot.

[Rwanda, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the world has just witnessed yet another horrific massacre of innocent people in Rwanda.

I believe I express the sentiments of most people when I say this situation is profoundly disturbing.

It is difficult to imagine societal circumstances that would lead individuals to commit such atrocities. The massacres in Rwanda are the perfect example of what can occur when we let a society develop in a climate of hatred and intolerance.

These killers show a flagrant lack of respect for human life. We should all draw important lessons from this massacre and think about our society's values.

No society is immune to intolerance or hatred. However, it can be measured by the treatment it confers to its minorities. Canada does not have an unblemished record but we do have before the House a bill which will help suppress an ugly side of our society. Bill C-41 will not protect the innocent people of Rwanda but it will stem odious acts affecting Canadians.

[Petitions, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting petitions signed by 201 residents primarily from my riding of Simcoe North.

The petitioners request that Parliament ban the use of BST in Canada and not accept milk products from other countries where BST is used to treat cattle.

[Young Quebecers, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that 92 per cent of young Quebecers between the ages of 18 and 35 feel happy and are primarily concerned with the work world.

It must be pointed out that separation is not one of their priorities. In fact, the separatist movement is in rough shape these days. A study conducted by McGill University confirms that support for separation among young Quebecers has drastically diminished since the 1980 referendum.

The Liberal government is doing something about the concerns of that generation by creating jobs, while the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are stuck with their outdated option.

Young Quebecers are happy in Canada and they want to remain part of it because they know that it is the best country to live in. Again, we can clearly see that the separatists are totally disconnected from the real concerns of young people.

[World Day For Water, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in 1992, the general assembly of the United Nations proclaimed March 22 World Day for Water, an annual event to remind us of the importance and value of water in our daily lives.

Canadians could easily reduce their water consumption by a third. We must return to basics, since water is the public service most vital to our health and economic prosperity.

Water efficiency requires the full commitment and co-operation of all water consumers. Watercan, an Ottawa based non-profit organization, along with several partners has demonstrated its commitment by organizing world water day activities and by raising the public's awareness to use water wisely.

The unveiling of a unique interactive water display called Blue Watercan Caravan at Toronto's Eaton Centre will kick off this year's activities. The caravan will also travel to Vancouver and Montreal promoting water wise messages and will end its tour in Ottawa May 3 to May 9.

[Petitions, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present.

The first petition contains the signatures of 50 constituents of Simcoe North and calls on Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to delete entirely section 718.2 of Bill C-41.

I present these petitions because I believe all my constituents are entitled to express their views. However, I fully support the increased penalties for hate crimes contained in Bill C-41.

I call on the Minister of Justice to bring forward the promised amendments to the Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds for discrimination at the earliest opportunity.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. As is the case in many rural ridings, the legislation has elicited a great deal of interest among my constituents.

Everyone participating in the discussion should do so with the following three points in mind. First, the government promised to toughen firearms legislation during the last election campaign and was elected with a strong mandate. Second, opinion research indicates a very high level of support among Canadians for the legislative initiative. Third, firearms owners have legitimate concerns about the proposed law. If we do not work with these axioms in mind, we will not have the constructive and open debate this important issue merits.

The Minister of Justice introduced a broad set of measures intended to increase public security in Canada. While I have difficulty fully appreciating all the benefits of registering rifles and shotguns, I nonetheless support most of the provisions in the bill.

Most Canadians, even the most sceptical, would admit there is some good in the legislation.

However, this debate is about how we can improve this bill even more, to make it acceptable to a larger number of Canadians. As we saw with the GST, for instance, if a new bill is not widely accepted, it will fail to do what it is supposed to do.

During the past few months I have received hundreds of cards and many telephone calls, faxes and letters representing the two poles of this debate. I met a number of constituents personally and also attended regularly the meetings of a special firearms owners advisory committee.

Of the approximately 500 residents of Simcoe North who communicated with me on this bill, about 10 per cent supported the bill and 90 per cent were opposed. The majority of the latter group expressed their views through a mail-in campaign.

Despite the opinion research showing strong support in every region of Canada for the measures contained in Bill C-68, it is clear that large numbers of hunters, target shooters and gun collectors are very dissatisfied. As legislators I feel we should do our utmost to balance these concerns with the will of the majority of Canadians. If we can eliminate the dogmatic rhetoric emanating from those with entrenched positions on either side of the issue and debate the matter with a rational approach and an open mind, we can make important progress toward this balance.

An example of a compromise that would not water down the bill in any way but would certainly render it fair in practice and in perception is the following: Bill C-68 could be significantly improved by removing from the Criminal Code the penalties in section 91 for non-registration in cases where the contravention is not wilful, for example where there has been an oversight. This type of non-registration would be more justly dealt with under the newly created firearms act.

Penalties for wilful non-registration in section 92 could remain in the Criminal Code. This simple amendment would take nothing away from the strength of the bill but would ensure that law-abiding Canadians are not recorded as having criminal records due to an omission, oversight or ignorance of the law. In my opinion the amendment would dispel much of the concern felt by many firearm owners.

I have received a legal opinion that not only would the amendment be constitutional but it would actually improve the constitutionality of the bill. I have requested an opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to seek its support for the amendment. Barring a chance

to appear before the standing committee, I propose to move a motion in the House during report stage debate.

We have all witnessed the atmosphere of suspicion and misinformation around discussions on gun control. Quite frankly, much of the problem is due to a lack of information about the repercussions of the bill. We should not be surprised that gun owners get upset when their members of Parliament are unable to answer very basic questions like: how much will it cost?

The question is a legitimate one, and I would like to be able to give a clear and precise. In the absence of detailed information, individuals and organizations that have a vested interest in giving Canadians the worst case scenario have been quick to provide their own answers to these questions, sometimes drawing alarmist conclusions that have been greatly exaggerated.

For instance, in my riding people say it will cost between $86 and $102 to register a firearm. However, the Minister of Justice figures that it will cost only $10 for up to ten firearms. If we cannot prove they are wrong, many people will think these agents of the gun lobby have absolute credibility.

The firearm debate has had a very polarizing dynamic. We have very determined firearm owners on one side and equally determined people on the other side who would rather not see guns in society. Both have legitimate and compelling concerns.

It is for this reason we as parliamentarians must try to take the middle road. Although the middle of the road approach may not satisfy extremists at either end of the spectrum, it will be satisfactory to the majority of Canadians. Canadians pride themselves as a fair and just people, but we must not forget our heritage and that even today firearms activities such as hunting, targeting shooting and collecting are important components of the Canadian identity particularly in rural areas.

The proposals embodied in the bill were introduced last November. In response to input from individual firearm owners and organizations that represent them, the legislation we are debating today contains important improvements to the original proposals. For example, owners of firearms in the restricted category will now be able to buy and sell to others in the same category. In addition to other provisions for divesting of restricted firearms, this will ensure that owners of restricted firearms will have a reasonable choice of options if they choose to retrieve their investment.

These substantial amendments to the original proposal demonstrate there is still room for compromise without undermining the basic principles of the bill. That is why I am proposing an amendment to remove from the Criminal Code the penalties in section 91 for non-registration in cases where the contravention is not wilful. The amendment will make the legislation more just and will increase the degree of compliance without reducing its impact.

In addition to universal registration, Bill C-68 contains many excellent provisions that will undoubtedly improve public safety. I cannot say that I support every aspect of the legislation without reservation, but if I had to give it a grade it would be a b plus, and that is a decent pass.

I intend to vote in favour of Bill C-68, but in respect of the legitimate concerns expressed to me by firearms owners in Simcoe North and in view of my personal reservations I am seeking remedial action in the form of the amendment I described.

[Simcoe County Board Of Education, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce to the House that, as of next September, the Simcoe County Board of Education's intensive French language program will be offered at Bradford West Gwillimbury elementary school.

Five out of the six major centres in Simcoe county now offer a bilingual curriculum to their English speaking students. This year, over 500 elementary and secondary school students registered for the program, which is in its sixth year. I wish to congratulate the school board, its staff, and above all, the parents of Simcoe county for participating in this program and for their contribution to bilingualism in Canada.

The intensive French language program is another example of the importance placed on the French language in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada.

[Member For Longueuil, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the hon. member for Longueuil asserted in the House that it is ridiculous to think that Canada ranks among the best countries in the world in respect of standard of living because, according to him, Canada is considered to be like a Third World country because of the size of its debt. He even claimed that we were trying to deceive people.

The comparison made by the Bloc Quebecois member is crude and his reasoning very unsound. Here are the facts. The UN world report on human development for 1992 and 1994 ranks Canada as the best country in which to live.

The only ones trying to deceive people, and in particular the population of Quebec, are the Bloc Quebecois members. It is very easy to be a separatist if the effect of the worst scenario they can imagine, that is losing the referendum, would be for them to continue living in the best country in the world.

[The Budget, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, lately there has been much speculation about the imminent federal budget. The previous government raised taxes 39 times under the guise of deficit reduction, but the deficit continued to swell uncontrollably.

I frequently said during the election campaign and again in the House that we need more people paying taxes, not people paying more taxes. I believe Canadians are generally fair-minded about taxes, but I am certain they will accept only changes that make the system more equitable.

During recent weeks the leader of the Reform Party and others in his party have been talking a lot about a taxpayers' revolt. This negative rhetoric is not constructive and does not reflect the new way of doing politics which the Reform Party so frequently espoused before coming to Ottawa.

It is also unnecessary. The government and indeed very member of Parliament knows that middle class Canadians cannot bear a greater tax burden. In fact, the Liberal members addressed this problem head on during the last election campaign.