Dennis Mills

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is reading the bill accurately. The fact is the money being transferred to the province of Quebec is not coming from the province of Quebec. It is coming from other taxpayers in regions of the country that happen to be blessed with natural resources or other economic advantages. As part of a constitutional agreement and through entitlement the money is taken from those advantaged provinces and regions and put into the province of Quebec so that there is a national standard for all citizens.

For the hon. member to suggest that the taxes are coming from Quebec and going back into Quebec is not accurate. That is the point I was trying to make. The whole area of fiscal transfers and transfers of Government of Canada service needs a full examination.

If the hon. member's remarks were to be picked up in his community right now they would not be accurate. The hon. member should be saying to his constituents that they will in fact be receiving from advantaged provinces over the next five years close to $70 billion in equalization payments. That would have a much different effect on his constituents and their attitude toward Confederation than if he said they are just reshuffling their own money.

At least the hon. member did agree that this is the essence of the whole discussion which has to go on in the next little while. I for one am not going to shirk away from my responsibility to talk about the Government of Canada's presence in the province of Quebec, not just where it failed but also the good things it has done for the province.

In this debate it is very important that the separatist members make sure they put the facts on the table and not twist them.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to stand and speak on Bill C-3 today because I believe the bill speaks to the very value system the nation represents.

I want to begin by telling members of the House a short story about an experience that I was involved in about four years ago. It took place in Quebec City. I met a great Canadian artist from Quebec by the name of Richard Séguin. I went to a concert of Richard Séguin's; it was the first time I had heard him sing. I came away from that event moved by the talent, the energy and the real greatness of this Canadian artist.

When I arrived home to Toronto I went down Yonge Street. I went into some of the popular record stores to try to buy a tape of Séguin because I wanted some of my friends to listen to him. After about six record stores on Yonge Street, in the back corner I finally found one cassette of Richard Séguin. "Journée d'Amérique" was the name of the cassette.

I guess it was about a month later that I had lunch with him in Montreal. I told him the story about how it was so incredible that while this artist sold 100,000 tapes, records or albums in the province of Quebec and was so well known, in downtown Toronto in the largest record stores, it took six stores and in the back corner of one store I found one cassette.

He said that sort of exemplifies some of the frustrations and some of the reasons why many of us in Quebec ask ourselves what is in Canada for us. He is a great artist and sells a large number of tapes in Quebec but outside Quebec he is known to very few people.

Just as Canadian artists from Quebec are not well known beyond their borders, there are a lot of things done through the Government of Canada that are not well known in the province of Quebec.

I am not standing here today trying to suggest that there are not frustrations or discrepancies coming from Quebec or, for that matter, from many other provinces. It is very important that on a bill such as this all of our constituents, no matter what region of the country they are from, should all understand what equalization is all about.

It is especially important today because this is the first Parliament in our history in which Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition represents a point of view which wants to dismantle Canada, wants to separate from Canada.

My community hears about a bill like Bill C-3, in which through equalization we transfer moneys from the have provinces to the have not provinces. We are talking about an agreement that was signed last week supported by all the provinces and the Minister of Finance. We are talking about a deal that goes the next five years. The basic essence of this bill entitles seven of the ten provinces to fiscal transfers from three provinces, B.C., Alberta and Ontario. They are funds with no strings attached so that they will have the same standard of living, a national standard, a national tax base, the same access to services right across the country.

The Quebec portion of this transfer over the next five years, the period of this Parliament, is $70 billion. That means that we as Canadian taxpayers will be transferring from the have provinces to Quebec and the other seven provinces a large sum of money. I want to deal specifically today with the $70 billion that is being transferred to the province of Quebec.

I want to say at the outset that by constitution this is an entitlement which I have no quarrel with. I support it happily but it is in the face of that transfer that I have great difficulty in understanding why members opposite would want to walk away from that type of environment where we try to create national standards and national programs so that the constituents of their ridings can have access to the same services as the constituents of my riding.

We tend to think that this is the only thing that happens in this particular bill, that it is just a matter of transferring money. It is more than that. It allows the provinces to basically make their own decisions. Each of the provinces can make their own decisions as to how they want their communities, their people of that particular province served. It is not a condition where the Government of Canada is imposing a very specific directive on that money.

The provincial members of Parliament are the sole directors of how those funds will be spent. It is no business of this Chamber. The only thing that is the business of this Chamber, the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, is to make sure the formula is implemented and the cheque is transferred.

I have talked to a few people, not only in my riding, but other friends that I have from the province of Quebec and many Canadians, not just in Quebec but all across Canada. They are not aware of this equalization bill. They are not aware of the extent or the numbers of dollars that are involved.

That is what led me as we were preparing for Bill C-3 also to look into some of the other Government of Canada activities that take place in the province of Quebec. I am skewing or I am pushing my argument a bit toward the province of Quebec today because we do not have representatives from the other provinces saying that they want to separate, that they want to tear the place down.

I for the life of me cannot understand why this is going on, this notion of wanting to run away from this partnership, from this value system, where we all share on a national standard. We cannot just think of this bill as I mentioned earlier. We have to think of the presence of the Government of Canada in many other areas.

I would like to cite a few of them. One of the highest profile projects in the province of Quebec is the James Bay project. There is a perception out there that it is primarily a provincial project. As I was preparing today I did a short overview, a glance, a summary of some of the Government of Canada

expenditures from 1986 to 1991 in the James Bay project. Did you realize, Madam Speaker, that in that one project the Government of Canada, through Indian and Northern Affairs, Canada Mortgage and Housing, Transport Canada, Industry, Science and Technology, Employment and Immigration, Secretary of State, Health and Welfare, Energy, Mines and Resources, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Justice and the Solicitor General, contributed $607 million toward James Bay?

I am not standing here saying that we should not be doing these things. These were decisions made by this Chamber and by members of Parliament who fought for their constituents, whether it be for job creation or to make sure that the economic viability of the province was there, but what I cannot understand is after all of this sort of federal presence, this Government of Canada work and presence, why Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition wants to separate.

That is a question that many of my constituents have. I thought that today, because we were debating this bill, it would be a time to reflect and a time for all of us on this side to revisit the whole exercise of examining the Government of Canada presence in the province of Quebec. It is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that all of our constituents and all of their constituents know just what services are provided and where we fall short.

I am not suggesting for a second that the situation is perfect. I think that Richard Séguin has a legitimate beef. When we talk about Canadian artists I believe Richard Séguin is a Canadian artist. When we listen to English radio stations all we hear is English radio programs. Those are Canadian airwaves. Why can we not have Séguin on every radio station in Canada the same way we have Anne Murray or Blue Rodeo on every radio station in Canada?

I am not standing here saying that there are not some legitimate concerns, but what I am concerned about is the fact that we are not communicating to the people who live and work in the province of Quebec all of the Government of Canada presence that is there for them. The Government of Canada presence through programs and services, whether they be in industry, through the Department of National Defence, through the historic sites that are supported by the Government of Canada, through the Department of Tourism, all of these points of presence are something that we have to make known to the people of Quebec. If they should want to walk away from that they should at least know what the whole story is all about.

I am convinced that once the total and accurate story has been told there will be some Quebecers who may now be thinking more in the separatist mode who might change their position. Is it possible? I hope so.

I feel the more the members opposite become exposed to some of the Government of Canada work that is done in the province of Quebec that some of them might be a little less antagonistic toward the whole notion of Quebec within Canada.

I stand here today recognizing and supporting totally Bill C-3. I hope that all members opposite will communicate to their constituents that we on this side of the House are supporting this bill with firmness. We are not in any way, shape or form questioning it, but we are asking ourselves if we are communicating. Usually when someone has a resentment toward a particular institution or a particular operation of government, there are legitimate reasons like waste or duplication. I accept the fact that we must work at correcting a lot of those flaws that are in the system.

Those flaws that are in our system right now were created by many institutionalized bureaucracies around here. Those frustrations, believe you me, are the same for many people. We have the same feeling in downtown Toronto for those duplications and institutionalized bureaucracies and units that are no longer serving the end user in the way they were originally intended to serve the end user. But we do not say okay, let us throw up our hands and quit. The purpose of our presence here today is to make sure that we fix those things that are no longer serving the public.

I hope that the message of the bill can be told to the people of Quebec. In the last five years close to $50.7 billion was transferred; in the next five years it will be close to $70 billion. That, along with all the other Government of Canada presence in the province of Quebec, I believe should mean something. Let us hope with a good communication plan over the next little while it will shift the attitude and cause a different approach from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic and support many of the hon. member's recommendations. There are some that I do not support, but I have real concern when he puts this emphasis on always listening to the popular view of our constituents.

I have not always shared the popular view of my constituents. In fact I will give a specific example. When I started off opposing the Charlottetown accord, for the first two weeks of the campaign there were many of my constituents who did not share my view. Over a period of time many came around.

The member does not realize that in this Chamber we have to deal with national issues that do not just concern the people of our riding but we have to make a judgment call and be sensitive to all regions and all concerns of other members in this House.

I do not always believe it is the popular view of our ridings that should drive us.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, because this is such an important issue and we have the leader of the Reform Party who spent many hours and years working on this issue maybe we could have the unanimous consent of the House to continue questions.

[Crown Liability And Proceedings Act, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express to my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, how delighted I am that this bill has come before the House today, so quickly after we have taken office.

There are many Canadians who have been concerned about this issue and I want to put a question to my colleague because I have a very special and specific interest in this.

Recently Ovide Mercredi, Bob White, head of the Canadian Labour Congress, and others made a visit to Mexico during which they were investigating conditions that exist there today, or are purported to exist, under which people already were maybe taking advantage of the relationship that we have in this trade agreement. I have been notified of this and many people think that those of us as Liberals who campaigned against NAFTA have walked away from that commitment.

I have a question for my colleague. Is it his view that these side agreements and this piece of legislation that we are putting through the House so quickly today will supply us with the teeth necessary so that when incidents such as were described in the papers recently in terms of people in the community being repressed, et cetera, for certain activities they will help us in addressing that type of incident?

[Crown Liability And Proceedings Act, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a valid point. This is my understanding of it and I stand to be corrected by the parliamentary secretary to the minister of trade.

Let us imagine there is a court ruling that labour standards are not being followed which essentially would violate the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is then incumbent upon the parties who signed that agreement to implement the direction of that court or panel. We have to have some basic goodwill. If that type of judgment is asserted then the parties involved would make sure that the implementation or correction would take place.

The member raises a very good point. When I debated this point in opposition we heard from many people that the implementation of the agreement whether it be on environmental standards or labour standards would be the great challenge.

The fact that we have isolated from the agreement a special commission both in terms of labour and environment is almost like an enhanced scanner on those two types of activities. My understanding would be that all parties would be much more on alert knowing those panels exist to monitor all activities.

That is our greatest hope. I have not heard of a better way to put some teeth into the agreement.

[Crown Liability And Proceedings Act, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of trade will be speaking momentarily.

My understanding of this agreement is that when there is a situation having to do either with the environment or labour where we believe the agreement is not being followed, then we would report this to the commission which has the jurisdiction and will allow the claim to be analysed. If the claim is justified and someone is defaulting then action can be taken right away.

[Crown Liability And Proceedings Act, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-4. Many members will realize this was a central issue for us not only during the last campaign but during the last Parliament.

Many of us participated in the around the clock debate when the then government brought in the NAFTA. Our critic for labour, the member for Kenora-Rainy River, led the debate. We did our best to get the government to include side deals on NAFTA related to labour and environmental standards that we believed to be so necessary and so important for the integrity of this agreement.

We did not have such luck. But it was amazing during the election how our NDP opponents forgot about that debate. They forgot that we debated around the clock and we did our best to fight for amendments to the deal. In fact I remember at one time during the campaign they said that the Liberals were really going along with the Conservative Party package on NAFTA when that was not the case.

I am happy to speak in the House today, approximately 100 days since the government was sworn in. It was the Prime Minister who within the first week of taking office declared that we would only get behind NAFTA if we could have enforceable side deals. Therefore, I think it is important for all Canadians to know that NAFTA has been strengthened and improved. I believe the side agreements on environmental and labour co-operation will go a long way in allaying the justifiable fears of Canadians in these areas.

I specifically like that this tripartite commission which will be set up will be so specific in its area of responsibility and priority that it will include limits on specific pollutants, assessing projects with transboundary implications and reciprocal court access. This is the specific type of thing those in Canada who were opposed to the NAFTA, myself included, wanted attached to the agreement.

Also with respect to the environment the minister of trade went to extra lengths in the area of water. In the last Parliament we listened to lawyers and experts from across Canada who had the view, as did many members, that the issue of water was not clear. In fact they could have access to our water either through the free trade agreement or the NAFTA. Many of us were very concerned about that. I give credit to the minister of trade who went the extra distance to cite water specifically. In fact under these side agreements there is absolutely no way the Americans or Mexicans have unfettered access to our water.

The last point I want to make is in relation to labour. In my riding labour was a major concern and I supported this concern. We are going to have to be very diligent about this issue because many people are concerned about the labour standards in Mexico, especially with this notion of hiring young children and the working conditions. No one in this country could tolerate those working conditions with any kind of conscience at all.

Under the very specific mandate to the labour commission in this side deal we can assure Canadians if there is any action taken in any corporation or any activity in Mexico they can appeal to this commission. We will have representation there that will bring the matter to the attention of this Parliament and that is ultimately what Canadians want.

I am happy to see that all three parties are united on these side agreements to the NAFTA. However, we are going to have to be very diligent and watch this agreement very closely because I know that a large number of Canadians are still very dubious about it.

[Department Of National Revenue Act, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, regarding this whole notion of when we return to our ridings this weekend, alongside the initiative that has taken place here today in this bill there is another initiative that is closely related to it which I am sure many members read about in the newspapers today.

The whole process of examining alternatives to the goods and services tax began yesterday in the finance committee. We as members of Parliament should make sure when we go home to our constituents and talk that we do not just refer to the activities that take place in this House of Commons.

There is all kinds of activity, as the Reform Party member alluded, and initiatives taking place that are good news for our constituents.

Most Canadians would welcome the fact that the finance committee said that by the end of June it wants to hear of all the possible alternatives to the GST in our existing tax system. It is very important that we give that encouragement to our constituents when we go home.

[Department Of National Revenue Act, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my comment will be brief.

I would like to congratulate the minister of revenue for moving so quickly on the whole issue of minimizing the duplication and overlap in any area related to taxation or service to the public in the area of taxation. This is welcomed by most Canadians. I am happy to see that the Reform Party recognizes the importance of our seizing this initiative and acting on it within the first hundred days.

I also have to say to the members of the Bloc, specifically to the critic of the Bloc-