Debates of Feb. 11th, 1994

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

I am confident that the hon. member would not impute a motive to any other member to malign anyone on any question. I hope that when we choose our words to put a question that we will always keep in mind that what we are trying to do is to get the truth of whatever the matter is, to have questions properly presented and indeed where possible to have their questions aired.

I know that in the spirit of what has transpired in the last month or so that terms such as those that try to malign might be taken out of our vocabulary if it is at all possible. I take note of what the member has said. I do not know if it is a point of order, but I do take note.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could replace the words in question with misleading and inflammatory and ill conceived words on the part of the hon. member for Wild Rose.

[The Speaker]

I am sure that we do not want to get into that or get into that as little as we can. The point is taken and I thank the hon. member.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

I had a point of order, but it has been answered. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

Did I answer it?

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding changes in the membership of the standing committees, pursuant to Standing Order 114 of the House.

I would ask that the House dispense with the reading of the report. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.

Criminal Code

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-214, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda-age group).

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment that I am offering today to the Criminal Code would amend the hate propaganda provisions whereby someone who advocates or promotes the physical destruction of a person of an identifiable group would be prevented from doing so.

At the present time the Criminal Code says that an identifiable group is differentiated or distinguished by race, colour, religion or ethnic origin. I would like to add the word age to that, thereby preventing the promotion of violence or destruction against children.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition on behalf of 1,000 citizens who are asking the government not to proceed with potential rent increases in low-income housing and in the OSBL. I support this petition and hope that the government will respond to it favourably.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table a petition on behalf of citizens of my riding, mainly from the Saint-Grégoire area of the city of Bécancourt, as well as from the parish of Grand-Saint-Esprit, who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners.

Through this petition, they urge the government to stop closing post offices and unreasonably reducing the working hours of people who work in these offices. They do not accept the fact that the quality of postal service is penalizing the small parishes.

[Rex Crawford, Liberal, Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present a petition of over 1,000 names on behalf of citizens concerned about the Young Offenders Act.

This petition is not only from my own riding of Kent but from Essex-Kent, Windsor West and Windsor-St. Clair, Lambton and Sarnia. It states that crimes committed on society by young offenders are on a serious uprise and the young offenders go virtually unpunished due to protection under the Young Offenders Act, whereas they lack respect for the law and fellow citizens, whereas there is no remorse or shame on the part of the young offender.

Wherefore, the undersigned, the petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to review and revise its laws concerning young offenders by empowering the courts to prosecute and punish the young law breakers who are terrorizing our society by releasing their names and lowering the age limit to allow prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(1), I would like to present this petition on behalf of citizens of the province of Saskatchewan.

The undersigned, the residents of the province of Saskatchewan, draw to the attention of the House the following: Whereas under section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of parole for 25 years are able to apply for review after only 15 years, and whereas the murder of police officers and prison guards in the execution of their duties is a most reprehensible crime, the petitioners request that Parliament repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[Jim Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, duly certified as to form and content, from citizens across my riding asking the federal government to seek approval from the Canadian people for Canada's policy with reference to official languages.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have had a petition forwarded to me which has been duly certified indicating that in the opinion of the petitioners the Canadian National Anthem makes reference to the male sex and is therefore sexist. The petitioners request that the anthem be amended to avoid such terms.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Bellechasse had five minutes remaining for his speech.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I wish to remind you that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), the Official Opposition will be splitting its time into ten-minute periods.

As the time for statements by members and oral question period was beginning, I was about to bring up the provisions of Bill C-207 introduced by one of my hon. colleagues as a private

member's bill. The purpose of the bill is to allow the Auditor General to present interim reports throughout the year, a move which would give parliamentarians a greater role to play in the affairs of government.

I think that the government should take Bill C-207 introduced by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and reintroduce it, either as is or in some other form, as a government bill to which improvements could be made in committee.

As I noted earlier, the Reform Party motion tabled in this House by the hon. member for St. Albert contains eight separate items. It is difficult to examine even one item thoroughly, much less the entire motion.

For example, item (e) calls upon the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to address problems relating to the rights of aboriginal peoples. This is one area on which the Auditor General has focussed.

I think that this is a very interesting proposal. The federal Indian Act made native peoples second-class citizens by confining them to reserves and treating them as wards of the state, without giving any thought to the fact that they had the legitimate right to govern themselves as they saw fit, under the broad terms of the Canadian Constitution.

In the early 1980s, Quebec worked hard to prove to the other Canadian provinces and to the federal government that it was possible, working within the framework of the current Constitution and with the openings afforded by section 35 of the 1982 Constitution, to give native peoples a greater opportunity to find their own way, one which would be defined as openly as possible, and, after so many years of federal trusteeship, to recognize their right to native self-government.

This was just wishful thinking, of course. We have long been advocating an end to overlap and duplication of services between the federal and provincial governments. We are pleased to a certain degree to hear the hon. member for St. Albert and his party call for this kind of action, since we have studied this issue at considerable length. The Bélanger-Campeau Commission in Quebec very aptly recommended an end to overlap.

The Bloc Quebecois' mission is to bring an end to overlap once and for all. This will come about when sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act of 1867 are repealed. In the meantime, we will do everything we can to limit the damage inflicted on us by the Constitution Act of 1867.

But, as long as we are Canadian taxpayers, we in Quebec will continue to keep a close watch on things to ensure that the situation we inherit-and we will inherit our share of both assets and liabilities-is the best it can be. It is with this objective in mind that we will continue to work in the House to improve or stabilize the situation.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his well-prepared speech. I would also like to congratulate the hon. member of the Reform party who put forward this motion which calls for many things. It is an appeal to the government to act in the interests of taxpayers.

There is a certain resemblance-and I am certain that my hon. colleague will agree with me on this-between the motion before us today and the one presented yesterday by the Official Opposition as part of the two allotted opposition days this week. Both motions reflect a will to cut government expenditures. Yesterday, we proposed the striking of a special committee which would review departmental spending item by item. Savings would be realized simply because expenses would be disclosed. The motion put forward today is similar, but refers specifically to certain sectors.

The government's pat answer is that we have the public accounts committee to look into spending matters.

This morning, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, who used to chair the public accounts committee, told us that the latter had passed resolutions similar to the motion put forward by the Reform party. The committee wanted to do exactly what the Official Opposition is advocating now, but the government was never willing to go along.

All day yesterday, and again today, the government stubbornly maintains that the public accounts committee can do its job. Of course it can, but then the government must take its recommendations into account.

If a special committee representing all parties in this House, including independent members, could review, item by item, all departmental spending, it seems to me that its influence would be greater, more far-reaching. It would exert even greater moral pressure on the government and would have the support of all parties to carry out these spending cuts.

This is why I would like my hon. colleague to tell me whether or not my remarks tie in with what he was saying shortly before oral question period.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Richelieu for his comments and question.

I believe the hon. member was referring to the first part of my speech to which he listened closely, since after an interruption of more than one and a half hours, he was able to focus in on the point I was making. Before statements from members, I was saying how odd it was that Bill C-207 dated February was sponsored by the former chairman of the public accounts committee under the late lamented Conservative government. The bill calls for interim, sequential reports to be issued throughout the year so that reviewing public finances becomes a routine matter and members are finally able to fulfil their real mandates as parliamentarians.

The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier also mentioned that a period of time should be allotted to consider reports from the public accounts committee and I think that is what the hon. member for Richelieu was alluding to. It is not enough simply to table a report. I agree with what others before me have said, namely that time should be allotted for the serious consideration of reports of this nature.

As for the last question raised by the hon. member for Richelieu, namely whether a committee should be struck to review spending item by item, of course I think this would be the best approach, certainly preferable to a motion such as the one put forward today by the hon. member for St. Albert which touches on certain aspects, but overlooks others. I think the motion we presented yesterday was much broader and, as the hon. member for Richelieu said, it would provide a much better overview of Canada's public finances.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for St. Albert as well as the Reform Party for having tabled this motion in the House today because, on the whole, this motion goes along the line of what the Bloc Quebecois is requesting.

We agree in principle with the motion of course, as it recommends a complete follow-up on this famous Report of the Auditor General of Canada, a report that every one should have read and that I recommend to the public. People can get a copy for free.

However, we believe that this motion does not go far enough. Only a tiny part of government expenditures are audited by the Auditor General and appear in this book, a book which unfortunately more often than not gathers dust on a shelf.

The Auditor General of Canada himself says, and I quote: "Most of the time, Parliament does not get adequate information on what government departments and agencies have accomplished with the billions of dollars from taxpayers".

We are all aware of the terrible state of government finances. We are aware of the burden of the debt on Canadians and Quebecers, a burden that sadly our children may inherit. We are aware of the unemployment rate, which is not coming down, of the bankruptcies and of the hardship they bring about.

I must remind you by the way that the suicide rate among young people is higher in Quebec today than in any other industrialized country in the world. Such an incidence is a clear indication of how much young Canadians have lost hope in the future.

Through all this, Quebec is a little poorer than other provinces and ends up receiving, through federal tax transfers, quite a bit of assistance. But I think it would be a good idea to look at why Quebec finds itself in that situation.

We must understand that Quebec gives $28 billion to Canada. That is nearly 25 per cent of federal revenue and if we check the federal government expenditure items, we will see that in most cases we lose out.

Let me give you a few short examples, as this is not the main thrust of my speech. In research and development, between 1979 and 1989, federal departments invested about 18.5 per cent of their R and D funds in Quebec, while we provided 25 per cent of Canada's revenue. There definitely is a shortfall, not only in the money not being reinvested in Quebec but also in terms of the beneficial effect of such investments on job creation because it is well known that research and development is one of the factors stimulating job creation.

With respect to federal investments in Quebec, while we have provided approximately 25 per cent of federal revenue in Canada from 1973 to 1993, we have been getting back 18 per cent on average. There is a 6 or 7 per cent shortfall there. And I will remind you that these investments amount to billions of dollars. This means that billions of dollars are not being pumped back into Quebec's economy to create jobs, but are being provided in a different way, through tax transfers for social benefits.

I am pointing out these two items but, if we look at the whole picture, we can see that, in the last 20 to 25 years, Quebec's economy is, for lack of a better word, gradually transferring to Ontario precisely because of federal investments causing our economy to disintegrate. The Auto Pact, for example, encouraged all car manufacturers to locate in Ontario. None of them came to Quebec. The digging of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which was, of course, a very beneficial project in general for Canada, had long-term negative effects for the port of Montreal because, with shipping going through to the Great Lakes, there were successive lay-offs over the years at the port of Montreal. The Borden line, which we will be discussing at length, I am sure, in the coming months, encouraged petrochemical plants to move from Montreal's east end where my constituency is to central Ontario, to Sarnia.

That move resulted in thousands and thousands of jobs lost in Quebec, in a sector I know well as I worked for oil companies putting floating covers on oil tanks across Canada, in the United States, in Texas; it is a sector I know well. As a result, people who were making very good salaries lost their jobs; today these people are on unemployment or on welfare. We lost thousands of jobs because of a federal policy and now these people are collecting welfare benefits.

We can also look at airports. As you may recall, a few years ago, Mr. Trudeau decided to build another airport because of congestion at the Dorval airport. So Mirabel was built at a cost

of millions of dollars and thousands of people were moved to make way for the airport. As soon as that was done, international flights, which did not have that right back then, were allowed to land directly in Toronto.

So what happened? Well, airport activity was merely transferred from Montreal to Toronto, as it is obviously not in carriers' interest to make two stops. They land directly in Toronto. As a result, Mirabel is now a big white elephant that has cost hundreds of millions of dollars. At the same time, Toronto airport is being expanded because there are too many flights landing there.

We can see in these examples a rational explanation for what is happening in Quebec, whose economic infrastructure is disappearing along with thousands of jobs. It is a debate in which we will be taking an active part in the coming weeks and months, I am sure, when we start speaking seriously in this House about the advantages and disadvantages of Quebec's sovereignty.

What we also learned is not only that the economy is going very badly but in recent years, especially in the election campaign which just ended, but how much people have really lost confidence in politicians now. I think that the results of the October 25 election are eloquent testimony of this. Here we are, then, at the point where the government-at least we think so and we will see in the budget to be tabled very soon-we think that the government will really attack social benefits or fiscal transfers to the provinces in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, that is my point: I think that the people are aware of the very difficult situation we are in now and are also aware that they do not like the way politicians do business. If we want to clean a staircase, we should start at the top. That is how you clean a staircase, from the top down. That is why we not only agree with the motion presented here but we ask for much more. In conclusion, we want a parliamentary committee to examine all government spending item by item, right here in this House, in front of everyone. We want the books to be opened to the public for all tax expenditures.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies. He explained the problem very well and provided concrete examples of jobs which were eliminated in Quebec and transferred to other regions, following administrative decisions made without consultation.

As for the motion tabled by the Reform Party, I am pleased that my colleague agrees with it, although he would like to give it greater scope regarding government spending in general.

I wonder-and maybe my colleague could comment on that-if we should not only look at government spending but also at some institutions or programs which have always been in place and are very costly. As an example, I can mention the other place.

We are told that the Upper House costs $43 million. An article was recently published in either La Presse or Le Devoir , I forget, which referred to some incredible costs. For example, there are 11 cabinet makers, as well as a gymnasium which only one member of the other place has been using regularly in the last four years.

Consequently, we have to take a look at this patronage haven, which is somewhat of a remnant of colonialism. Would it not be possible to make a cut, along with others, and thereby save a minimum of $43 million?

As you know, in the minds of the Fathers of Confederation, the Upper House was meant to be a watchdog controlling the zeal of elected members, often to protect the interests of the rich but also of the general public. However, the situation changed progressively in the sense that interest groups have now come into existence all over the country and have direct access to the government.Consequently, the other place is no longer the repository of the public's claims.

Unfortunately, the Upper House has now become the place where an outgoing Prime Minister rewards political friends.

I am not saying that all the members of the other place got there like that, and I do not want to take anything away from their personal and professional qualifications. However, the fact is that the perception is, at least in Quebec, that the Upper House is useless and can even, on occasion, prevent the democratically elected members of Parliament from quickly implementing their decisions. The other place can sometime delay bills. This, added to the fact that it sat for only 43 days last year, makes it a very expensive proposition.

So, when we talk about spending cuts, should we not consider what the Official Opposition was suggesting yesterday, during another allotted day, and widen the terms of reference, as the Reform Party is suggesting today in its motion? Should we not widen the terms of reference to include not only government spending, but also to examine the raison d'être of some institutions, including the other place.

In a sense, I am a bit surprised that the Reform Party, which is advocating spending cuts, would rise in this House and wish that the members of the other place be elected. That would only further increase the expenditures and slow down the decision-making process. We do not need the other place anymore, because the regions are now very well represented, first in the House of Commons and also by special interest groups which

have expanded throughout Canada. The regions can speak for themselves and do not need the protection the other place traditionally provided them.

Given the fact that my colleague has had time to consider the proposal put forward by the Reform Party and has requested a widening of the terms of reference, just like the Official Opposition yesterday, is he also ready to add to these terms of reference to include consideration of our institutions and of some of our traditions?

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is something we occasionally discussed together outside the House.

Indeed, the mandate could be widened to include the other place, an institution of a more traditional type which may not have all the required effectiveness in the legislative process.

It is clear that in Quebec we have been talking for a long time about abolishing the other place in order to reduce spending and to send the population a clear message saying that those who work here do so with full public knowledge and in an effective manner, and that the same cannot be said for the other place. This does not reflect in any way I am sure-and my colleague was right to make that very clear-on the quality of the people who sit in that chamber. I know, I spoke to a few of them on occasions.

I also talked occasionally with members of the Reform party, during conventions, and I was surprised to find out how much, on the whole, they believe in the need for cuts-deep cuts-in public spending. I believe that the way they speak in the House, even if it is a bit unusual at the present time, shows that have a deep desire to be real representatives of their constituents.

I am sure that Westerners, like other people, would be in favour of seriously studying the possibility of doing away with an institution which, at the present time, has only traditional duties.