Debates of Feb. 16th, 1994

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I take the request under advisement. I will make a decision on this request as well as on the question of privilege and will come back to the House at the earliest possible time.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am a new member. Would the Speaker please clarify for the House whether this would be a question of privilege? I thought a question of privilege was regarding a personal matter. This does not seem to follow that qualification according to my understanding of the standing orders.

[The Speaker]

The Chair will indeed make a ruling on the question of privilege which is before the House at this time. The Chair will also consider the request put forward by the member for York South-Weston.

When I have made that decision on behalf of the House I will come back and report to the House at the earliest possible time.

The Environment

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government believes that a healthy economy can and must flow from a healthy environment.

We owe it to our children to preserve and enhance the extraordinary environment with which we have been blessed. In doing so we can and must set the foundation for a whole new era of economic growth. We owe it to our children to explore the competitive advantage which a commitment to the environment will bring.

All of us have to change our behaviour in big and small ways beginning here in government. Individual Canadians have already been doing that in their own lives.

The challenge for us in Parliament is to find means of accelerating the move toward sustainable development. That is why the government stated in the throne speech that the concept of sustainable development will become an integral part of government policies.

Our Parliament must be a leader when it comes to protecting our environment, preventing pollution and promoting environmental industries. We must take the lead by making the government more ecologically sensitive.

We must understand that government policies have an important bearing on people's attitude. Depending on the approach adopted by Parliament, Canada will or will not become a world leader in sustainable development.

The blunt fact is that we can only succeed if we forge a partnership with all Canadians. Our government must set an example and must show leadership. We cannot do it alone. We need to work in partnership and in harmony with the provinces and territories, with labour and environmental groups and business. Most of all, we have to tap the talent and goodwill of individual Canadians.

We will only reach our goal of combining a strong economy with a strong environment when we include every Canadian in that effort.

Today, in that spirit of reaching out, in that spirit of inclusion, I am pleased to announce that the government will fulfil another red book commitment, our decision to proclaim the act to establish the national round table on the environment and the economy.

Parliament voted to establish the round table as a 25-person body composed of a broadly representative membership from across the country. It must reflect the need for concerted action in all areas of Canada if we are to achieve sustainable development.

The round table's purpose is to act as a catalyst in identifying, explaining and promoting the principles and practices we must adopt if we are to meet the needs of our generation without compromising the ability of future generations to live in a clean environment.

This round table can do research on critical aspects of sustainable development. It will provide useful advice to every sector in our country regarding ways to integrate environmental and economic considerations into decisions and actions. In my opinion, the round table can especially facilitate the creation of a partnership to make sustainable development a concrete reality in Canada.

In order to have this partnership, we must ensure that people have confidence in our innovative process, and we must give them the opportunity to fully participate. As well, we must take into account the opinions and interests of everyone, and a real commitment to reach a consensus is also necessary.

The round-table process has proven successful in Canada, and other countries are also using it. Indeed, a good number of provincial and local round tables have managed to solve sensitive and contentious issues by way of a consensus.

The national round table must have a strong legislative mandate to fully play its role of catalyst and promoter regarding environmental and economic issues. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister himself has agreed to chair this round table.

Membership on the round table on the environment and the economy must provide the links we need with communities, regions and provinces that are already taking creative ideas and translating them into practical solutions. The round table can and should involve Canadians at all levels of society, Canadians who can contribute to our collective goal of sustainable development by reaching out and motivating others to take action.

Openings on the round table will soon be published in the Canada Gazette , but here and now I want to ask interested members of Parliament to include applications from interested Canadians. In addition, I would be pleased to receive direct suggestions from members of Parliament on the balanced membership of the round table.

Through its unique character and make-up the round table is well positioned to seek new and pragmatic solutions to the problems facing our country and the world. The national round table can play a lead role in the current efforts to develop a sustainable framework for Canada.

Through this act we are effectively charging the round table with becoming a real agent for change in Canada.

We must find innovative and sensible ways of making Canada a leader in sustainable development. Together, we must find ways of changing how we think and particularly how we act. Sustainable development must become an every day reality. Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed when I see that even the Government of Canada ignores our own environmental capabilities in its policy. What we are doing here in this House should be a signal to all Canadian governments to follow suit.

Each and every one of us is responsible for the prosperity of our economy and the cleanness of our environment. All of us, federalists as well as separatists, are responsible for our future. This is why we must give all Canadians an opportunity to express themselves and to get involved. In this sense, the government's decision to table an act creating the national round

table on the environment and the economy is an important step, and I urge hon. members to sit at that table and to get involved.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of the Environment for giving us the text of her minister's statement at around 10 o'clock this morning.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act was finally proclaimed today, after being tabled in the House in April 1992 and receiving royal assent in June 1993.

This round table, the purpose of which is to merge the environment and the economy, was inspired by the concept of sustainable development. It is clear that whatever our political affiliations, as the minister said earlier, whether we are sovereigntists or federalists, we all breathe the same air and drink the same water. We are all concerned about the impact poor environmental management may have on our quality of life. And we are even more aware of the impact our present actions and decisions may have on the lives of future generations.

Not to support this legislation would be a sign of bad faith. And I am therefore very pleased, as is the Bloc Quebecois, and as were all opposition parties at the time, to see the government go ahead with this concept for obtaining intelligent advice from various sources.

However, as the Liberals and the NDP pointed out at the time, some aspects of this legislation are not clear or are at least open to question. The corporation's operational structure allows it to work with a measure of independence. However, there is always the possibility that the table will have ties with the government, since its chairperson and members are appointed by the Governor in Council.

Earlier, the Minister of the Environment announced that the Prime Minister had agreed to chair the round table. If the minister is considering applications, I would be glad to oblige, if you agree, that is-

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Pierre-Marc Johnson is vice-chairperson.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Yes, he is a good choice. He would have made a good chairperson.

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

We know him.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Yes, I know.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

So the corporation's operational structure allows it to work with a measure of independence, but there is always the possibility that the table may have ties with the government, since its members are appointed by the Governor in Council.

However, I think the government is very much aware of this aspect, since it was involved in the debate on this legislation, and I am sure it will find a way to deal with this.

The government is comfortable with this legislation since under the Conservatives, the hon. member for Davenport proposed certain amendments that were, in fact, adopted.

The Liberal government is well aware that our air, water and soil-our physical environment-are very much at risk, to put it mildly. In some cases, they have reached the point of no return.

We should not focus on one particular form of consultation at the expense of the other components of our environment.

Often, to show it is environment-conscious, the government adopts this kind of legislation while at the same time cutting back on related commitments. Take, for instance, the defunct Conservative government's green plan. In 1990, the plan's initial budget of $3 billion over five years was reduced a few months later to $3 billion over six years. This is a reduction of 20 per cent in the same year, and there were subsequent cuts later on.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy can be an effective tool, provided partisan considerations are excluded. No group has the right to use the environment to promote partisan interests.

Next Tuesday, February 22, the Minister of Finance will bring down his first budget. In the section on environment and sustainable development, we will see whether the government puts its money where its mouth is.

Since we know this is one of the first priorities of the Liberal government, we can assume that budget allocations for the Department of the Environment will help us make up for lost time.

In concluding, I want to say that we should support this initiative for consultation and co-operation. We must take advantage of this opportunity to communicate with various players in sectors that are in a position to help the environment. The Liberal government has chosen this vehicle to get out of its ivory tower. The results will be gratifying, provided it does its homework.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. minister for this initiative. I believe it is the direction we want to go and that most Canadians want to go. Most of us feel inside that we are environmentalists and this comes from the way we recycle our paper or compost or garbage. It is the mood of Canadians to move in this direction.

I would like to go back to a little history of where we have come from, because I believe the pendulum has swung through from the economy versus the environment. It was an either/or situation and I believe it was to the detriment of many Canadians.

That basically was the old way. I believe the new way, the integration of the economy and the environment, is the way to go because that is sustainable development. I believe that is the direction that this legislation is taking.

The goal is to combine a strong economy with a strong environment. This is basically as the minister has said and I believe it is excellent.

Now to the round table itself. I would hope that their perspective is balanced. I believe that balance will come from the people who are on this board. I would hope that the make-up of the board is not all one side of the equation or all of the other. I hope there is a very broad base so that we have the voice of all Canadians.

I would also hope that there is a national perspective, a perspective that comes from coast to coast and including the territories. I would be most disappointed to see the make-up of this round table from largely central Canada or one point in Canada.

I would like to move on to the mandate because I am a bit unsure, and that is maybe because I am new in the House. Is this an advisory body or a legislative body? To whom does it report? The minister said that the Prime Minister will be chairing it. Does it report to the House, to caucus or to the Prime Minister? I see it is to you.

Basically those are the points I wanted to address. I would hope that the meetings are open and that the public is involved. What will be the cost? We need to know where Canada is today, which is in a debt hole, and how much this is going to cost.

Finally I would hope that this is a meaningful process, that three or four years down the road that we have not rehashed what we know about sustainable development only to find that we have not really moved ahead.

Criminal Code

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code (aiding suicide).

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill that would amend the Criminal Code to allow terminally ill people the right to die with dignity with the assistance of their doctor.

People with terminal illnesses, some suffering terrible pain or indignity, are now being assisted to die but too often it is being done by secret physicians who perform secret acts or, worse yet, by family or friends with no safeguards whatsoever in place.

The current legislation which dates back to 1892 can be extremely cruel to those who are dying and to their families.

Sue Rodriguez, a woman who lived her life and approached her death with incredible courage and dignity, urged the Minister of Justice in her final declaration to introduce legislation into Parliament soon on this subject.

I hope this bill will be one step along this road, a road that leads to a more decent and civilized society for all Canadians.

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

Unemployment Insurance Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-216, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (jury service).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act so that persons serving on juries will not be deemed ineligible for benefits simply because they are involved in this activity.

The object of this bill is to prevent people who are eligible for UI and who are selected for jury duty from being ruled ineligible for their unemployment insurance.

In a number of cases in the last couple of years nationally, the judges have dismissed jurors who were receiving UI on the grounds that they may be disqualified for UI. This is to point out that problem and rectify it.

I had a fair amount of support last time in the House, and I am again looking forward to that support.

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

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

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This bill with similar intent was presented in the 34th Parliament. At that time I had received unanimous support of the members in the House. There were well over 100 members in the House at that time who had agreed to move this bill to committee for consideration.

It had gone to committee for consideration but unfortunately the House prorogued before it was returned and reported.

I would ask the House for consent to have the bill proceed to second reading and committee today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It would appear that the member, as he has just indicated, must ask for unanimous consent of the House. If he receives that then he can ask for unanimous consent to send it directly to committee.

Do members agree to ask for unanimous consent?

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is a great number of new members in the House. I think it might be proper to follow normal procedures and let new members become familiar with this legislation before we give unanimous consent.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is in the hands of the members. I take it the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster is denying unanimous consent. Very well. The Chair will not have to put the second question.

Petitions

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present this petition duly certified by the clerk of petitions on behalf of the undersigned residents of Wellington-Grey Dufferin-Simcoe and the surrounding area.

The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ban the sale of serial killer board games and prevent any other such game or material to be made available in Canada in order to protect the innocent children of this country.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting to the House a petition from several hundred residents of Saint-Sulpice who are calling on Parliament to intervene in an effort to get fisheries and oceans Canada to reconsider its decision to demolish the wharf on the waterfront, on Bord-de-l'eau Road, in Saint-Sulpice, and to take the necessary steps to ensure its preservation.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 18 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b).

Business Of Supply

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

moved:

That this House condemn the government's inability to re-establish and increase budgets for social housing construction programs.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction that I rise today to take part in this debate on social housing.

Since I first rose in this House on January 21 to make a member's statement, I have taken every opportunity to remind the other members that 1.2 million Canadians have urgent housing needs. These people scattered in every one of our ridings are facing an intolerable situation. They are living in appalling housing conditions and their rents are eating up an excessive part of their income.

For several years, elected members of the government have been claiming left and right that Canada is a highly-rated country where living conditions are the best. I sincerely believe that we must come down to earth and look at reality. Comparisons between countries are no longer valid. They are often dangerous because they breed indifference and hamper the recognition of real problems. They create false impressions on real life.

In June 1993, the UN committee on economic, social and cultural rights published a report on poverty in Canada. It painted an devastating picture of the housing situation and expressed surprise that despite the obvious existence of homeless people and the inadequate housing conditions, social housing expenditures only amounted to 1.3 per cent of public spending.

So this international, high-profile organization has cut government big guns down to size by saying that Canada is not meeting one of its first obligations, namely to provide adequate and affordable housing for everyone.

What is true for Canada is even truer for Quebec as 44.3 per cent of Quebec households live in rental housing, compared with a Canadian average of 37.1 per cent. So the problem is more acute there. The poorest provinces are also confronted with this difficult situation.

In the face of this strongly denied reality, the government must act quickly and responsibly in this regard. It is now putting its head in the sand by constantly repeating that it does not have the money.

It recently informed us that it will spend money on residential rehabilitation. But this money does not do anything to help the homeless because they have no residence to rehabilitate in the first place.

While this kind of program creates jobs, these jobs too often lead to a rise in the cost of private rental housing. By improving housing, owners raise rents. This, in turn, makes it worse for low-income households who must shell out more money.

The Liberal government's declarations clearly show that it is moving toward maintaining the policy put in place by the Conservatives in this area. The Liberals' first 100 days are nothing to reassure poorly housed Canadians. They are following in the footsteps of the Conservatives whose policies and decisions could be called the "social housing massacre".

Available figures confirm beyond question that a massacre occurred between 1984 and 1994. Until 1984, some 25,000 new social housing units were being built in Canada every year. It took the Conservatives 10 years to kill that formula so that, since January 1, 1994, the federal government no longer contributes to the construction of a single social housing unit. It is quite a record to go from 25,000 to zero. We can see that their decisions helped them to break another record, from 152 to only two members in this House.

These alarming figures show the abdication of the federal government in this area.

The government also asked the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to become more efficient, in other words to cut costs. There are worrying indications that CMHC is looking for ways to save and is contemplating rent increases in social housing to increase its revenues. Basically, they would be taking money out of the pockets of the less fortunate, attacking their slender income to help other people with housing problems. What a shameful thing to do.

That is what we are headed for with the government's silence. The members opposite are not reacting. It is as if there were no housing problems in their ridings, and all their constituents had decent housing. I think that is hardly the case. I would ask them to go out in their riding and see how things really are. Then come back and get in touch with your Minister of Finance to apprise him of the situation and urge him to make funds available in his next budget, on February 22, to re-establish and increase budgets for social housing programs.

Of course, the Minister of Finance has been going on and on with the same story for weeks. He is putting us to sleep. He is trying to make us bite the bullet of austerity. This budget will be a tough one, we are told over and over. But the money is there. It is only a matter of making the right choices. The government must take its responsibilities and act with courage and fairness.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, have suggested that the government go over each program, each item of government expenditure to cut the fat, the squandering, the costly duplication within the federal administration. This process could have allowed us to find funds to help provide housing for the less fortunate segment of our society. Unfortunately, the minister opted for travelling across the country to hold meaningless pre-budget consultations instead. During that time, public funds are spent lavishly and inefficiently. Year after year, the Auditor General has a lot to say on this subject.

Here in this House and the Hill, we can see examples of squandering of public funds every day. Apparently, the sky is the limit. Simplicity and efficiency are not commonplace. Specific examples: Public Works are repairing roofs in winter and rebuilding stone walls in minus 30 degree Celsius temperatures. To carry out summer jobs during the winter comes at a premium and certainly does not do much for the productivity of the workers. It is shear squandering!

Other departments are literally devouring public funds. The Department of National Defence for instance, with a $12 billion plus annual budget. Piggish! Incredible amounts are swallowed up by that department's equipment programs. The Canadian patrol frigates will end up costing us $9 billion, while the ADATS air defence system initially designed for our military bases in Germany, but which will not be used and has been classified as non operational, has cost us all of $1 billion.

Governments will soon embark upon infrastructure programs that will require substantial funding.

How can we tell the less fortunate that the government does not have any money for social housing when it is spending all this public money, often astronomical sums of money?

How are we to explain to Mrs. Johanne Lepage from Châteauguay who is spending 46 per cent of her monthly income of $1,524, or $700 a month, on rent, heat and hydro for herself and her four children, how are we to explain to her and her four young children that the government spent $1 billion on useless radars but does not have money to build decent social housing that she could rent for just 25 per cent of her income? This lady is not the only one in such dire straits. In Quebec, 404,000 households spend over 30 per cent of their income on rent and there are 273,000 more Canadian households in the same situation. And there is worse: 194,000 Quebec households are spending over 50 per cent of their income on rent. In Canada, there are 584,000 in that situation.

Mr. Speaker, this situation is scandalous and unacceptable. Canada, a supposedly wealthy and developed country, has a poor record in this area. The Liberals have no choice but to re-establish the budget for social housing.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is very familiar with and has always been a staunch advocate of social housing. On May 5, 1993, the hon. minister rose in the House to call upon the former government, and I quote, "to act as soon as possible to save the social housing and co-operative housing program in Canada". Not even a year ago, the minister was claiming that the government was trampling the fundamental right of every individual to decent housing.

I would hope that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will continue to champion this cause. I challenge him to press his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to untie the purse strings and make funds available for social housing. I challenge him to make his colleague aware of the plight of the poor in Canada. At the time, other ministers, including the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister, also defended social housing programs. I hope that they have not had a change of heart, simply because they are in power. I challenge them to prove that they are concerned about social housing and to take some concrete action!

Other options must be explored in order to find the funds to help the most disadvantaged in society. The government will make major savings by eliminating certain tax shelters. It is important, if not essential, that large corporations and the wealthy contribute to our society. How can we say to the poorest people that the government's coffers are empty when the wealthy do not contribute anything?

Every month, hundreds of thousands of tenants ask themselves the same question. How am I going to pay the rent? They wonder how they will manage when their income consists of social assistance, unemployment insurance or old age benefits, or derives from a precarious, low-paying or part-time job. These households are forced to make desperate choices, which can mean cutting either their food, clothing, transportation or basic care budget.

How can we stand by while young people go hungry every month? The members opposite and the Minister of Finance should give some serious thought to this question. We must never lose sight of the fact that these children are the generation of the future. We have a responsibility to provide for them. Moreover, the government must not shirk its responsibility. It must work to eliminate social and economic disparities between members of our society.

Social housing is the only way to provide affordable housing for all Canadians in need. It offers much better housing than the private market, housing which can be adapted to specific needs and requirements. Co-operative housing, especially, helps people pull themselves up and take greater control over their living conditions. It helps physically improve old neighbourhoods, keep the resident population and generally enhance the quality of life.

Social housing also creates jobs. According to Clayton Research Associates Limited, building 1,000 co-operative or social housing units creates 2,000 jobs; renovating them creates 800. Furthermore, very significant savings on health and social services can be made. Families will be better housed, better fed and better clothed.

Economy and employment-that is what the Liberal platform is all about. What are you waiting for to act? We, in the Bloc Quebecois, feel that the Government of Quebec should have full responsibility for housing. The Société d'habitation du Québec should be the only one in charge.

As along as Quebec is part of the federal system, we will demand a major and equitable financial contribution from it.

The Liberals, and especially their leader, kept hammering away on the theme of dignity and pride before October 25. Dignity and pride everywhere and always. Now we need action. It is time to prove that you yourselves have pride and dignity.

I conclude by telling you about Jacqueline Cayen, a 32-year old mother of three children, who lives on $1,442 a month. She went back to school recently and intends to obtain a high school diploma in January 1995. She says, "My rent costs me $350 a month, and electricity is $150 a month. In winter, it is cold near the windows and I heat the shed. To pay $500 on rent, I have to cut on food and clothing and especially hope that nothing unforeseen will happen".

So it is up to the government to act.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I trust members of the Official Opposition will not expect a simultaneous translation of those comments. I think the people upstairs are probably wondering what to do about it now as well.